Conformity Flashcards
(27 cards)
Asch’s study
Aim, methods, results, conclusions
Aim- to investigate group peessure in an unambiquous sitution.
Methods- 123 American men. Two cards: standard line and three comparison lines. 12 critical trials where confederates gave the wrong answer.
Results - On critical trials the participant gave the wrong answer 1/3 of the time. 25% never gave wrong answer.
Conclusion - People are influenced by group pressure. Though many can resist.
Aschs study evaluation.
A weakness of Asch’s study is it may only reflect conformity in 1950s America.
Perrin and Spencer repeated Asch’s study in 1980 in the UK and found just one conforming response in 396 trials.
This suggests that the Asch effect is not consistent over time.
Another weakness is that the task and situation are artificial.
Being asked to judge the length of a line (a trivial task) with a group of strangers doesn’t reflect everyday situations where people conform.
This means that the results may not explain more serious real-world situations.
A further weakness is that Asch’s research is more reflective of conformity in individualist cultures.
Studies conducted in collectivist countries such as China produce higher conformity rates than those carried out in individualist countries such as America and the UK (Bond and Smith).
This suggests that Asch’s results cannot be generalised to collectivist cultures.
Social factors effecting conformity group size
The more people there are in a group the greater the pressure to conform.
Asch found that with two confederates conformity was 13.6%, but with three confederates it was 31.8%.
Over three confederates made little difference.
Evaluation: Depends on task
Effect of group size depends on the task.
When there is no obvious answer people conform when group is 8+ people.
Social factors effecting conformity anonymity
When participants could write down answers (they were anonymous) conformity was lower.
Evaluation: Strangers versus friends
If participants are friends expressing opinions anonymously they conform more
Social factors effecting conformity task difficulty
If the comparison lines are more similar to the standard, the task becomes harder and conformity increased.
Evaluation: Expertise
People with more expertise less affected by task difficulty.
Milgrams study (not named)
Aim, method, results, conclusion,
Aim - To investigate if Germans are different in terms of obedience.
Method - 40 male volunteers. ‘Teacher’ instructed by experimenter to give a shock if ‘learner’ answered a question incorrectly.
Results - No participant (teacher) stopped below 300 volts. 65% shocked to 450V. Extreme tension, e.g. three had seizures.
Conclusion - Obedience related to social factors not disposition, e.g. location, novel situation.
Pro social behavior
Aim, methods, results, conclusion
Aim - To investigate if characteristics of a victim affect help given in an emergency.
Method - Male confederate collapsed on subway, 103 trials. Victim appeared to be drunk or appeared to be disabled (had a cane).
Results - Disabled victim given help on 95% of trials compared to 50% helped when drunk.
Help was as likely in crowded and empty carriages.
Conclusion - Characteristics of victim affects help given.
Number of onlookers doesn’t affect help in natural setting.
Evaluation of pro social behavior pilivans subway study
High realism - One strength of this study is that participants did not know their behaviour was being studied.
The subway train passengers did not know they were in a study and behaved naturally.
This means that the results of this study are high in validity.
Urban sample - One weakness of the study is that the participants came mostly from a city.
They may have been more used to these types of emergencies.
This means that their behaviour may not have been typical of all people.
Qualitive data - One strength of this study was that qualitative data was also collected.
The two observers on each trial noted down remarks they heard from passengers.
This offered a deeper insight into why people did or did not offer help.
Social factors - presence of others
Presence of others
The more people present the less likely someone will help.
Darley and Latané found that 85% on own helped person with seizure but only 31% in a group of four.
Depends on situation
In serious emergencies response correlated to severity of situation (Faul et al.).
Social factors - cost of helping
Includes danger to self or embarrassment.
Also costs of not helping e.g. guilt or blame.
Interpretation of situation
If it is a married couple arguing only 19% intervened versus 85% intervened if attacker appeared to be a stranger (Shotland and Straw).
Dispositional factors - similarity to victims
Help more likely if victim is similar to self, e.g. Manchester fans helping people wearing Man U shirt (Levine et al.).
High costs
High costs or ambiguous situation means help isn’t forthcoming.
Dispositional factors. - expertise
People with specialist skills more likely to help in emergencies, e.g. registered nurses helping a workman (Cramer et al.).
Affects only quality of help
Red cross trained were no more likely to give help than untrained people, but gave higher quality help (Shotland et al.).
