Social Flashcards
What are the 3 types of conformity?
**Compliance: **Changing public opinion but not private one. Temporary change that stops when group pressure stops.
Identification: Publically & mostly privately changing opinion, to gain group validation and mostly agree w group (when in presence of group)
Internalisation: Public & private change in opinion, change persists in absence of other group members.
What are the 2 explanations for conformity?
Normative social influence
Informational social influence
Normative social influence
- To be liked
- Social approval
- Temporary
- Emotional reasons
- Compliance
Informational social influence
- To be right
- Avoid getting things wrong
- Permenant
- Cognitive processes
- Internalisation
Explanations of conformity evaluation
+Research support for NSI: When Asch asked why ptts conformed many said they were self-conscious and afraid of disproval. Conformity fell to 12.5% when asked to write answers.
+Research support for ISI: Lucas et al- Ptts conformed more often to incorrect math answers when they were difficult. Ptts didn’t want to be wrong so relied on others.
-Hard to seperate NSI and ISI: Asch found reduced conformity when ptts had other dissenting ptts. Hard to establish whether this due to NSI or ISI. Probably mixture of the 2 in real world.
-Individual diffs: NAffiliators more concerned w being liked by others. McGhee & Teevan found there more likely to conform. Also, 25% ptts in Asch study didn’ conform once.
Procedure and findings of Asch study (variables affecting conformity)
Aim: Assess extent ppl will conform w others even if answer is unambiguous.
Procedure: 123 ptts had to compare line X to A, B or C. 6-8 ptts per group with only 1 real ptt as rest were confederates. Real ptt answered last.
Findings: Genuine ptts agreed 36.8% of the time w confederates. This decreased to 12.5% when wrote down. 25% never gave wrong answer representing individual diffs.
3 variables Asch found affected conformity
Group size: Conformity increase w group size but only up to certain point.
Task difficulty: Look to others to guidance when situation is harder.
Unanimity: Less chance of conforming in presence of dissenter.
Evaluation of variables affecting conformity (Asch)
+Research support from Lucas et al: Ptts asked to solve easy and hard math Q’s and were given 3 answers from other fake students. Ptts conformed when Q was harder, supporting task difficulty.
-Counterpoint: Lucas found conformity to be more complex than Asch suggested as ptts w higher math confidence conformed less than those w low confidence on hard tasks. Represents individual-level is a factor influencing conformity to certain tasks.
-Artificial situation & task: Ptts knew they were in research study so may have played up to demand characteristics. Trivial so no reason to not conform. Findings don’t resemble real world situations.
Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo), procedure
- Mock prison in basement of psychology department in Stanford university
- 21 malestudent volunteers who were ‘emotionally stable’
- Randomly assigned to Prisoners and guards
Uniform:
* Prisoners- Loose smock, cap to cover hair and were identified by number.
* Guards- Own uniform reflecting the status of their role, handcuffs, mirror glasses, wooden club.
* Uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individulation) meant they were more likely to conform to perceived social role.
Instruction & Bvr:
* Prisoners encouraged to identify w their role through procedures such as parole
* Guards encouraged to play their role by being reminded they had complete control over prisoners.
Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo), findings
- G took up roles enthusiastically, treating P harshly
- P rebelled within 2 days as they ripped uniforms, shouted and swore at G. G retaliated w fire extinguishers
- G harassed P constantly to remind them of powerlessness of their role. E.g. Frequent headcounts (sometimes at night) where prisoners stand in line and call number
- P subdued, depressed, anxious after rebellion- one released due to showing psychological disturbance, 2 more released on 4th day, one went on hunger strike and was put in ‘the hole’ as punishment.
- G role became increasingly brutal leading to the study stopping after 6 days.
Zimbardo’s conclusion related to social roles
Social roles appear to have strong influence on individual bvr as G became brutal and P became submissive.
Roles very easily taken on by all ptts (even volunteers who came to perform specifc functions), acting as in real prison and not psychological study.
Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo) evaluation
+High control: Selection of emotionally stable ptts who were randomly assigned to G or P. This ruled out individual/personality diffs as explanation of findings. If G & P behaved very diff then this means it must of been due to the role itself. Increase IV.
