conversion is not based on power but subjective validity of social norms
2 of 29
Deutsch & Gerrard, 1955)
informational influence refers to the adoption of objective/external sources of info and conversion
3 of 29
Sheirf (1935)
a classic study into conformity- autokinetic exp- idv vs group condition in moving light- took turns to call out est in group did with larger and larger groups, gravitate towards a group mean
4 of 29
Asch (1952)
classic study in conformity- line comparison exp. av conformity 33%, 5% conformed on all trials, 50% at least once, 25% remained indep, 0.7% errors in control
5 of 29
Hodges & Geyer, 2006)
aschs exp largely misunderstood- intended to show that people dont just simply conform - results interp as low levels of public conformity, almost no private persuasion
6 of 29
Deutsch and Gerard, (1955)
Face-to-face exactly like Asch Left- told goal of group was to be as acc as poss- tf more likely to challenge those confeds who are wrong Right- anonymously pulled out answers Conform reduce signif when remove uncertainty and pressure in situ...
7 of 29
...
Uncertainty- image either was present on screen full time or wasn’t – wasn’t causing doubt- e.g. was I making it up In my head- I cant refer back to it now BUT still not 0- 23% when see stim and writing down privately- group still having effect even
8 of 29
Turner, 1991)
Referent informational influence is where social identity shapes individual behaviour to be consistent with salient group identity
9 of 29
Bond and Smith (1996)
meta on 133 asch style conformity exp- focus on visual judgements rather than opinion- compliance rather than internalisation, conformity increases with level of ambiguity, among females, and when majority are not o-g members, high coll decline time
10 of 29
Cialdini & Goldstein (2004)
reviewed research and argued there are 3 underlying motivations to explain compliance- accuracy, affiliation and positive self-concept. these motivations interact in subtle ways to enhance compliance in respond to explicit (and implicit) requests
11 of 29
Moscovici (1976)
how do small minority groups create social change? Less power < influence over the majority. Genetic model of social influence- conflict within groups and social influence affects response- conformity, normalisation and innovation
12 of 29
Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux (1969)
minority influence- when consistent is conformed to more so
13 of 29
Moscovici (1980)
conversion theory- majority influence, minority influence and conversion effect
14 of 29
Milgram, 1964
distinction between signal conformity and action conformity- how social influence can bring about actual behaviour
15 of 29
Milgram, (1963)
the classic study - expected 1% of pp to continue to 180v but 80% , 62.5% to fatal 450v-
16 of 29
Milgram (1974)
explained that subjects felt under pressure but did not believe that the experimenter would allow harm to come to ‘stooge’
17 of 29
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986)
Spain and holland had a 90% compliance rate
18 of 29
Mantell, (1971)
italy, germany and austria 80%
19 of 29
Kilham and Mann, (1974)
aus men 40% aus women 16%
20 of 29
Blass (1999)
levels of conformity are symptoms of time and culture
21 of 29
Gergen, 1973)
increasing awarenesss of Milgrams findings may make people less susceptible, but is rarely measured
22 of 29
Russell and Gregory (2011)
careful review of Milgram's experiment- dev of strain resolving mechanisms-
23 of 29
Haslam and Reicher, (2011)
social identity account - critical review of milgram- focus on behaviour rather than on processes that govern obedience problematic, agentic state no evi passive obedience,
24 of 29
Haslam, Loughnan and Perry, (2014)
re-analysed milgrams data from 21 conditions of his obedience study
25 of 29
Burger (2009)
replication Modeled refusal condition: Similar to base condition with these minor exceptions: 2 confederates – 1 learner role & 1 first teacher role Participant is assigned to second teacher role. Experimenter instructs that first teacher will go 1st
26 of 29
...
After 90V first teacher expresses doubt and eventually refuses to continue (and leaves room). Exp asks pp to take over.70% participants in base condition went to continue past 150V This was not significantly lower than in Milgram’s original – 82.5%
27 of 29
...
63.3% participants in modeled refusal condition went to continue This was not significantly different from rates in base condition
28 of 29
Dolinski et al., (2017)
Would Milgram’s results still be replicated 50 years later in 2015? used same pre screening as burger Obedience rate of 90% - participants willing to go past 150V. No sigeffect of gender of the learner. pp 3x more likely refuse if female learner
29 of 29
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Festinger, 1950)
Back
conversion is not based on power but subjective validity of social norms
Comments
No comments have yet been made