Social Flashcards
Types of conformity
Herbert Kelman (1958) suggested that there are three ways in which people conform to the opinion of a majority
Types of conformity - what is internalisation?
Applies to informational explanation of conformity. It occurs when a person genuinely accepts group norms. This results in a private as well as a public change in opinion and behaviour.
Change is usually permanent as attitudes have become internalised so it becomes a part of the way they think.
The change in opinion or behaviour persists even in the absence of the group so it’s the strongest form of conformity.
Study - sheriff Example - Woolworths 1979
Types of conformity - identification
Conforming to social roles.
Sometimes we conform to the behaviours and opinions of a group as we value something about the group. We identify with the group so we want to be part of it.
This may mean we publicly change our opinions and behaviours to be accepted by the group even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for.
For example when someone conforms to the demands of a social role in society
Study - Zimbardo. Example- Abu Graib
Types of conformity - what is compliance?
It applies to the normative explanation for conformity.
Change behaviour but not mind, knows what their doing is wrong ‘going along with others’ in public but privately not changing opinions and behaviour.
Results in superficial change and means a particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as the group pressure stops. Change in peoples expressed view is temporary.
Study - Asch - ptps comply in public and answer incorrectly but in private did not agree with answer given.
Explanations for conformity
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory arguing that there are two main reasons people conform. Based on two central human needs - the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (NSI)
Explanations for conformity - normative social influence (NSI)
Changing your behaviour to be liked/ fit in with a group. It’s about norms or typical behaviour of the group and we pay attention to them to gain social approval and to not be rejected. So NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process. It leads to a temporary change in opinions/behaviour (compliance)
More likely to occur with strangers and people you know as most concerned about rejection and social approval of our friends.
More pronounced in stressful situations as people have greater need for social support.
Study - asch
Explanations for conformity - informational social influence (ISI)
The desire to be correct - when you are unsure what to do you follow the group and conform
Its about who has the better information- you or the rest of the group
We follow the majority or the group because we want to be right
Occurs when we lack knowledge or expertise about the correct way to act in an ambiguous situation
It’s a cognitive process as its to do with what you think and leads to permanent change in mind and behaviour.
Also occurs in crisis situations where decisions need to be made quickly and assume group is more likely to be right.
Study -sheriff
A03: research support for NSI
Evidence supports it as an explanation for conformity. For example when Asch (1951) interviewed his participants, some said that they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%. This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure. Shows at least some conformity is due to desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them. (NSI)
However it may not always predict conformity as McGee and Teevan (1967) found student nAffiliators are more likely to conform as they want to relate to other people.
A03: research support for ISI
Todd Lucas et al (2006) found ptps conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the ptps ‘knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous. The ptps did not want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given. Shows ISI is valid explanation for conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
Counter - often unclear whether NSI or ISI at work in research studies or in real life. Eg Asch 1955 found conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant. The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (social support)or reduce the power of ISI (alternative source of social information). So hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real- world conformity situations.
A03: is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?
One reason is, it may not be useful is because it’s difficult to tell which one is operating eg Lucas et als findings could be due to NSI or ISI or both. However Aschs research demonstrates both ISI and NSI as reasons for conformity. For instance in terms of group unanimity a unanimous group is a powerful source of disapproval. The possibility of rejection is a strong reason for conforming (NSI). But it’s also true that a unanimous group coveys the impression that everyone is ‘in the know’ part from you (ISI).
A03: limitation- individual differences in NSI
NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others. Such people are called nAffiliators- have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ so want to relate to other people. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were likely to conform. Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.
Sherif (1935) - support for ISI
Tried to show that people conform to group norms when they’re performing ambiguous tasks. He used the autokinetic effect and ptps were led to believe someone was moving the light and were asked to guess how far the light moved.
They were asked this twice alone and in a group. Half the ptps were asked in a group then alone and the other half were asked alone and in a group. (Counterbalancing)
Found when asked alone first ptps changed their answers the second time to fit with the group. But when asked in group first they would stick to groups answer when asked alone. Shows informational social influence.
Sherif evaluation
- supports ISI as when unsure of what to do ptps goes along with group. Shows internalisation as when given opportunity to change opinion away from group didn’t.
- only male ptps - not generalisable - low population validity
- low ecological validity - artificial situation so not natural so can’t be generalised to real-life situations.
- deception - ethical issue as ptps believed stationary light was moving
- variables controlled in lab - method replicable as ptps variables controlled and kept constant. 3rd variable should not have influenced results and should be able to establish cause and effect.
Asch (1951) - support for NSI
Devised a procedure to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others even in a situation where the answer is certain so unambiguous .
Aschs baseline procedure and findings
A lab experiment to investigate if people would conform even if they knew the answer. 123 male American ptps were tested.
Groups of 6-8 student male ptps looked at two cards on the test card was one vertical line and the other showed 3 vertical lines of different lengths. The ptps had to call which line matched the length of the test line. The answer was obvious.
All the ptps except one were accomplices to the experimenter and the genuine ptp called the answer 2nd to last.
Findings - ptp conformed to wrong answer 36.8% of the time, 72% conformed at least once and 26% never conformed.