-Lacks realism: Banuazizi & Movahedi argued **ptts merely play-acting **rather than genuinely conforming to social roles. Performances based of stereotypes of how P & G supposed to behave. E.g. One G based his role on brutal character from film Cool Hand Luke. Tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
+Counterpoint: McDermott argues prison was real to ptts as 90% of their conversations were about prison life, discussed how impossible to leave unntil ‘sentences’ were over, P 416 exclaimed how he believed prison was real one run by Psychologists. Increase IV
-Over-exaggerates power of social roles: E.g. only 1/3rd of G acctually behaved in brutal manner. 1/3rd tried to apply fair rules whilst the rest tried to actively support the P through offering cigarettes and reinstating privileges (Zimbardo). Most G able to resist influence of situational factors as Zimbardo minimised influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)
-Etical Issues
-Zimbardo as P manager
Obedience- Milgrams research procedure
- 40 male volunteers, Yale university, supposedly memory task
- When volunteer arrived they were introduced to another ptt of Milgrams (confederate).
- Drew to see who was T and who was L. Draw was fixed so ptt was always the T.
- Experimenter also involved (confederate, dressed in grey lab coat)
- T could not see L but could hear him.
- T gave L electric shock every time they made mistake on memory task.
- Shocks increased by 15V every mistake up to 450V. Shocks fake but labelled to say dangerous.
- E used prods such as ‘please continue’ or ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
Obedience- Milgram’s research baseline findings
- 100% up to 300V
- 65% up to 450V (fully obedient)
- Ptts showed signs of extreme tension as they were seen to ‘sweat, tremble, stutter, bite lips, groan, dig fingernails into hands’. 3 had uncontrollable seizures.
Conclusions of Milgram’s study on obedience
German ppl are ‘not different’ as American ppl in study willing to obey orders even if they were to hamrm others.
Suspected there were certain factors that may have encouraged obedience.
Evaluation of Milgram’s research on obedience
-Low IV: May not have been testing what he intended. Orne & Holland believed ptts acted the way they did as they didn’t rlly believe in set-up so were ‘play-acting’
+However: Sheridan & King- ptts delivered real shocks to puppy in response to experimenter orders. Despite real animal distress 54% men and 100% of female ptts delivered what they thought wld be a fatal shock. As well as this many ptts in Milgram’s study displayed physiological distress (3 had seizures) suggesting ptts thought shocks were real.
+/-Ethics: Ptts decieved as they thought they signed up for memory study, thought allocation of T & L was real, thought shocks were real. Milgram said this was justified to truely measure obedience and he debreifed ptts at end. He told ptts the way they acted was normal and offered therapy to ptts w physiological stress.
Obedience: situaional variables
- Location- 47.5% obedience in run-down office as university prestige gave authority.
- Proximity w victim- 40% when T & L in same room
- Touch proximity- 30% when T forced L hand onto ‘electroshock plate’
- Remote instruction variation- 20.5% when E gave instructions to L over telephone.
- Uniform- 20% when E was ‘member of the public’ as wasn’t wearing lab coat. Uniform symboled legitimate authority.
Obedience- situational variables evaluation
+Cross-cultural replications: Meeus & Raaijmakers used more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch ptts. Ptts ordered to say stressful things in interview to ppl desperate for a job. 90% obeyed. Also in Milgram’s study when ppl giving orders not present obedience decreased.
-Counterpoint: 2 replications of non-western Milgrams study so not very cross-cultural. Spain, Australia, Scotland are not culturally diff.
-Low IV: ptts may be aware procedure was faked- Orne and Holland made this critisism
**Research support for uniform: **Bickman- 3 confederates dress in diff outfits (milkman, jacket and tie, security guard). Confederates stood in street asking passers by to perform tasks like pick up litter & hand over coin for parking. **Ptts 2X more obedient to security guard than man in jacket and tie. **
Obedience: social psy explanations (agentic state)
- Autonomous to agentic state
- Acting as agent for another person. Have moral strain (high anxiety) and feel powerless to disobey. E.g. Adolf Eichmann who’d been in charge of Nazi concentration camps, his defense is he was ‘only obeying orders’
- Ppl stay in situation due to binding factors (aspects of situation that enable individual to minimise negative aspects)
