Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Social > Lecture 9 - Conformity and Obedience > Flashcards

Lecture 9 - Conformity and Obedience Flashcards

1
Q

Define conformity

A

Changing ones behaviour or beliefs in response to explicit or implicit pressure from others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define compliance

A

Changing behaviour following explicit request of another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Define obedience

A

Submitting to demands someone who is higher in the social hierarchy than oneself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

When does compliance persist

A

Public agreement and outward change in behaviour

Persists only under surveillance

Power as basis of compliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Define conversion

A

Private agreement
Acceptance and internalisation

True internal change persists in absence of surveillance

Not based on power but subjective validity of social norms

Confidence and certainty norms are correct and appropriate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is Informational and Normative Social Influence a part of

A

Conformity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Define Informational Social Influence

A

Adoption objective external sources information and conversion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What can’t Informational social influence explain

A

Not explain internal conflict, or cold rational judgement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Define Normative Social Influence

A

Confirming to the expectation of others

Behavioural compliance in group contexts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the classic studies on conformity

A

Sherif: moving light

Asch: line comparison

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Outline Sherif 1935 Auto-kinetic Experiment method

A

Perceptual bias - dark room stationary point light looks like it’s moving
Estimate how much moving
Initially alone then in groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Outline Sherif 1935 Auto-kinetic Experiment results

A

Alone = huge variability
Converge into groups start conforming to group norm
Look to others for info = Informational Social Influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What type of social influence does Sherif’s 1935 autokinetic study show

A

Informational Social Influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Criticism of Sherif 1935 autokinetic experiment

A

Task ambiguous

Hard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Outline Asch 1952 line study aim

A

Group influence on unambiguous judgements

Pull internal and external conflict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Outline Asch 1952 line study method

A

Standard line and 3 comparison lines
Group 4 confederates and 1 true ppt last
Initially confederates right answer
Trial 3 introduced incorrect answers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Outline Asch 1952 line study results

A

Average conformity 33%

5% conformed all trials

50% conformed least once

25% remained independent

Compared 0.7% errors in control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Outline Asch 1956 line study self reported reasons for conformity

A

Independents were certain what they saw

Most compelling intolerableness appearing different from group - normative Social Influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What social influence is Asch 1952 line study demonstrating

A

Normative Social Influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Outline Aschs study critical review by Hodges and Geyer 2006

A

Show people don’t simply just conform
Ppts privately answer line task on piece paper
Conformity dropped 12.5%
Confirming Normative Social Influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Results of Aschs study critical review Hodge and Geyer 2006 results can be interpreted as:

A

Low levels public conformity
Almost no private persuade

Group pressure - enough for public show consensus but not internally persuaded

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Outline conformity and uncertainty perceived pressure by Deutsch and Gerard 1955 method

A

Conformity eradicated in Asch when task not under surveillance

3 confederates 1 ppt
Face to face condition - call out answers front each other
Face to face - told to be accurate as possible
Private booth - anonymous

Low uncertainty - stimulus present
High uncertainty - stimulus absent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Outline conformity and uncertainty perceived pressure by Deutsch and Gerard 1955 result

A

Decreasing pressure and uncertainty reduced conformity
Still 23% conformed private and anonymous condition with stimulus present = low uncertainty

Groups persuasive
Change public behaviour not necessarily internal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Outline the Referent Informational Influence by Turner 1991

A

Social identity shapes individual behaviour be consistent salient group
Low ambiguity with no social sanctions people comply group responses