Asch baseline - post experimental interviews
Some ptps said they thought it was the right answer or did not want to be minority or thought they were wrong. - normative social influence or informational pressures doubting themselves. Even in the ambiguous situation there was still strong group pressure to conform.
Variables investigated by asch - variables affecting conformity
Asch (1955) extended his baseline study to investigate the variables that might lead to an increase or a decrease in conformity
Factors/variables affecting conformity - Asch (1955) - group size
Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. To test this he varied the number of confederates from 1 - 15 ( so the group size was 2- 16). He found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity.
- 1 ptp and 1 confederate = low/none conformity to wrong answer
- 1 ptp and 2 confederates = 13% conformity to wrong answer
- 1 ptp and 3 confederates = 32 % conformity to wrong answer
Conformity increased with group size but only up to a point. Adding extra confederates from 3 had no more increase in conformity. - conformity rate levelled off.
Suggests that most people are very sensitive to the views of others because just two confederates were enough to sway opinion.
Factors/variables affecting conformity - Asch (1955) - unanimity
Asch wondered if the presence of a non-conforming person would affect the naive ptps conformity. His original study had unanimity as all confederates have wrong answers. This time he introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates.
One variation of the study this person gave the correct answer and in another he gave a different wrong answer.
Ptp conformed less often in presence of a dissenter as rate decreased to less than a quarter of original level. Presence of a dissenter freed ptp to behave more independently. True even when dissenter disagreed with genuine ptp.
Conformity rates decline when majority influence is not unanimous therefore conformity drops if an individual goes against majority - called a social supporter or group dissenter and conformity drops to 5.5%.
Factors/variables affecting conformity - Asch (1955) - task difficulty
Asch wanted to know whether making the task more difficult would affect the degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the line-judging task and made stimulus line and comparison lines more similar to each other in length so it was harder for genuine ptps to see the differences between the lines.
Conformity increased as situation is ambiguous and answer is less clear. People look to other people for guidance and assume they are right and you are wrong. (ISI)
Greater conformity rates as task difficulty increases people look to others for guidance and this leads to informational social influence occurring.
A03: Asch Low ecological validity
The task and situation were artificial. Ptps knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with what was expected (demand characteristics). The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and therefore there was really no reason to conform. Also, according to Susan Fiske (2014) ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’ ie they did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life. This means the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important.
A03: Asch has research support
Todd Lucas et al (2006) asked their ptps to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Ptps were given answers from three other students (not actually real). The ptps conformed more often (ie agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder. Shows asch was correct in claiming task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.
Counter - However Lucas et als study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. Ptps with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence. Shows that an individual- level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables (eg task difficulty). But asch did not research the roles of individual factors.
A03: Asch study has limited application - low population validity and culture bias
The sample was all American men so a limited sample so can’t generalise - low population validity. Other research suggests that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted - Neto (1995)
Furthermore, the US is an individualist culture (ie where people are more concerned about themselves rather than their social groups). Similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures (such as china where the social group is more important than the individual) have found that conformity rates are higher (Bond and Smith 1996). This means Aschs findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures.
A03: Asch study has ethical issues - deception
Asch’s research increased our knowledge of why people conform, which may help avoid mindless destructive conformity. The naive ptps were deceived because they thought the other people involved in the procedure (the confederates) were also genuine ptps like themselves. However, it is worth bearing in mind that is ethical cost should be weighed up against the benefits gained from the study.
Zimbardo (1973) conformity to social roles - Stanford prison experiment procedure
Set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford Univeristy. 21 male student volunteers well adjusted and healthy paid $15 a day.
Volunteers randomly allocated to the roles of prisoner or guards. Local police ‘arrested’ the prisoners at their homes without warning. They were taken, blindfolded to the ‘prison’ stripped and sprayed with disinfectant, given smocks and caps and their prison number to memorise. From then on they were only referred to by number - de-individualised them so making them more likely to conform.
Three guards on each shift who wore khaki uniforms, dark glasses and carried wooden batons. No physical aggression was permitted.
Prisoners also told rather than leaving study early they could ‘apply for parole’. Guards encouraged to play role as reminded they had complete power over the prisoners.
Zimbardo (1973) - findings
- the guards harassed and humilated the prisoners and conformed to their perceived roles with such zeal that the study had to be discontinued after six days although it had been planned to last two weeks.
- prisoners rebelled against the guards after only two days. Guards quelled the rebellion using fire extinguishers.
- some prisoners became depressed and anxious - one prisoner had to be released after only one day. Two more prisoners had to be released on the fourth day. By day 6, prisoners were submissive to the guards.
- the guards used ‘divide and rule’ tactics playing the prisoners off against each other. They had harassed the prisoners constantly to remind them of the powerlessness of their role eg they conducted frequent head counts sometimes at night.
- the guards force fed a prisoner on hunger strike and put him in isolation in a tiny dark closet.
Zimbardo (1973) - conclusions
Social roles have a strong influence on individual’s behaviour. The guards became more brutal and the prisoners became submissive.
