Conformity

Question 1

Compliance

Answer 1

Changing views in public to be with majority and be accepted

Question 2

Internalisation

Answer 2

Changing views in public and private to fit with others

Question 3

Identification

Answer 3

Changing your views to fit in with a certain group of people/ person

Question 4

NSI (3)

Answer 4

Social norms created as part of society - either explicitly like laws or implicitly like unspoken moral rules - fundamental need for social approval - so people conform to fit in and avoid rejection - people like those who are similar to them - usually compliance

Question 5

ISI (3)

Answer 5

Fundamental need to be right - when objective tests against reality cannot be made opinions of others will be used - esp in difficult or vague situations or if others are experts - usually leads to internalisation as adopt ‘right’ view

Question 6

Weakness of both NSI and ISI

Answer 6

Ignore locus of control - incomplete
Ignore ingratiational conformity - similar to NSI but to impress or gain favour not to fit in

Question 7

NSI eval

Answer 7

+ Asch research (+-) 37% line length match
- Locus of control, ingratiational conformity
+ General ecological validity?

Question 8

ISI eval

Answer 8

+ Jenness (+-) beans in a jar - converging middle
- Gratiational conformity, locus of control
+ General ecological validity?
- Individual differences

Question 9

Asch (1951) eval

Answer 9

+ Lab exp easy to control variables and remake
- Mundane realism
-Ecological validity - not usually with strangers
- Temporal validity - esp post war ideas of working together
-Gender and cultural bias - white american men
+Repeats with better samples show reliability
-Lab setup so people might guess aim and start showing demand characteristics - less validity
-Ethical issues - deception, stress/ embarrassment, informed consent - though necessary

Question 10

Jenness (1932) findings eval

Answer 10

How many beans in a jar - guesses wildly varied solo but converged to a middle point as a group - cannot objectively test reality so internalised by thoughts of others
+ Lab exp easily remade and similar results?
- Mundane realism

Question 11

Group size affecting conformity

Answer 11

Asch (1956) changed number of confederates
1 - 3%
2 - 13%
3 - 32% - easy to resist 2 but much harder for 3
4+ - little more change

Question 12

Difficulty affecting conformity

Answer 12

Asch (1956) made lines much closer in length
Conformity increased - harder to objectively test reality and clouding judgement calls

Question 13

Asch (1951) findings

Answer 13

37% conform when confederates gave wrong answers to line length match (acc chance was 1%) - knew correct but feared ridicule
75% confirmed at least once (and 25 never)
5% always conformed

Question 14

Zimbardo (1973) - Setup

Answer 14

Controlled observation for social role conformity
Mock prison in Stanford Uni Psych Department basement
24 young American men were recruited via volunteer sampling (newspaper ad)
Psychological assessment to ensure emotional stability
Agreed to take part for 7-14 days with £15 pay guaranteed

Question 15

Zimbardo (1973) - Procedure

Answer 15

Randomly assigned prisoner or guard - 50/50
Prisoners unexpectedly arrested by real officers, blindfolded and stripsearched
Then processed with ID numbers (dehumanise) to small cells of 3 prisoners
Some rights e.g 3 meals, 3 toilets
Heavily regulated by guards who got uniforms, night sticks, whistles, reflective sunglasses
Only told to maintain order but not physically harm, 8 hr shifts in teams of 3
Zimbardo became superintendent

Question 16

Zimbardo (1973) findings

Answer 16

Rebellion on day 2 - ripped off numbers and barricaded cells. then guards sprayed with co2, naked strip, took beds away and leaders to solitary confinement i.e box
Cruelness increased with time and it got so bad that ended on the 6th day following a visitor psychologist who worried
Only a third of guards properly conformed to social roles

Question 17

Zimbardo (1973) Eval

Answer 17

• Very unethical - psychological harm, insufficient debriefing?, though unexpected behaviour, lack of right to withdraw - ‘prison snitch’, uninformed consent of real arrest
• Dual role - should have been out of the experiment but instead made it participant observation - his behaviour affected events so validity questioned - became sucked in and lost objectivity - only brought back by colleague
• All white young middle class male students (one chinese) - cultural and gender bias
• Demand characteristics as some guards claimed to figure out the aim and were wanted to behaviour aggressively to make a point about prisons in general
• Some guards did not conform - individual differences a key factor of conformity to social norms
  + But extremity of events goes to show the extent of social role influence
  + Could be seen as mundane realism/ ecologically valid?