Lessons 1-7 Flashcards
3 types of conformity
Compliance,internalisation + Identification
Conformity
A form of social influence that results from exposure to the majority position and leads to compliance with that position
Compliance
-when individuals change their behaviour in public so they are in line with the majority, no change to privately held views.
-superficial + temporary form of conformity , only lasts while group is present
Internalisation
-Individual examines their behaviour based on what others are saying and decide that majority is correct, accepts groups pov privately and publicly.
-deeper + more permanent
Identification
-we conform to opinions of the group because their is something about the group that we value , identify with the group (similarities) therefore change our views to be a part of it.
-agree with group privately and publicly, however when no longer w group may not do that anymore
Informational social influence
-need to be right
-person conforms because they are unsure of correct answer / behaviour so they look to others for information, often a sensible decision , if majority are right then the conformed would be
-likely to lead to internalisation
most likely when situation is ambiguous , crisis , believe others to be expert or complex
Normative social influence
-need to be liked and accepted
-avoid any behaviour that will lead to rejection + ridicule
-copy behaviour to fit in
-likely to occur in stressful situations - social support needed + with strangers
Strengths of explanations for conformity
Research support
-ISI= Lucas et al asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy or difficult, conformity occurred more to wrong answers when problems were harder
-likely to occur when sitch is ambiguous/diffucult, look to others who they thought were more knowledgeable, esp true for those poor at maths
-NSI=Asch found that many of pps went along with clearly wrong answer coz other ppl did , feared rejection , not ambiguous/ diff answers
Weaknesses of explanations for conformity
-individual differences , not everyone shows NSI, less concerned about being liked less affected
Some ppl are concerned about being liked = nAffilators , more likely to conform, greater need
-supporting studies lack ecological validity , pps behaviour may not mirror behaviour in real world , may not be relevant to everyday occurrence
-ISI + NSI may work together
Asch experiment aim
To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform ( in non-ambiguous situation )
Asch procedure + result
Used a lab experiment
123 male US , each one put in room wit 8 confederates, each person had to say which line was most like comparison line , obvs answer , real pp gave answer last
Confederates gave wrong answer on 12/18 trials
-35% pps conformed to clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials
Over 12 trials , 75% conformed at least once , 25% never did
Conclusion
-most pps said they knew their answer was incorrect but went along with group in order to fit in as they thought they would be ridiculed, complied due to NSI + desire to fit in publically without changing private views
Evaluation of Asch studies + variables affecting conformity
-Artifical situation + task - may have shown demand characteristics , don’t do task everyday can’t generalise findings to everyday situation (lack ecological validity), Fiske argues groups don’t resemble the groups that we are part of in everyday life, not very direct either
Limited application of findings - all men , women may be more conformist (be accepted) (Neto) , individualisitic culture , can’t be applied to women or other cultures ( lacks population validity)
Collectivist cultures ( china) , conformity rates higher, care more about social group
Ethical issues - deception , used confederates who gave wrong answer may lead to pps being stressed - psychological harm , didn’t give fully informed consent
Did debrief after
Variables affecting conformity
Group size , unanimity , task difficulty
Group size
Very little conformity if there were 1 or 2 confederates in the majority .
If there were a majority of 3 , conformity rates went to 30%, after this further increase in majority size didn’t affect conformity rates , group size important to a point
If task ambiguous , conformity likely to happen following majority
If task clear conformity likely to happen to fit in
Unamity of the majority
If one confederate gave the correct answer , conformity rates dropped to 5.5%
If one confederate gave wrong answer + it wasn’t the same as the majority , conformity rates dropped to 9%
-only need one break in the unanimous decision for conformity rates to drop
Task difficulty
-made line lengths smaller , less obvious answer, level of conformity increases
-influence of task difficulty is moderated by the self - efficacy of the Individual
- when exposed to maths problems ( Lucas ET al) high self - efficacy pps remained more independent
-situational differences ( task) + personality differences r both important in determining conformity
Obedience
Form of social influence in which individual follows a direct order, person issuing order is figure of authority has power to punish
-milgram argued that ppl would commit atrocities if asked to do so by authority figure , behaviour resulted from the situation a person was in
Milgram study
-Investigate the level of obedience pps would show when authority figure tells them to administer electric shocks to another human being
-selected male pps by advertising, 40 male ppls made 4 an hour
-pps would always be teacher , confederate would be learner
-Learner taken into room + electrodes attached to arm and pps saw this happening , learner said he had minor heart condition
-Teacher + researcher went into room w shock generated from 15-450 V, thought it was real
-if learner got anything wrong , pps had to give electric shock , voltage increasing every time
-at 180 V learner said can’t stand pain , at 300V begged to be released an after 315V silence
-if pp asked for advice , encouragement given via prods , please conintueb, experiment requires u continue , absolutely essential u continue , have no other choice must go on
Milgram results
-ALL pps shocked up to 300V , 65% pps shocked to 450V , 35% stopped somewhere before 450
Pps showed signs of nervousness + tension , nervous laughter , fits ,sweated , trembled
-normal ppl will obey authority even if their actions may be detrimental
Strengths of milgram research
Good external validity - lab environment accurately reflected real life authority , research supported by HOFLING ET AL, where 21/22 nurses were willing to exceed the maximum dose of a drug (astrofen) followed by dr smith orders over the phone
-Rank + Jacobson queried fact that nurses had no knowledge of drug involved + no opportunity to seek advice from anyone
Replicated hofling but instruction was for Valium at 3x , telephone came from real doctor and nurses were able to consult w other nurses , only 2/18 DID IT
-has supporting replication (the game of death French show)m 80% went to MAX (460) to apparently unconscious man , identical behaviour , supports milgram conclusion
Weaknesses of milgram research
Low INTERNAL validity - may have been showing demand charcwrtisics , may not have believed in set up (orne + Holland) , milgram said 70% believed
Ethical issues - baumrind critical of way milgram DECIEVED pps , made them believe roles were randomly allocated + shocks were real
-pps not fully informed unable to give full consent , necessary +debriefed
-made difficult to withdraw , told to continue
-risk of long term harm , extremely stressful situation, questionnaires send to pps after experiment and 84% glad to have taken part , judged after year no psych harm
Situational variables affecting obedience
Proximity , uniform , location
Proximity (as investigated by milgram)
-in proximity variation - teacher + learner in same room obedience rates went from 65 -40%
- had to force learners hand onto electroshock plate , in TOUCH PROXIMITY went to 30%
-experiment left room gave instructions by telephone , REMOTE INSTRUCTION m drop to 20.5%
Location
Changed location to run down building rather than Yale
Went from 65% to 47.5%