Role were very easily taken on by ptps. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions such as ‘prison chaplain’ found themselves behaving as if they were in prison rather than in a psychological study.
The situation of the ‘prison environment’ was an important factor in creating the guards brutal behaviour.
The roles that people play shape their attitudes and behaviour. If it took only 6 days you alter the behaviour of ptps in the study then the roles we play in real life will have an even more far-reaching effects.
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - lack of informed consent
Participants were not told they would be arrested the night before, but it was a last minute decision
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - protection from harm
Savin (1973) study humiliated participants and had huge emotional and behavioural effects so had to stop study after six days. But Zimbardo did follow ups over many years that revealed no lasting negative effects.
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - deception
Not told they would be arrested by dragging out of homes, made them feel foolish and humiliated. Decided to arrest last minute and considers experiment to be essential in scientific study of behaviour.
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - right to withdraw
One prisoner asked to leave but felt pressure to return to the group so others thought they could not leave but told they could withdraw in a brief and debrief.
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - brief, debrief and confidentiality
Zimbardo debriefed and briefed participants and kept confidentiality
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - high internal validity
As Zimbardo and colleagues had control over variables. Participants were selected as emotionally stable individuals so researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. if guards and prisoners behaved very differently but were in those rules only by chance then their behaviour must’ve been due to the role itself.
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - low ecological validity and low population validity
As all male students so can’t be generalised and applied to real life situations. Only done on 21 American students.
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - prison lacked realism
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggest participants were just play acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. Guard based his role on a character from the film cool hand Luke. Prisoners rioted because they thought this is what real prisoners did. This suggests that the experiment tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
Counter - McDermott (2019) argued ptps did behave as if the prison was real eg 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life and prisoner 416 believes it was a real prison run by psychologists instead of the government. This suggests the experiment replicated the roles of Guard and prisoner just like in a real prison, increasing internal validity.
Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles
The power of social roles influence and behaviour may have been exaggerated in the Stanford prison experiment (Fromm 1973). Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggests that the Stanford prison experiment overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences Eg personality
Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority
Societies are structured in a hierarchal way so people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. The authority is legitimate as agreed by society. It is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others.
Individuals are socialised to accept the power and status of authority figures eg parents, teachers and police officers.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others.
The higher up the social hierarchy the more perceived authority a person has and more likely they are to be obeyed.
Destructive authority - when legitimate authority becomes destructive eg in milgrams study or powerful leaders eg hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and make people behave in cruel ways
Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - its a useful account for cultural differences in obedience
Kilham and Mann (1974) found 16% of Australian women went to 450V but mantell (1971) found in German ptps it was 85%. Different society structure and upbringing
Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - evidence to support
Hofling (1966) a field experiment on obedience in the nurse- physician relationship. In the natural hospital setting it was arranged for a unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask each of them (alone) to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list (‘Astroten’). 95% of the nurses (21 out of 22) started to administer the drug (they were prevented from continuing). The nurses obeyed without question.
Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - it can’t explain all disobedience - rank and Jacobson 1977
Replicated hoflings experiment but were told to administer Valium a real drug the nurses were familiar with and the doctors name was known to the nurses and they all had the chance to discuss the order with each other. 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed. Doctor was the authority figure. Limitation of agentic shift and legitimacy of authority.
Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - real life evidence of legitimacy of authority leading to destructive obedience
Jonestown - November 18th 1978 - 909 died as the leader Jim Jones’s of Christian based cult peoples temple ordered to drink poison ‘kool-aid’. Those who didn’t commit suicide were injected with poison or shot. A third of those who died were children. The members of the group lived in Jonestown and worked long days and had harsh punishments if questioned jones authority. He said the suicide was due to the US government and others being out to destroy him - they had mock suicide drills
Massacre at Mylai - 1968 in Vietnam war 504 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers. Women gang - raped, people shot when leaving homes with arms up. Soldiers blew up and burnt buildings and killed all the animals. One soldier found guilty Lt William calley whose defence was that he was doing his duty and following orders.
Explanations of obedience - agentic state
Where an individual obeys and authority figure who is seen as responsible for their actions. The individual behaves as an agent of another person as they pass the responsibility of their actions onto those giving the orders eg Eichmann in charge of Nazi death camps says he was just obeying orders. Individuals become de - individualised so lose their individuality and obey orders that go against their moral code.
Autonomous state - opposite of agenic state individuals are seen as personally responsible for their actions. The shift from autonomy to agency is called agentic shift. Milgram 1974 suggest it occurs when someone perceives someone else as authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in social hierarchy. Eg in milgrams study ptps asked who is responsible for this man and experimenter said ‘I am responsible’ meaning they then gave more shocks.
Binding factors - aspects of the situation that allows the person to ignore minimise the damaging effect with their behaviour and reduce the ‘ moral strain’ they feel.
Explanations of obedience - agentic state - AO3 - limitation doesn’t explain Rank and Jacobson where dr is authority figure
Replicated hoflings experiment but were told to administer Valium a real drug the nurses were familiar with and the doctors name was known to the nurses and they all had the chance to discuss the order with each other. 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed. Doctor was the authority figure. Limitation of agentic shift and legitimacy of authority.
