conformity and obedience Flashcards
What are the three types of conformity?
- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalisation
What is compliance? (3)
-‘going along with others’ in public, privately not changing opinions (superficial change)
-changed behavior stops when group pressure stops
-NSI
What is identification? (4)
-conforming to behaviour of a group because we value the group, identify with it and want to be a part of it
-publicily change our opinions/behaviour to fit in, even if we don;t privately agree with everything group stands for
-NSI
What is internalisation? (4)
-when person actually accepts groups norms
-results in private change and public change of opinions and behaviour
-change usually permanent- attitudes have been internalised so even when pressure stops, changed behavior continues
-ISI
What are the two explanations for conformity?
- Informational social influence (ISI)
- Normative social influence (NSI)
What is informational social influence (ISI)? When does it usually occur? (4)
-when we go along with a groups behaviour in order to be accurate
-about the need to be right
-usually happens when what’s right and wrong is ambiguous, decisions have to be made quickly or if group is regarded to be more ‘expert’
-presume others are right
What is normative social influence (NSI)? When does it usually occur? (3)
-when we go along with a groups behaviour in order to be liked
-to avoid social rejection we go along with group norms
-usually occurs in unfamiliar situations and with people you know as you are more concerned about social approval from friends rather than strangers
Asch (1951) Conformity research:
Aim
Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority affects individual conformity
Asch (1951) Conformity research:
Research
sch (1951)- pp conformed to wrong answers because they felt self-conscious giving right answer and were afraid of disapproval
Conformity rates fell to 12.5% when pp wrote answers instead- supports NSI as they were conforming to avoid rejection
One issue with Asch’s research as proof of NSI/ISI
There’s individual differences:
-Asch (1955) found only 28% of students conformed but other pp conformed 37%
-Sugg people who are knowledgeable/confident are less influenced by the apparent ‘right’ view of group- suggests different people respond differently to ISI
Asch (1951) Research
Findings (3 stats)
- pp avg. rate of conformity on critical trials was 36.8%
-1/4 never conformed
-3/4 conformed at least once
How did Asch test the three variables that affect conformity in his 1955 experiment?
(Procedure)
Group size: no. of confederates varied between 1-15
Unanimity: Introduced truthful confederate or untruthful dissenter
Task difficulty: made line judging task harder- lines more similar
Asch (1955) Variables affecting conformity
Group size findings:
Group size: with 3 confederates, conformity to wrong answer 31.8%
Adding more confederates made little difference
Asch (1955) Variables affecting conformity
Unanimity findings:
Unanimity: presence of dissenter reduced conformity (whether the dissenter was right or wrong)
Having dissenter allowed pp to behave more independently
Asch (1955) Variables affecting conformity
Task Difficulty findings:
Task Difficulty: conformity increased when task got more difficult.
ISI plays a greater role when task gets harder- situations more ambiguous so look to others for guidance and assume they’re right
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
Procedure: (9 steps)
Procedure:
1. Recruited 40 male participants aged between 20-50 years in jobs ranging from unskilled to professional
2. Participants thought they were taking part in a memory study and were paid $4.50 for showing up
3. Participants drew lots for their role, confederate (Mr Wallace) was always the ‘learner’, participant was always the teacher and another confederate was the ‘experimenter’ and wore a lab coat.
5. Participants were told they could leave the study at any time.
6. Learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes.
7. Teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric ‘shock’ each time they made a mistake – teachers not told that the shocks were all fake and learner was an actor.
8. Shocks started at 15 volts and went as high as 450 volts (labelled ‘danger-severe shock’). At 300v learner would pound on the wall, after 315v learner would pond on wall again and give no further response.
9. Teacher used a sequence of four standard prods if the teacher (pp) felt unsure about continuing (e.g ‘you have no other choice you must go on’
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
Findings: (4)
Findings:
* No pp stopped below 300v
* Five stopped at 300v
* 65% continued to 450v
* Pp showed signs of tension (sweating, trembling, 3 of them had seizures)
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
Conclusions:
Conclusions: It was predicted that no more than 3% would continue to 450v- findings were unexpected. People are much more obedient to authority figures than they thought
3 Situational Variables that explain obedience
- Uniform
- Proximity
- Location
How did Milgram test proximity in his variations? How did the obedience rate change? (3)
- ‘Proximity variation’ teacher and learner in same room- dropped from 65% to 40%
- ‘Touch proximity variation’ teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto shock plate- dropped to 30%
- ‘Remote-instruction’ experimenter gave instructions via telephone - dropped to 20.5%
How did Milgram test location in his variations? How did the obedience rate change? (1)
- Exp. carried out in run-down buliding rather than Yale university- experimenter had less authority
- dropped to 47.5%
How did Milgram test uniform in his variations? How did the obedience rate change? (1)
Experiment was called away due to ‘phone call’ and his position was taken over by ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in normal clothes (not lab coat like experimenter)
- dropped to 20%
What’s the agentic state? (explanation for obedience)
- when a person acts as an ‘agent’ for an authority figure
- feels no personal responsibility or guilt for their actions
- opposite to an autonomous state
Minority influence leads to…
…internalisation
In order for a minority influence to be successful, what three things do they need to ensure?
