1. Autumn 1 - Teacher B (Mr Galbraith) - Social Influence Flashcards
Explanations for conformity
normative- conforming to a group to fit in and not be rejected, superficial behaviour and act differently in private
informational- looking to a group for guidance or knowledge in order to learn and be right , usually more permanent change
Types of conformity
internalisation- a person fully believes with the groups ideas and adopts them themselves, usually a permanent change
identification- a person identifies with/ values something in the group, they may act a certain way to be part of it in public but may act different privately as they may not agree with all of the group’s ideas
compliance- a person admires a quality of the group and therefore changes how they behave to go along with the group in public (/tries to act a certain way) but privately doesn’t change their opinions and behaviour
Solomon Asch
study name, aim and date
Asch’s Study of Conformity 1951, 1955
To see if naïve participants would conform to a group give an incorrect answer even if the answer was unambiguous.
Asch
participants
123 American male undergraduate volunteers
Asch
procedure
Each naïve participant was put in a room with 6-8 confederates. They were all shown a card with 1 line and another with 3 lines of different lengths. They were then asked one by one to say which line they thought matched the first one, with the naïve participant answering second to last. The confederates started by giving correct answers, then they all answering with the same incorrect answer. Asch would then see if the naïve participant would go along with the majority, who were wrong, or stick to answering correctly. He trialled each participant 18 times, 12 times being critical trials.
Asch
findings - percentages
25% of participants did not conform at all therefore 75% of participants conformed at least once
the naïve participants conformed on average 36.8% of the time
99% accuracy in a control condition with no confederates
Asch
findings - interviews
interviews revealed that participants conformed and gave incorrect answers to avoid rejection, which shows normative social influence
Asch
evaluation - validity
lack of external validity
temporal- done in the 1950s, when many conformed to majorities
ecological - done in a lab so lacks mundane realism
population- all participants were American male undergraduates
good internal validity
carried out in a controlled lab setting
the participants thought it was for a vision test and are not psychology students so there are unlikely any demand characteristics
Asch
evaluation - ethics
participants were volunteers
they consented to the study but were deceived in the aim
so partly a lack of informed consent
however no long lasting affects so on balance it is ethically justifiable
Asch’s variations
what changed and procedure
group size- he slowly added more confederates
difficulty- he made the lines harder to tell apart / more similar in length
unanimity- he added one confederate who disagreed with the others
Asch’s variation
findings
group size- more confederates more conformity up until about 4 or 5 . 31.8 % conformity at 3 confederates
difficulty- conformity increased when the task was harder suggesting that informational social influence also plays a big role in conformity
unanimity- conformity reduced by a quarter when the confederates were not unanimous
Asch
other people’s replicated studies
1980 Perrin and Spencer replicated Asch’s test with science and engineering students in the UK and only 1/396 participants conformed. This does not back up Asch’s theory and shows that it lacks external validity.
Zimbardo
study name, aim
Stanford Prison Experiment
role conformity
Zimbardo SPE procedure
Mock prison set up in Stanford University’s psychology department. Newspaper advert to advertise the study - participants paid $15 per day. Participants screened to see if they had any psychological issues. 24 male American volunteers randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard. Prisoners were ‘arrested’ in their homes, a bag was put over their head and they were taken to the prison. They were stripped of their clothes and given a number. The guards were given uniforms and sunglasses and a baton, although they were told in a debrief to never physically harm the participants. (deindividuation) Zimbardo played a guard in the prison. He then observed how the participants conformed to their roles.
Zimbardo SPE findings
Participants reacted differently. Some guards refused to shout at the prisoners whereas one guard nicknamed the ‘John Wayne guard’ played his role enthusiastically and interviews revealed he based his role on a movie he had watched recently, which shows demand characteristics. Other guards forced prisoners to perform horrible tasks such as washing out the toilet with their bare hands. Some prisoners rioted at the beginning, then became more submissive. One asked to leave and was not allowed, so went on hunger strike. One had a breakdown and was allowed to leave after 72 hours. The experiment was stopped on day 6/14.
Zimbardo SPE ethical issues
criticisms- participants were deceived, did not have the right to withdraw and were not protected from harm- psychological harm, and not stopped from hunger striking or allowed to withdraw after the strike, did not consent to being arrested at home
Zimbardo’s defence- participants were psychologically screened beforehand, participants were told it was a prison study so should expect a prison environment, were all volunteers who consented to the study, he also told guards not to physically harm the prisoners, he stopped the study on day 6/14
Zimbardo SPE validity evaluation
‘john wayne’ guard- influenced by a film he watched- demand characteristics
the guards were briefed before
they were pay $15 per day- demand characteristics and internal validity issues
population validity- just male US students but screening showed they were average people
ecological validity- doesn’t reflect true prisons
temporal- not been replicated due to ethics in modern society- never know?
Stanley Milgram
study name, aim, date
study of obedience in unjust order
1962
Milgram procedure
volunteers from a newspaper paid $4.50
given paper with learner or teacher- learner was always confederate who didn’t actually get shocked
teacher given a sample shock of 45V
both told they could leave at any time
questions about word pairs, each wrong answer, shock goes up
all given the same verbal prods if asked to stop such as ‘it’s essential to carry on’
at 300v the learner pounded on the wall and didn’t answer the questions
Milgram findings
no participants stopped before 300v
12.5% stopped at 300v
65% continued to 450v
also recorded qualitative data such as observations of tension
debriefed and assured and sent a follow up questionnaire- 84% were glad to have participated
Milgram ethics
deception- roles were rigged not randomly assigned, participants told it was a study of how punishment affects memory- lack of fully informed consent but eliminated demand characteristics
right to withdraw- told they could leave but verbal prods pressured them to stay which was needed because the study was f obedience
protection from harm- told nobody was actually shocked in debrief, no physical harm to volunteers but psychological stress, most happy to participate
Milgram validity
internal - lab, controlled setting, acting of confederates was suspicious however signs of distress shows participants believed in the setup
external-
population- all American males- can’t but they did range in age and class- can’t be generalized fully
temporal - post ww2 society more conformity, redo in Britain got similar results
Milgram main variations
main tests he changed were proximity to victim, proximity to authority, location and uniform
Milgram variations findings
obedience to 450v originally 65%
run down office- 47.5%
plain clothes in charge- 20%
experimenter only communicated by phone - 20.5%
teacher had to learner’s hand onto electric- 30%
