Conformity

?
  • Created by: Najma2005
  • Created on: 26-12-22 19:04
Aschs Baseline Study
123 male Participants judged line lengths.Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers to see if others would conform.
1 of 46
What were the Findings of Asch's Study?
Naive Participants conformed 36.8% of trials and 25% never conformed
2 of 46
Aschs Variations:
-Group Size
- Unanimity
-Task Difficulty
3 of 46
Findings from group size variation:
Asch varied group size from two to 16.Conformity increased up to three,then levelled off.
4 of 46
Findings from Unanimity variation:
Asch placed a dissenter ( Confederate) in the group.Conformity rates reduced.
5 of 46
Findings from Task Difficulty variation.
Asch made lines more similar.Conformity increased when the task was harder (ISI- informational social influence)
{Need to be right)
6 of 46
Evaluations of Aschs study
- Artificial situation and task
- Limited application
- Ethical Issues
7 of 46
About the Artificial situation and task:
Participation knew this was a study so they just played along with a trivia (demand characteristics)
8 of 46
About Limited application:
Asch's Study was only conducted on American Men
9 of 46
Research Support:
Lucas et al. found more conformed when maths problems were harder
10 of 46
Ethical Issues:
Research may help avoid mindless conformity,but participants were deceived
11 of 46
Types of Conformity :
- Internalisation
- Identification
- Compliance
12 of 46
Internilisation:
Private and public acceptance of group norms - i.e Convert religion if all your friends are a specific religion
13 of 46
Identification:
Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with may change privately too. ie Being a teacher, police officer or politician (change in
behaviour).
14 of 46
Compliance :
Go with a group publicly but no private change i.e Not eating meat in front of family however secretly doing so
15 of 46
Explanations for Conformity:
- Informational Social Influence (ISI)
- Normative Social Influence (NSI)
16 of 46
Informational Social Influence (ISI):
Conform be to be right.Assume group knows better than us.
17 of 46
Normative Social Influence (NSI):
Conform to be liked or accepted by group.
18 of 46
Evaluations for NSI and ISI:
Asch's Study (NSI support)-When no normative group pressure conformity went down to 12.5%
Lucas et al (ISI support)- People relied on other peoples answers to hard math problems
Counterpoint- Cannot usually separate ISI and NSI this may reduce the power o
19 of 46
Evaluations for NSI and ISI: 2
Individual differences in:
nAffilators want to be liked more and what to relate to others more so they conform more.
McGhee and Teevan found that students who were nAffilators who conform more.
20 of 46
What was Zimbardo's Study to Conformity to Social roles:
It was the Stanford Prison Experiment - A Mock prison with 21 students volunteers,randomly assigned guards or prisoners.
Conformity to Social roles created through uniforms and instructions about behaviour.
21 of 46
Findings related to social roles:
Guards became increasingly brutal , prisoners rebellion put down and prisoners became depressed.Study stopped after 6 days.
22 of 46
Evaluations of Zimbardo study:
-Control
-Lack of Realism
-Exaggerates the power of roles
-Alternative explanations
23 of 46
Control - Evaluation
Random assignment of roles increased internal validity.
24 of 46
Lack of realism/Counterpoint - Evaluation
Participation play-acted their roles according to media-derived stereotypes. (Banuazizi and Movahedi)
Counterpoint- Evidence that prisoners thought the prison was real to them e.g 90% of conversations were about prisons (Mcdermott)
25 of 46
Exaggerates the power of roles - Evaluation
Only one-third of guards were brutal so conclusions exaggerated (Fromm)
26 of 46
Milgrams Study What is it: Baseline Study
American male participants gave fake electric shocks to 'learner' in response to instructions (prods) from an 'experimenter'.The location of the Study took place in Yale university.
27 of 46
Milligrams baseline study Findings:
65% gave the highest shock of 450V and 100% gave shocks up to 300V. Many showed signs of anxiety. e.g Sweating
28 of 46
Milgrams Baseline Study Evaluations:
-Low internal Validity
- Research Support
- Alternative interpretation of findings
- Ethical Issues
29 of 46
Research Support Evaluation - Milgrams Study
French TV/Documentary / game show found 80% gave maximum shock plus similar behaviour to Milgrams participants et al Beauvoir
30 of 46
Low Internal Validity Evaluation - Milgrams Study
Participants realised 'shocks' were fake so 'play-acting' (Orne and Holland)
Supported by Perry , tapes of participants showed only 50% thought the'shocks' were real.
Counterpoint - Participants did give real shocks to a puppy despite the distress of th
31 of 46
Alternative interpretation of findings Evaluation - Milgrams Study
Haslam found that participants didn't obey prod 4 ( you don't have a choice you must continue)
Participants identified with scientific aims ( social identity not blind authority
32 of 46
Ethical Issue Evaluation - Milgrams Study
Deception meant that participants could not properly consent (Baumrind).It also violated the right to withdraw and the protection of participants involved.
33 of 46
Situational Variables in Milgrams Study
- Proximity -In the Proximity variation When the Teacher and the Learner were in the same room Obedience dropped from 60% to 40%
-Location - The variation in the run down office instead of Yale university made obedience lvls drop to 47.5%
34 of 46
Situational Variable N.o3 Mil gram Study
Uniform - In the baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority in
the variation the experimenter was made to leave by acting like they had to take a phone call and then a 'ordinary member of the public' took over ( a confe
35 of 46
1st Evaluations of Milgrams Situational Variables:
Research support - Brickman showed the power of uniform in a field experiment.He had three confederates dress in different outfits - jacket & tie ,a milkman's outfit,and a security guards uniform.The confederates individually stood in the street and asked
36 of 46
2nd Evaluation of Milgrams Situational Variables:
Cross-Cultural replications-Strength of Milgrams study is that his findings have been replicated with other cultures.For example Meeus and Raaijmakers used more realistic procedure than milgram to study obedience in dutch participants.The participants wer
37 of 46
3rd Evaluation of Milgrams Situational Variables - Counterpoint to 2nd Evalution
Counterpoint - But most studies in Western cultures are similar to the USA,so aren't generalisable to the rest of the worlds cultures.
38 of 46
4th Evaluation of Milgrams Situational Variable
Low internal Validity
Low internal validity-One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was fake. Orne and Holland made this criticism of Milgrams baseline study.They point out its even more likely with his variations because of the extra manipulation
39 of 46
Situational Explanations for obedience
-Agentic state
-Autonomous state
- Binding factors
40 of 46
Agentic state
A mindset which allows us to carry out orders from an authority figure, even if they conflict with our personal sense of right and wrong because one is feels powerless to disobey.
41 of 46
Autonomous State
People direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.
42 of 46
Binding Factors
Binding factors are when aspects of the situation mean the individual is able to take away their own 'moral strain' and ignore their damaging behaviour.
Example:The 'learner' gave consent to take part, so it's ok to carry on shocking him).
43 of 46
Evaluations for Situational explanations:
Research support - Milgrams resistant participants continued giving shocks when the experimenter took responsibility.
A limited explanation - Cannot explain why rank and Jacobson nurses and some of Milgrams participants disobeyed. 16/18 nurses disobeyed o
44 of 46
...
,,,
45 of 46
,,,,
,,,,
46 of 46

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What were the Findings of Asch's Study?

Back

Naive Participants conformed 36.8% of trials and 25% never conformed

Card 3

Front

Aschs Variations:

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Findings from group size variation:

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Findings from Unanimity variation:

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Conformity resources »