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