More identify group more influenced

Influenced public responses also private responses shaped group membership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Outline Bond and Smith 1996 meta analysis of 133 Asch style experiments
Focus visual judgements rather option | Measure compliance rather internalisation
26
When do Bond and Smith 1996 argue conformity increases
Level ambiguity Size groups (more people more info draw from) Female Majority not out group
27
Outline conformity rates in collectivist countries
Higher Promote social harmony and cohesiveness NSI - regard for others ISI - learn from others
28
What is the trend of conformity over time
Declined over time
29
Outline the relationship between group unanimity and conformity
Greater conformity when group unanimous Consistent in decision All takes 1 deviant confederate break sense conformity Not matter whether this is the right answer
30
Outline the relationship between anonymity and conformity
Conformity decreases when decisions can be made anonymously Deutsch and Gerard: not eradicate conformity entirely
31
Outline the relationship between expertise and status with conformity
High status or expert have more social influence Experts exerts more ISI High status exerts more NSI
32
What are the 3 explanations for behaviour of conformity
Conform less when understand reasons others behaviours - person says can’t see very well when proving answer for Asch Obvious explanation for why we may have deviant opinion Know acting out bias or self interest
33
Outline Cialdini and Goldstein 2004 reviewer research 3 factors influencing compliance
1. Accuracy Interesting and responding correctly to situational demands - norms 2. Affiliation Act seek others approval motivation be liked respected 3. Positive self-concept Want be consistent prior attitudes, beliefs behaviours
34
How does the minority influence the Majority according to Moscovici
Assumption conflict within groups and social influence affects how respond Conformity - majority to minority Normalisation - mutual compromise leading convergence Innovation - minority creates and accentuates conflict persuade majority adopt viewpoint
35
Outline Moscovici 1976 genetic model of social influence
``` Create social change Minorities actively create draw attention and accentuate group conflict Resolve conflict quickly Can’t resolve look at reasons why Cognitive dissonance ```
36
When according to Moscovici 1976 genetic model of social influence is it not easy to dismiss the minority
Minority’s message is consistent across time and context Demonstrate investment in cause - sacrifice Acts out of principle - not self interest
37
Outline Moscovici Lage and Naffrechoux 1969 study on minority influence
Required ppts distinguish slide green or blue vary in intensity 4 real ppts and 2 confederates Told confront confederates and ask people why believe what believe Then group decide what colour slide is Experimental group - sometimes confederates consistent others inconsistent
38
Outline Moscovici Lage and Naffrechoux 1969 study on minority influence results
Conformed minority 8% consistent | Much larger than inconsistent group
39
Outline the Moscovici 1980 conversion theory
Cognitive foundation underpin earlier theory Majority influence enacted through public compliance - reasons both normative and informational dependence Minority influence enacted through indirect often private change due resolution cognitive dissonance (processes ISI) Slowly individual level then snowball effect
40
What is the conversion effect identified by Moscovici 1980 Conversion Theory
Sudden dramatic change attitude of majority due to minority influence
41
Outline the critical review of the minority bs majority
Ethics - can it be any persuade message? Controversial and counter attitudinal positions Way manipulated Does it override ppts own knowledge and experience Attitudes and judgements may be influenced Distinction between signal conformity and action conformity
42
Outline Milgrams 1963 study on obedience
Ways authority influence subordinates Learner confederate “randomly assigned” Electric shocks to confederate in mock learning task
43
What occurred at each of the voltages in Milgrams study
45V - sample ppts 75V - ugh 150V - get me out of here, hearts bothering me 180V - can’t stand pain 220V - let me out 270V - agonised 300V - refuse answer and agonised screams 345V - silence
44
What happened when ppts hesitated in Milgrams study
Experimenter told them to go on
45
What was the initial prediction for Milgrams study
Less than 1% go all the way to the end
46
What were the results of Milgrams study
80% went past 150V 62% to 450V 2/3
47
What was the critical voltage point in Milgrams study
150V Heart hurting - heart condition
48
Outline findings from replications of Milgrams study in Spain and Holland
90% compliance
49
Outline findings from replications of Milgrams study in Italy Germany Austria
80%
50
Outline findings from replications of Milgrams study in Australia
Men = 40% Women = 16%
51
What is the explanation for lower obedience levels in Milgrams study in Australia
Believe script not as convincing as Milgrams
52
Outline effect of ppts having free choice in Milgrams study and difference between obedience vs aggression
Ppts chose own shock level - get rid authority figure If aggression based - gravitate max 450V Only 3 ppts went beyond 135V 1 went to 450V Credibility obedience not aggression
53
What factors influences obedience according to Milgram
Closeness - immediacy of authority Legitimacy authority Proximity shock equipment - one more credible ?
54
Outline immediacy as an influencing factor of obedience Milgram
How close person is to learner Unseen and unheard - 100% compliance Pounding on wall - Heart condition 62.5% Visible during experiment - 40% Holding hand to electrode - 30%
55
Outline legitimacy of authority as an influencing factor of obedience Milgram