-Consistency (Synchronic and Diachronic)
-Commitment (Augmentation principle)
-Flexibility
Moscovici, The green-blue slides (resistance to social influence)
Procedure: (2)
Procedure:
1. 6 people viewed a set of blue-green colored slides, varying in intensity- then said they were blue or green
2. Study had three conditions:
- Conf. always said green
- Conf. inconsistent about the colour of the slides
- Control group- no conf
Moscovici, The green-blue slides (resistance to social influence)
Findings: (3 conditions- 3 stats)
Findings:
- Consistent minority condition: 32% gave the wrong answer on at least one trial
- Inconsistent minority: agreement fell to 1.25%
- Control: ppt said wrong answer 0.25% of the time
What happened in Bickman’s research?
Bickman investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment. Bickman used male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard. The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’.
On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% - These results all suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power.
what are the main 3 techniques to induce compliance?
The door-in-the-face technique
The foot-in-the-door technique
Low-balling
what is the ‘door-in-the-face technique’?
starting with an extreme request, and then retreating to a more moderate request (original request) which is more likely to be accepted
Cialdini 1975 ‘door-in-the-face’ technique research
- First (large) request:
- Counsel offending teens for 2hrs a week for 2years
- Most refuse
- Second (small) request:
- Just one day trip
- 50% agree
- Control group:
- Just ‘small’ request
- 17% agree
what is the ‘foor-in-the-door-technique’?
foot-in-the-door technique = first ask for a very small favour (which will more than likely be granted). Then follow this up with a larger, but related favour (the one they originally had in mind)
The foot-in-the-door technique - Freedman and Fraser 1966 research
Freedman and Fraser 1966 research – sign in garden research and desires to be consistent
What is ‘low balling’?
Compliance to an initial attempt – followed by a more costly and less beneficial version of the same request – target feels obliged to agree - used in sales
conformity can be either ___ or ___
Conformity can be conscious (changing behaviour in response to others) or unconscious (automatic mimicry)
Conscious conformity vs unconscious conformity
CONSCIOUS: changing behaviour in response to others
UNCONSCIOUS: automatic mimicry
2 key pieces of research for conformity:
Sheriff Autokinetic effect
Asch research
Sheriff Autokinetic effect research (4)
1) Asked groups to estimate the amount of movement of a stationary light in a dark room.
2) Group norm rapidly established – similar answers
3) New Ps conformed quicker
4) Internalisation
why was the sheriff autokinetic effect research criticised? how was this addressed
- too ambiguous, movement of light isn’t a measurement and this might have influenced responses
- Asch research
explain Moscovici’s dual conversion theory: (2)
- Moscovici’s explanation of how a minority influences a majority
- Focuses on the cognitive and interpersonal processes that can directly or indirectly impact how the minority influence the majority
name two key aspects of Moscovici’s dual conversion theory which influence how a minority influence a majority:
- Conflict is critical factor (individuals motivated to reduce conflict)
- Self-categorisation theory – categorisation as group member
state the 5 key pieces of research into obedience
- Milgram Research
- Stanford Prison Experiment 1974
- William Calley – Vietnam War Case
- Burger 2009 Study – Milgram replication study (70% obedience)
- Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves & Pierce (1966)
Explain what happened in Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves & Pierce’s research into obedience (6)
o Staff nurse received call from ‘Dr Smith’ asking nurse to administer 20mg of new drug to patient
o Drug stated maximum dose was 10mg
o 95% of nurses obeyed and were going to administer 20mg dose (stopped by an observer)
o Broke a number of hospital regulations
o But nurses expected to obey instructions from doctors in normal medical practice
o Disobedience would have been difficult for nurses in this situation
what are the 4 theories of why we obey?
- Sociocultural perspective
- Binding factors
- Responsibility – the agentic shift (Milgram’s Agency Theory)
- Situational factors
theories of obedience: social cultural perspective
- Sociocultural perspective – learn to obey authority and expect to encounter legitimate, trustworthy authority
theories of obedience: Binding factors
Binding factors – subtle creation of psychological factors to disobedience – gradual increase in punishment levels in Milgram’s research is a means of ‘entrapment’
theories of obedience: Responsibility
Responsibility – the agentic shift (Milgram’s Agency Theory) - the subordinate in a hierarchical system acts as a ‘puppet’ for an authority figure – may feel guilt but feels powerless to disobey and allocates responsibility for their actions to the authority figure
theories of obedience: Situational Factors
Situational factors – such as proximity, location and uniform have such strong influences on our behaviour that we are more likely to obey
