Social Influence - Conformity and Obedience

  • Created by: Eviemad
  • Created on: 03-04-19 10:31
View mindmap
  • Social Influence
    • Conformity
      • Types and explainations
        • inalisation- person accepts group norms, private and public change in behaviour
        • identification- identify with group we value, we publically change opinion even if we don’t privately agree
        • Compliance- ‘going along with other’, behaviour changes when group pressure ceases.
        • informational social influence- agree with others as you think they know more than you
        • normative social influence- desire to behave like others and look foolish, occurs in unfamiliar situations.
      • ASCH
        • 123 male confederates, groups of 6-8
          • Pps identified length of standered line
            • 18 trials with 12 'critical trials'
              • One naive ppt in each group, they gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time; high conformity
                • 25% never conformed
                  • Most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
        • AO3 (asch)
          • Only applies to certain cgroups, gender age and culture bias, only tested American male undergraduates
          • Ethical issues, deception; naive ppt thought the confederates were also taking part but were actually working with ASCH
          • Artificial task, demand characteristics
          • Child of its time (Perrin and Spencer found less conformity when repeating in 80s)
        • Variations
          • Task difficulty, made it harder to judge the lines, conformity increased (ISI)
          • Unanimity, dissenting confederate, conformity decresed (more independance)
          • Group size, 1-15 confederates, after 3 confederates there was no difference in conformity
      • ZIMBARDO
        • Mock prison in basement of university
          • Dispositional factors or social roles?
            • 24 ‘emotionally stable’ students, randomly assigned to guards and prisoners. ‘prisoners’ were arrested from homes blindfolded and *****-searched.
              • De-individualisation- names weren’t used just numbers and guards had own uniform (mirror shades)
                • Within 2 days the prisoners rebelled, guards harassed prisoners 
                  • Some were released early due to psychological harm
                    • One went on hunger strike
                      • Stopped after 6 days 
                        • They all conformed to social roles
        • AO3 (zimbardo)
          • Lack of realism- one guard based his role on a character from a film.  But Zimbardo found 90% of convos were about prison life
          • Randomly assigned, so not their personalities influencing it. So high internal validity
          • Understates dispositional influence, only a 1/3 of guards behaved brutally. So may be exaggerates about all conforming to social roles
    • Obedience
      • Dispositional Variables
        • Adorno et al wanted to understand anti-Semitism of holocaust
          • The authoritarian personality includes extreme respect for authority and disapproved inferiors.
            • It originates from childhood due to strict parenting. 
              • Fear of parents is displaced onto those who are socially inferior. (scapegoating).
                • Adornos study- investigated attitudes towards racial groups of 2000+ middle class white Americans. 
                  • F-scale- those who scored high were disrespectful of the ‘weak’ but had respect for those of higher status
        • AO3 (dispositional)
          • Its limited as loads of Germans had anti-Semitism behaviour but didn’t have same personality. Unlikely every German had authoritarian personality.
          • F-scale is politically biased, more right wing
      • Social Psychological Factors
        • Location- in run down building
          • Uniform- experiment was ordinary member of public
            • Proximity- teacher and learner in same room (obedience dropped), touch proximity (teacher forced leaners hand on a shock plate, remote instruction proximity
        • AO3 (social-psych)
          • Lacks internal- orne and Holland, fake, pp worked out due to there being a member of public
          • Research support- Bickman ( jacket and tie, milkman, security guard. Asked people to provide a coin for parking meter. Obeyed the security guard more.
          • Replicated in other cultures, 90% obedience in Spain, not limited to American males.
      • Situational Variables
        • Agentic state- no responsibility, act of behalf of someone else
          • Autonomous state- independent, feel responsibility for own actions
            • Agentic shift- ‘autonomous’ to ‘agentic'. When a person bow to to authority figure.
              • Binding factors- ignore damaging affect of behaviour. Milgram pps did this when denying the damage they are doing to victims.
                • We obey people at top of social hierarchy
                  • Authorities have legitimacy through societies agreement 
                    • We learn  to accept authority during childhood from parents and teachers.
                      • Hitler used his powers for destructive purposes.
        • AO3 (situational)
          • Agentic state can not account for behaviour of the Nazis. Police men shot civilians in small town in Poland when not ordered to, this challenges agentic shift as police were could disobey. 
          • Some pps did not obey. Also in holflings study the nurses didn’t show anxiety. Agentic shift can only account for some situations
      • MILGRAM
        • 40 male pps (recruited through newspaper) were told to take part in memory study. Given 4.50
          • Leaner- Mr Wallace, true pp was teachers and experimenter with lab coat 
            • Leaner was strapped to chair with electrodes. Electric shocks were given for mistakes from 15 volts to 450 volts. 
              • At 300 the learner pounded wall, at 315 the learner gave no further response
                • If teacher felt unsure the experiment would give a sequence of 4 standard prods
                  • No pps stopped below 300
                    • 65% went up to 450 volts
                      • Observations (qualitative data)
                        • 14 psychology students said only 3% would go up to 450 volts
                          • Pps were debriefed, 84% were glad to have pp
        • A03 (milgram)
          • Lacked internal validity- orne and Holland said pps knew shocks were fake, but Sheridan and king gave real shocks to puppy. 70% of Milgram's pps though shock was real
          • Good external- hofling et al, nurses gave unjustified demands by doctors (21/22). Can be generalised 
          • Ethical issues- deceptions, betrayal of trust that damages researchers reputation, less likely to volunteer again

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social Influence resources »