conformity Flashcards
asch’s research - baseline procedure
123 male participant judged line lengths - confederates deliberately gave wrong answers
naive participants conformed on 36.8% of trails
25% never conformed
asch’s research group size
asch varied group size from two to 16
conformity increased up to three, then levelled off
asch’s research unanimity
asch placed a dissenter (confederate) in the group
conformity rate reduced
asch’s research task difficulty
asch made line lengths more similar
conformity increased when task was harder ISI
asch - artificial situation and task
participants knew this was a study so they just played along with a trivial task - demand characteristics
asch - limited application
asch’s research only conducted on American men
asch - research support
Lucas et al - found more conformity when maths problems were harder
asch - research support - counterpoint
conformity - more complex, confident participants were less conforming (individual factor)
asch - ethical issues
research may help avoid mindless conformity, but participants were deceived
internalisation
private and public acceptance of group norms
identification
change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with, may change privately too
compliance
go along with the group publicly but no private change
informational social influence
conform to be right
assume group knows better than us
normative social influence
conform to be liked or accepted by group
explanations - research support NSI
when no normative group pressure
- wrote answers -
conformity when down to 12.5%
explanations - research support - ISI
participants relied on other people’s answers to hard maths problems - Lucas et al
explanations - research support isi - counterpoint
cannot usually separate ISI and NSI, a dissenter may reduce power of NSI or ISI
explanations - distinction usefulness
NSI/ISI distinction may not be useful but Asch’s research supports both
the stanford prison experiment
mock prison with 21 student volunteers, randomly assigned as guards or prisoners
conformity to social roles created through uniforms and instructions about behaviour
findings related to social roles - zimbardo
guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners’ rebellion put down and prisoners became depressed
study stopped after 6 days
conclusions related to social roles
participants strongly conformed to their social roles
zimbardo - control
random assignment roles increased internal validity
zimbardo - lack of realism
participants play-acted their roles according to media-derived stereotypes
Banuazizi and Movahedi
zimbardo - lack of realism - counterpoint
evidence that prisoners thought the prison was real to them eg 90% of conversations were about prison
McDermott
zimbardo - exaggerates the power of roles
only one-third of guards were brutal so conclusions exaggerated
Fromm
zimbardo - alternative explanation
social identity theory suggests taking on roles due to active identification, not automatic
Haslam and Reicher
consistency - minority influence
if the minority is consistent (synchronic or diachronic) this attracts the attention of the majority over time
commitment - minority influence
personal sacrifices show commitment, attract attention, reinforce message
augementation
flexibility - minority influence
minority more convincing if they accept some counterarguments
explaining the process of change - minority influence
the three factors make majority think more deeply about an issue
Snowball effect - minority view gathers force becomes majority influence
research support for consistency - minority influence
Moscovici’s blue-green slides and Wood et al’s meta-analysis
research support for deeper processing - minority influence
participants exposed to minority view resisted conflicting view
Martin et al
deeper processing counterpoint - minority influence
real-world majorities have more power/status than minorities - missing from research
artificial tasks - minority influence
tasks often trivial so tell us little about real-world influence
power of minority influence - minority influence
more people agree with minority in private
lessons from minority influence research
minority influence is a powerful force for innovation and social change
eg civil rights marches USA - influence involves drawing attention, consistency, deeper processing, augmentation (risks), snowball effect, social cryptomnesia (forgetting)
lessons from conformity research - social change
dissent break power of majority (Asch)
Normative social influence draws attention to what majority is doing
Lessons from obedience research - social change
Disobedient role models (Milgram)
Gradual commitment leads to change (Zimbardo)
research for normative social influences - social change
NSI valid explanations of social change, eg reducing energy consumption Nolan et al
research support of normative influences counterpoint - social change
normative influence does not always product change
Foxcroft et al
minority influence explains change - social change
minorities stimulate divergent thinking - broad, creative, more options Nemeth
role of deeper processing - social change
it is majority views that are processed more deeply than minority views, challenging central feature of minority influence
barriers to social change - social change
people resist social change because minorities seen negatively eg tree-huggers - Bashir et al
milgram’s baseline procedure
