AS Psychology: Conformity
- Created by: Lizz Griffin
- Created on: 27-04-13 00:16
View mindmap
- Conformity
- Kelman (1958)
- Compliance: is the change in behaviour due to the need of acceptance. Private and public views differ.
- Identification: change in behaviour to be like a role model. Private and public views are the same, but temporary.
- Internalisation: change in behaviour/ beliefs due to someone elses beliefs. Private and public views are the same and long lasting.
- Studies demonstrating conformity
- Kelman (1958)
- Compliance: is the change in behaviour due to the need of acceptance. Private and public views differ.
- Identification: change in behaviour to be like a role model. Private and public views are the same, but temporary.
- Internalisation: change in behaviour/ beliefs due to someone elses beliefs. Private and public views are the same and long lasting.
- Jenness (1932) Estimates of how many beans in a jar changed when heard others estimates. Forming a group norm
- Sherif (1935) When estimating the distance the light moved then range decrease when working in a group of three.
- Asch (1951) 37% conformity when influenced by other confederates.
- Temporal validity: Perrin and Spenser (1981) argued that there was high pressure to confrom in 1950s america. 33males students: not conformity. 20 males probationers: 1/396. 16 unemployed west indains: high conformity.
- Cultures: Smith and Bond (1993) meta analysis. Fiji highest: 58%, Belgium lowest: 14%.
- Markus and Kitayama (1991) : Collectivist 37.1% Indiviualistic 25.3%
- Gender, Carl and Eagly (1981) Women conform more when audience and pressure on group harmony
- Kelman (1958)
- Variations of conformity
- Size of majority. 15+ it decreases, suspicious. 3-8 doesn't change
- Presence of a supporter decreases conformity
- Task difficulty: increases conformity due to doubt in ability
- Face to face: Crutchfield (1954) took away physical presence. Cubicals, electronic displays.. Line matching 30%, star/circle 46%
- Why we conform to the majority
- Deutsch and Gerard (1955): Dual process dependency model. 1) to be accepted/liked, NORMATIVE2) to be right, do the right thing INFORMATIONAL
- Normative variation. Private response dropped to 12%, supporter dropper to 5%
- Informational variation.
- Allen and Levine (1971) No supporter: 94% Valid supporter: 36%. Invalid supporter 64%
- Lucus (2006). Hard math questions increased conformity as people doubt their ability.
- Deutsch and Gerard (1955): Dual process dependency model. 1) to be accepted/liked, NORMATIVE2) to be right, do the right thing INFORMATIONAL
- Kelman (1958)
Comments
No comments have yet been made