Evaluation of milgrams study
One weakness is that participants may not have believed that the shocks were real.
Milgram’s participants voiced suspicions about the shocks (Perry).
This suggests that Milgram’s participants went along with the study because they didn’t want to spoil it.
One strength is that other studies have found similar obedience levels.
Sheridan and King found that 100% of females followed orders to give what they thought was a fatal shock to a puppy.
This suggests that Milgram’s results were not faked but represented genuine obedience.
One weakness is that Milgram’s participants experienced considerable distress.
He could have caused psychological damage to his participants because they thought they were causing pain to the learner.
Such ethical issues question whether his research should have been carried out.
Social factors effecting obedience - milgrams agency theory
Agency
Agentic state: Follow orders with no responsibility.
Autonomous state: Own free choice.
Authority
Agentic shift: moving from making own free choices to following orders, occurs when someone is in authority.
Culture - The social hierarchy
Some people have more authority than others.
Hierarchy depends on society and socialisation.
Proximity
Participants less obedient in Milgram’s study when in same room as learner, increasing ‘moral strain’.
Dispositional factors effecting obedience - adornos theory of the authoritarian personality.
The authoritarian personality -Some people have a strong respect for authority and look down on people of lower status.
Cognitive style - Rigid stereotypes and don’t like change.
Originates in childhood - strict parents only show love it behaviour is correct. These values are internalised.
Scapegoating - Hostility felt towards parents for being critical is put onto people who are socially inferior.
Social factors Milgram’s agency theory evaluation
Research support
Blass and Schmitt showed students a film of Milgram’s study, they blamed the experimenter rather than participants.
Doesn’t explain all of the findings
Can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience in Milgram’s study.
Extra: Obedience alibi
Agency theory offer an excuse for destructive behaviour, potentially dangerous.
Dispositional factors
Adorno’s theory of the authoritarian personality evaluation
Lack of support
Authoritarian personality measured on F-scale which has response bias.
Results are correlational
Can’t say authoritarian personality causes greater obedience.
Extra: Social and dispositional
Germans were obedient but did not all have the same upbringing. Social factors also involved.
Crowd and collective behaviour - Deindividuation ( not named )
Crowds experience deindividuation leading to reduced sense of responsibility and antisocial behaviour (LeBon).
Zimbardo’s study: Aim - To study the effects of Study not named in specification loss of individual identity.
Method - Female participants told to deliver fake electric shocks. Individuated group wore normal clothes. Deindividuated group wore large coat with hood.
Results
Deindividuated more likely to shock person and held down shock button twice as long.
Conclusion
This shows being anonymous increases aggression.
Crowd and collective behaviour - Deindividuation ( not named ) evaluation
Not always antisocial
Prosocial group norm (e.g. nurses) leads to less antisocial behaviour than antisocial group norm (KKK) (Johnson and Downing).
Real-world application
Manage sporting crowds using video cameras to increase self-awareness.
Extra: Crowding
Feeling packed together creates aggression too (Freedman).
Crowd and collective behaviour - case study
A case study on one riot in St. Pauls, Bristol 1980
Reicher’s study: Aim - To investigate crowd behaviour to see if it was ruly or unruly.
Method - Studied newspaper and TV reports. Interviewed twenty people, six in depth.
Results - Riot triggered by police raiding café which community felt was unjust. Crowd threw bricks, burnt police cars but calmed when police left.
Conclusion - Shows damage was rule-driven and targeted at police, reflecting social attitude of area.
Evaluation of Crowd and collective behaviour case study
Supported by research
Football hooligans violence doesn’t escalate beyond a certain point (Marsh).
Issues with methodology
Study is based on eyewitness testimony so data may be biased.
Extra: Real-world application
Increasing police presence doesn’t lead to a decrease in violence.
Crowd and collective behaviour social factors Deindividuation
Deindividuation - Group docms determite crowd behaviour.
Crowding
Being packed tightly together is unpleasant, may explain antisocial behaviour (Freedman).
Crowd and collective behaviour social factors social loafing
Social loafing
When working in a group people put in less effort as you can’t identify individual effort.
Latané et al. found participants individually shouted less when in a group of six than when tested alone.
Depends on task
On creative tasks, e.g. brainstorming, people individually produce more when in groups.
