Conformity Flashcards
What are the types of conformity???
Compliance, internalisation, identification
what is the name of the model used to explain conformity??
Duel-process dependency model
What are the 2 explanations for conformity in the duel- process dependency model ??
Informational social influence (ISI), Normative social influence (NSI)
What is compliance ???
Publicly but not privately going along with the majority influence to gain approval
Weak and temporary
Only shown in the presence of the group
What is internalisation???
Public and private acceptance of the majority influence
Through adoption of a belief system
Strong and permanent form of conformity
Conformity even outside of the group
What is identification????
public and private acceptance of the majority influence in order to gain group acceptance
Stronger form, but still temporary
What is ISI???
**Cognitive process **
Belief in the opinion of the majority as correct
Changing public and private behaviour to be consistent with the majority
Often happens when placed in unknown/new situations ( or that of a crisis)
What is NSI ????
Emotional process
Agreeing with the majority opinion because we want to be accepted (gain social approval or to be liked)
Occurs in new situations
Evidence for ISI:
Sherif (1935) — autokenetic experiment
a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect, where a stationary stop of light, viewed in a dark room, appears to move.
They were then put into groups of 3 people, where they each made their estimate with others present. Finally they were retested individually.
participants developed their own stable estimates (personal norms), which varied widely between participants. Once the participants were in a group, the estimates tended to converge and become more alike.
Evaluation for Sherif experiments:
Pros:
Lab experiment - controlled variables ( establishes cause and effect ), easily replicated
Cons:
Lacks ecological validity
Sample size was limited to men
Ethical issues: participants were decieved
Evidence for NSI:
Asch (1951) - unambiguous task
123 American male undergraduates
In groups of 8, participants judged line lengths by saying out loud which comparison line (1,2, or 3) matched the standard line.
Each group contained only one real participant- the others were
confederates
Each participant did 18 trials. 12 critical and 6 control
Results:
Control group = 0.7% (incorrect)
Critical group = 37%
Participants didn’t believe themselves correct/just trying to fit in
Evaluation of Asch experiments:
Pros:
It was a good laboratory experiment (good control variables and eliminates extraneous variables)
Repeatable
Lucas et al (2006) - Results indicated that people conform in situation where they feel
they don’t know the answer – low self efficacy
Cons:
**Lacks ecological validity **
(More likely to conform if within real world scenarios with consequences)
Participants were deceived as to the true nature of the study
Lacks temporal validity (Perrin and Spencer (1980) 1 out of 396 UK engineering students conformed)
Sample limited to male undergraduates (unrepresentative for the population, different cultures and individual disposition differences)
Variations of Asch experiments:
write down their answers, instead of saying them out loud, conformity rates fell
to 12.5%
With a Dissenter who would agree with them
Conformity dropped to 5.5%
Evidence for conformity to social roles
Is evil behaviour based on conformity or dispositional factors????
Zimbardo 1973
- creation of the Stanford prison (fake prison designed to effect imitate the real thing
Procedures:
• 25 male volunteers
• Study into ‘prison life’
• Healthy
• Randomly allocated to’prisoner’ or ‘guard’
• **Local police recruited for realistic arrests **
• Blindfolded
• Stanford University, California
• Sprayed with disinfectant and deloused
• Given numbers to memorise
• Referred to by number and supervised all the time
• Given work shifts
• Lined up to be counted
• **The guards wore khaki shirts and trousers, dark glasses and carried wooden batons **
GAURDS COULD MAKE ANY RULE THAT DIDN’T INVOLVE PHYSICAL ABUSE
Findings:
- experiment started slowly but guards soon changed their behaviour.
- They behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and
physical health - Study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14
- Guards employed ‘divide and rule’ tactics by playing the prisoners off
against each other - Enforced rules and punish small misdemeanours severely
Criticisms of Zimbardo (not evaluation)
• Didn’t give informed consent
• Humiliated
• Ends do not justify the means
Stanford prison effects on mental health
• Prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
• one prisoner had to be released after 1 day as he showed symptoms of
psychological disturbance.
• 2 more were released on the 4th day
• one prisoner went on a hunger strike- this resulted in guards force feeding
him and putting him in the ‘hole’
Stanford prison real world application
- Abu Ghraib 2003-2004, the US Army Military police personnel committed series human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad.
- Prisoners were tortured, physically and sexually abused, routinely humiliated and some were murdered.
Evaluation of Stanford prison
Pros
Hyper realistic (has ecological validity - extremely immersive)
Well controlled (emotionally stable participants chosen, increases internal validity)
Cons
Affects on mental health
Lack of realism (Banuazizi and Mohavedi argued that this was more play acting)
One of the guards later stated that he was playing the role of a guard from a film (cool hand Luke)
Based on stereotypes
Dispositional differences (fromm accused zimbardo of exaggerating situations to influence behaviour)
only a 3rd of the guards become brutal (these people didn’t give into social pressure)
Ethical issues
*extra
Reicher and haslam BBC replication of the experiment
- prisoners started to harass the guards
- social identity theory (guards struggled to find shared social identity)