american male participants gave fake electric shocks to a ‘learner’ in response to instructions (prods) from an ‘experimenter’
milgrams baseline findings
65% gave highest shock of 450 V
100% gave shocks up to 300V
many showed signs of anxiety eg sweating
research support - milgram
french TV documentary/game show found 80% gave maximum shock, plus similar behaviour to Milgram’s participants
Beauvois et al
low internal validity - milgram
participants realised shocks were fake, so ‘play-acting’ (Orne and Holland)
Supported by Perry - tapes of participants showed only 50% believed shocks real
low internal validity counterpoint - milgram
participant did give real shocks to a puppy
Sheridan and King
alternative interpretation of findings - milgram
haslam et al - found participants didn’t obey prod 4 - participants identified with scientific aims (social identity) - not blind obedience
ethical issues - milgram
deception meant participants could not properly consent (Baumrind) - may be balanced by benefits of the research
proximity
obedience 40% with T and L in the same room, 30% for touch proximity
location
obedience 47.5% in run-down office building
university’s prestige gave authority
uniform
obedience 20% when experimenter was ‘member of the public’
uniform is symbol of legitimate authority
research support - milgrams variables
Bickham showed power of uniform in field experiment
cross-cultural replications - milgrams variables
dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee, decreased proximity led to decreased obedience (Meeus and Raaijmakers)
cross-cultural replications counterpoint - milgrams variables
but most studies in Western cultures, similar to USA, so not generalisable (Smith and Bond)
low internal validity - milgrams variables
some of Milgram’s procedures in the variations were especially contrived, so not genuine obedience (Orne and Holland)
the danger of the situational perspective - milgrams variables
gives obedience alibi the destruction behaviour - Mandel
agentic state
acting as an agent of another person
autonomous state
free to act according to conscience
switching between the two-agentic shift
binding factors
allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour, reducing more strain
research support - agentic state
Milgram’s resistant participants continued giving shocks when experimenter took responsibility
a limited explanation - agentic state
cannot explain why rank and jacobson’s nurses and some of milgram’s participant disobeyed
obedience alibi revisited - agentic state
police battalion 101 behaved autonomously but destructively - Mandel
legitimacy of authority
created by hierarchical nature of society
some people entitled to expect obedience
learned in childhood
destructive authority
problems arise when used destructively eg Hitler
explains cultural differences - legitimacy
in Australia 16% obeyed - Kilham and Mann but 85% in Germany - Mantell, related to structure of society
cannot explain all (dis)obedience
rank and jacobson’s nurses in hierarchical structure but did not obey legitimate authority
real-world crimes of obedience - legitimacy
rank and jacobson found disobedience to doctors but stronger hierarchy and obedience at My Lai - Kelman and Hamilton
AP and obedience
Adorno et al - described AP as extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it, contempt for inferiors
origins of AP
harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced onto scapegoats
Adorno et al’s research - procedure
used f-sale to study unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
adorno - findings
APs identify with ‘strong’ people, have fixed cognitive style, and hold stereotypes and prejudices
research support - AP
obedient participants had high F-scores - Elms and Milgram
counterpoint research support - AP
but obedient participants also unlike authoritarians in many ways, complex
limited explanation - AP
can’t explain obedience across a whole culture (social identity theory is better)
political bias - AP
authoritarianism - equated with right-wing ideology, ignores left-wing authoritarianism - Christie and Jahoda
flawed evidence - AP
F-scale is basis of AP explanation, but has flaws - response bias - and so not useful - Greenstein
resisting conformity
conformity reduced by presence of dissenters from the group - even wrong answer breaks unanimity of majority - Asch
resisting obedience
obedience decreases in presence of disobedient peer who acts as a model to follow - challenges legitimacy of authority figure - obedience dropped from 65% to 10% - Milgram
real-world research support - social support
having a ‘buddy’ helps resist peer pressure to smoke (Albrecht et al)
research support for dissenting peers - social support
obedience to an order from oil company fell when participants in a group (Gamson et al)
social support explanation - social support
resistance lower (36% versus 64%) when confederate had poor eyesight (Allen and Levine)
locus of control
LOC is sense of what directs events in our lives - internal or external source - Rotter
the LOC continuum
high internal at one end and high external at the other
resistance to social influence
internals can resist social influence, more confident, less need for approval
research support - LOC
internals less likely to fully obey in Milgram-type procedure - Holland
contradictory research - LOC
people now more independent but also more external - Twenge et al
limited role of LOC
role of LOC only applies to new situations - Rotter
