The social influence core studies: the classic study Bickman (1974) on the social power of a uniform (a situational factor in obedience), and the contemporary study NatCen (2011) on the 2011 English riots (dispositional and situational factors).

What this dot point is asking

OCR wants you to know the two social influence core studies. The classic study is Bickman (1974), showing how a uniform (a situational factor) increases obedience. The contemporary study is NatCen (2011), examining why people took part in the 2011 English riots (a mix of situational and dispositional factors). For each you need the aim, method, results, conclusions and an evaluation.

Bickman (1974): the classic study

Aim

To find out whether the social power of a uniform increases obedience to a request in a real-life setting.

Method

A field experiment on the streets of New York. A researcher (a confederate) stopped members of the public and gave a small order, such as to pick up litter, give a coin to a stranger for a parking meter, or move away from a bus stop. The key variable was what the confederate wore: a smart civilian jacket and tie, a milkman's uniform, or a guard's uniform that resembled a police officer. Bickman recorded the proportion who obeyed in each condition.

Results

People obeyed the guard (authority uniform) much more than the civilian; the milkman fell in between. Obedience to the guard was the highest of the three.

Conclusion

A uniform that signals authority increases obedience: people are more likely to obey someone who looks like a legitimate authority. This supports legitimacy as a situational factor in factors affecting social influence.

NatCen (2011): the contemporary study

Aim

To find out why people participated in the 2011 English riots (which spread across several English cities), including looting and disorder.

Method

An analysis of interviews and data gathered after the riots (a mix of qualitative interviews with people involved and other sources), exploring participants' reasons and motivations.

Results

People gave a range of reasons: the excitement and buzz of being involved, the chance to get free goods through looting, anger at the police and authorities, the sense that they could get away with it (because of the crowd and weak consequences), and peer or group pressure.

Conclusion

The riots resulted from a mix of situational factors (the opportunity, the crowd, weak policing) and dispositional/social factors (anger, opportunism, wanting to belong), rather than a single cause. This fits the collective and crowd behaviour ideas of deindividuation and group norms.

Evaluating the two studies

Bickman (1974) has the strengths of a field experiment: high ecological validity (real street, real orders) plus the control to show the uniform causes obedience. Its weaknesses are possible ethical issues (people did not consent), the lack of control over extraneous variables on a busy street, and a sample limited to one US city. NatCen (2011) has the strengths of being about a real, important event with rich detail and high ecological validity. Its weaknesses are that it relies on self-report after the event (people may justify or misremember their actions), it is largely descriptive/correlational, and its findings are specific to those riots, so they may not generalise. Together they show obedience and collective behaviour have situational and dispositional causes.

Try this

Q1. Which uniform produced the highest obedience in Bickman (1974)? [1 mark]

• Cue. The guard's (authority) uniform.

Q2. Give two reasons NatCen (2011) found for taking part in the riots. [2 marks]

• Cue. Any two of: excitement, free goods through looting, anger at police, getting away with it, peer pressure.

Q3. State one strength of Bickman's field experiment. [1 mark]

• Cue. High ecological validity (real street and real orders), while still showing the uniform caused obedience.