Type authority Yale University and lab coated experimenter Reduced experiment in industrial setting
56
Why is commitment to an action difficult to overturn in obedience Milgram
Disobey means reject competence authority Obedience - willing ppt legitimate experiment Subsequent disobedience challenges definition if stop have consider what done so far questionable and less worthy Effort justification. Already committed Continue obey - follow legitimate commands avoid painful realisation previous actions misguided
57
Outline obedience and agentic state
Internal change shift autonomy to agentic state No longer view acting out of own purposes Rather agent executing others orders Directions higher order not assessed against internal moral standards No longer responsible own actions - instrument carrying out others wishes Acting within hierarchical structure Evolutionary benefits: coordinate accomplishments, threat defence, conflict reduction
58
Outline critical review of Milgrams study Blass 1999: levels conformity symptoms time and culture
Over time conformity decreasing Increased awareness Milgram: people less susceptible Levels obedience varies massively 28-91% - other factors? Obedience because Experiment is in authority (in charge)or an authority (expert) Different interpretations
59
Outline Russell and Gregory 2011 review Milgram
Development strain resolving mechanisms Features designed in experiment reduce strain/tension max levels obedience Ppts rationale inflicting pain transformers evil action (shock) into something good (advanced learning)
60
What does Haslam and Reicher 2011 Social Identity account find problematic Milgram
Focus behaviour rather processes govern obedience problematic Contextual variations affective levels obedience Agentic state - no evidence
61
What does Haslam and Reicher 2011 Social Identity account paradigm address
Ppts being torn between competing demands Not in passive state
62
Define the Haslam and Reicher 2011 Social Identity account on obedience
Obedience predicted upon perceptions shared identity with experimenter Salient: e.g. both engaged in science Physically: same room Instructions adhered consistent identity group norm Requests and scientific rationale prompts basis shared social identity Command/order less adhered to lack shared social identity Requests framed as orders people not obey
63
Outline Meta Milgram 2014 by Haslam Loughnan and Perry
Re analysed Milgrams data 21 conditions Coded for presence or absence key factors led continue 450V
64
What significant factors did Meta Milgram 2014 by Haslam Loughnan and Perry influenced likelihood continuing 450V
Teacher - Group pressure disobey Teacher -> Learner - proximity, indirectness, intimacy Experimenter - illegitimacy, non directiveness, inconsistency Experimenter -> Teacher - distance
65
What conclusions did Meta Milgram 2014 by Haslam Loughnan and Perry influenced likelihood continuing 450V
Obedience rates across 21 conditions 43.6% Greater proximity more intimate conformity lower Indirectness higher conformity
66
Burgers 2009 replication of Milgram sample selection
70 ppts 20-81 years Screening process
67
Outline Burgers 2009 replication Milgrams Experiment screening process
People taken 2+ psychology courses excluded People history mental health excluded Pass - in person interview clinical psychologist
68
What method did Burger 2009 replication of Milgram use
Terminated 150V - partial replication 150V critical point Random assignment to base condition or modelled refusal condition
69
Why is 150V the critical point
Learner says get me out, heart condition, look experimenter for guidance 79% Milgrams ppts delivered 150V continued to the end
70
Define the Base Condition of Burgers 2009 replication of Milgram
Resembles Milgrams experiment 5 Confederate learner and reveals heart condition Script same Milgram - after 150V learner yells get me out of here
71
Define the Modelled Refusal Condition of Burgers 2009 replication of Milgram
2 confederate - 1 learner role and 1 first teacher role Ppt assigned 2nd teacher role Experimenter instructs first teacher go first 90V first teacher refuses continue and leaves Ppt take over
72
Results of Burgers 2009 replication of Milgram
70% base went continue past 150V 63.3% modelled refusal condition Not dissimilar Milgrams 82.5%
73
Results regards to gender of Burgers 2009 replication of Milgram
No significant differences men and women 66. 7% men 72. 7% women in base condition
74
Results regarding personality in Burgers 2009 replication of Milgram
Mixed and inconsistent results personality No difference empathetic concern between stoppers and continuers either condition Base condition - stoppers higher desire control Not replicated modelled refusal condition
75
Outline Dolinski et al 2017 replication of Milgram initial reasoning
First replication Central Europe - Poland | Post WW2 historical conditions - strict obedience authority, mandatory
76
Outline Dolinski et al 2017 replication of Milgram method
``` Used Burgers 2009 replication 80 ppts 1/2 men 18-69yrs Same pre screening Without modelled refusal condition ```
77
Outline Dolinski et al 2017 replication of Milgram results
Obedience 90% willing go past 150V No significant effect gender of learner
78
Outline Dolinski et al 2017 replication of Milgram trend
3x more likely refuse if female learner - not significant
79
Outline Dolinski et al 2017 replication of Milgram limitations
Partial replication What extent you asking same question? Conceptually altered what think study and conclusions we can draw?
80
Conclusions of conformity and obedience
Presence others lead behavioural compliance - desire avoid disapproval NSI or belief others know how to act ISI Minority groups - social change - deep seated attitude change - consistent, invested Right circumstance potential obey commands blindly even at great cost Does not seem diminished over time

Social (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions