Paper 1 - Revision notes
Types of conformity and explanations for conformity
Types
Compliance
- Go along with majority to avoid rejection
- Adjust actions to fit in (desirable) - public approval
Internalisation
- Deepest level of conformity (permanent)
- changes public and private beliefs
- examine own behaviour to see if its right - trustworthy group leads to change.
Identification
- accept influence -> associated with group
- mix of compliance and internalisation
- accept views = I / to be accepted = C e.g. Smoking
Explanations
Normative social influence
- compliance
- fear of rejection
- works if under surveillance
Informational social influence
- accept info as evidence of reality
- humans- need to be confident of their perception
- rely on expert opinions in ambiguous situations
- form of internalisations - comply and change.
Evaluations
1) Difficult to distinguish compliance and internalisation.
C - occurred publicly but dissipates later - forgotten info/received new info
I - comply publicly but self perceptions = acceptance of views later.
2) research support for normative Social Influence.
There is a relationship between normative beliefs and smoking
- adolescents exposed to message of peers not smoking = likelihood to not smoke
(manipulates people)
supports idea that people shape their behaviour in order to fit in.
3) Research support Informational Influence
The exposure to other peoples beliefs has influence on social stereotypes.
- People exposed to negative stereotypes about African Americans were later reported to have more negative opinions about black individuals
Therefore supporting the idea that people rely on information given to them in order to change their beliefs.
Variables affecting Conformity
Key Study - ASCH
Aim
- to see how the lone participant would react to behaviour of the confederates. whether they would stick to what they believe.
Procedure
- 123 male - student volunteers
- three lines of different length - which was the same as standard line.
Findings
- 12 critical trials - conformity was 33% (a third)
- 1/4 ppts never conformed
- 1/2 conformed on 6 or more of critical trials.
- one conformed in all 12 critical trials
Interviews - they conformed publicly, privately believed in own perceptions, avoid disapproval. (compliance)
Group size
1-2 = little conformity
3+ = increase conformity up to 30% (but no more)
however - group size may have different effect depending on the type of judgement made
Unanimity of the majority
participants given support - confederate/real ppts - conformity dropped 33% - 5.5%
Breaking the groups unanimous position plays a major factor in conformity in reduction.
Difficulty of the task
asch - line difference smaller(correct answer less obvious)
= conformity increased
self efficacy
high self efficacy - less conformity
low self efficacy - higher conformity
situational differences and individual differences
Evaluations
1) Asch's research may be a 'child of its time'
findings unique - period of time when conformity was high
scared to go against majority
Study repeated
1- engineer students - one conforming response
2- youth on probation + probation officers -similar results as Asch
= conformity is more likely when the costs of not conforming high
2) Problems with determining the effects of group size
Bond suggested - limited group size used.
- quick to accept Asch's conclusion
- Asch only exp that tested groups with 9+
Little is known of the effects of larger groups
3) Independent behaviour rather than conformity
1/3 - conforming response
2/3 - stuck to own judgement despite the majority
demonstrated independent behaviour than conformity
4) Cultural differences in conformity
average conformity over different cultures - 31.2%
individualist - 25%
collectivist - 37%
conformity is more favours in collectivist - social glue for communities.
Types of conformity and explanations for conformity
Types
Compliance
- Go along with majority to avoid rejection
- Adjust actions to fit in (desirable) - public approval
Internalisation
- Deepest level of conformity (permanent)
- changes public and private beliefs
- examine own behaviour to see if its right - trustworthy group leads to change.
Identification
- accept influence -> associated with group
- mix of compliance and internalisation
- accept views = I / to be accepted = C e.g. Smoking
Explanations
Normative social influence
- compliance
- fear of rejection
- works if under surveillance
Informational social influence
- accept info as evidence of reality
- humans- need to be confident of their perception
- rely on expert opinions in ambiguous situations
- form of internalisations - comply and change.
Evaluations
1) Difficult to distinguish compliance and internalisation.
C - occurred publicly but dissipates later - forgotten info/received new info
I - comply publicly but self perceptions = acceptance of views later.
2) research support for normative Social Influence.
There is a relationship between normative beliefs and smoking
- adolescents exposed to message of peers not smoking = likelihood to not smoke
(manipulates people)
supports idea that people shape their behaviour in order to fit in.
3) Research support Informational Influence
The exposure to other peoples beliefs has influence on social stereotypes.
- People exposed to negative stereotypes about African Americans were later reported to have more negative opinions about black individuals
Therefore supporting the idea that people rely on information given to them in order to change their beliefs.
Variables affecting Conformity
Key Study - ASCH
Aim
- to see how the lone participant would react to behaviour of the confederates. whether they would stick to what they believe.
Procedure
- 123 male - student volunteers
- three lines of different length - which was the same as standard line.
Findings
- 12 critical trials - conformity was 33% (a third)
- 1/4 ppts never conformed
- 1/2 conformed on 6 or more of critical trials.
- one conformed in all 12 critical trials
Interviews - they conformed publicly, privately believed in own perceptions, avoid disapproval. (compliance)
Group size
1-2 = little conformity
3+ = increase conformity up to 30% (but no more)
however - group size may have different effect depending on the type of judgement made
Unanimity of the majority
participants given support - confederate/real ppts - conformity dropped 33% - 5.5%
Breaking the groups unanimous position plays a major factor in conformity in reduction.
Difficulty of the task
asch - line difference smaller(correct answer less obvious)
= conformity increased
self efficacy
high self efficacy - less conformity
low self efficacy - higher conformity
situational differences and individual differences
Evaluations
1) Asch's research may be a 'child of its time'
findings unique - period of time when conformity was high
scared to go against majority
Study repeated
1- engineer students - one conforming response
2- youth on probation + probation officers -similar results as Asch
= conformity is more likely when the costs of not conforming high
2) Problems with determining the effects of group size
Bond suggested - limited group size used.
- quick to accept Asch's conclusion
- Asch only exp that tested groups with 9+
Little is known of the effects of larger groups
3) Independent behaviour rather than conformity
1/3 - conforming response
2/3 - stuck to own judgement despite the majority
demonstrated independent behaviour than conformity
4) Cultural differences in conformity
average conformity over different cultures - 31.2%
individualist - 25%
collectivist - 37%
conformity is more favours in collectivist - social glue for communities.
Conformity to social roles
Social roles - behaviour expected of a person who holds a certain position or status
Key study - Stanford Prison Experiment (hanley et al)
Procedure
- 24 stable male student volunteers - prisoners/guards
Prisoners - arrested, stripped of rights except for meals, trips and visitors.
- Was supposed to last 2 weeks.
Findings
first few days
Guards - tyrannical, abusive + degrading activities
Ppt - forgot it was a study, unawer of observations, ask for parole instead of withdraw
Terminated after 6 days
guards and prisoners conformed to roles
guards - cruel sadistic
Prisoners - passive and accepting
Other Research - BBC Prison Study
Procedure
15 male participants
5 groups of 3 - one guard. two prisoners
matched on personality
Findings
didn't conform automatically
prisoners identified as group - worked collectively
guards reluctant to impose authority
Shift of power. collapse of guard-prisoner system
Evaluation
1) Conformity to roles is not automatic
Zimbardo - guards conform automatically
SPE - guards behaviour varied
good guards - X abuse/harass - did favours
their is a choice and not blindly conforming.
2) The problem with demand characteristics
researchers exposed some details of experiment to large sample of student who haven't heard of experiment. - correctly guessed aim
predicted the findings.
3)Were these studies ethical?
Zimbardo - ethical to Stanford guidelines
- no deception
- debriefed for several years - no lasting effects
Situational variables affecting obedience
Key study - Milgram
Procedure
- 40 participants - different conditions
- false aim - 2 confederate = experimenter, learner
- ppts - teacher, give shock (fake)
prods were given if ppts asked to stop
Findings
Milgram asked for predictions to when they will stop
predicted - up to 150v
1 in 1000 - 450v
reality
65% - 450v
100% - 300v
Situational factors in obedience
Proximity
- teacher+learner in same room
= obedience - fell 40%
- Experimenter absent
= 21% - continue to 450v
Location
location = confidence
laboratory = increase obedience
run-down = slight drop obedience - 48% - 450v
The power of uniform
bushman
female - change for parking meter - officer(72%), business executive(48%), beggar(58%)
- obeyed bc appeared to have authority.
Evaluation
1) Ethical Issues
- lack concern for well-being
- deceived ppt
- difficult to withdraw - prods given
2) Internal validity: a lack of realism
- ppts distrust experiment
- know aim is disguised
- experimenter remained calm - suspicious
- no real harm conflicted
3) Individual difference: the influence of gender
- individual differences - underestimated
- assumed - females more susceptible to social influence
found self reported tension - higher
- obedience level same as men
Key study - Stanford Prison Experiment (hanley et al)
Procedure
- 24 stable male student volunteers - prisoners/guards
Prisoners - arrested, stripped of rights except for meals, trips and visitors.
- Was supposed to last 2 weeks.
Findings
first few days
Guards - tyrannical, abusive + degrading activities
Ppt - forgot it was a study, unawer of observations, ask for parole instead of withdraw
Terminated after 6 days
guards and prisoners conformed to roles
guards - cruel sadistic
Prisoners - passive and accepting
Other Research - BBC Prison Study
Procedure
15 male participants
5 groups of 3 - one guard. two prisoners
matched on personality
Findings
didn't conform automatically
prisoners identified as group - worked collectively
guards reluctant to impose authority
Shift of power. collapse of guard-prisoner system
Evaluation
1) Conformity to roles is not automatic
Zimbardo - guards conform automatically
SPE - guards behaviour varied
good guards - X abuse/harass - did favours
their is a choice and not blindly conforming.
2) The problem with demand characteristics
researchers exposed some details of experiment to large sample of student who haven't heard of experiment. - correctly guessed aim
predicted the findings.
3)Were these studies ethical?
Zimbardo - ethical to Stanford guidelines
- no deception
- debriefed for several years - no lasting effects
Situational variables affecting obedience
Key study - Milgram
Procedure
- 40 participants - different conditions
- false aim - 2 confederate = experimenter, learner
- ppts - teacher, give shock (fake)
prods were given if ppts asked to stop
Findings
Milgram asked for predictions to when they will stop
predicted - up to 150v
1 in 1000 - 450v
reality
65% - 450v
100% - 300v
Situational factors in obedience
Proximity
- teacher+learner in same room
= obedience - fell 40%
- Experimenter absent
= 21% - continue to 450v
Location
location = confidence
laboratory = increase obedience
run-down = slight drop obedience - 48% - 450v
The power of uniform
bushman
female - change for parking meter - officer(72%), business executive(48%), beggar(58%)
- obeyed bc appeared to have authority.
Evaluation
1) Ethical Issues
- lack concern for well-being
- deceived ppt
- difficult to withdraw - prods given
2) Internal validity: a lack of realism
- ppts distrust experiment
- know aim is disguised
- experimenter remained calm - suspicious
- no real harm conflicted
3) Individual difference: the influence of gender
- individual differences - underestimated
- assumed - females more susceptible to social influence
found self reported tension - higher
- obedience level same as men
Agentic state and Legitimacy of authority
The agentic state
- not responsible for own actions
- Agentic shift - autonomous-agentic
- Self image - maintain positive image, not responsible = no bad image
- binding factors - breaking commitment deemed bad. remain in agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
- Someone who is perceived to be in position of social control.
- expect authority figure - milgram exp - researcher
- definition of situation - suffering - stop, experimenter prod - continue
- require institution - legitimate - institutional structure
Milgram = Yale - run-down building.
Evaluations
The agentic state
- not responsible for own actions
- Agentic shift - autonomous-agentic
- Self image - maintain positive image, not responsible = no bad image
- binding factors - breaking commitment deemed bad. remain in agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
- Someone who is perceived to be in position of social control.
- expect authority figure - milgram exp - researcher
- definition of situation - suffering - stop, experimenter prod - continue
- require institution - legitimate - institutional structure
Milgram = Yale - run-down building.
Evaluations
1) Agentic state explanation and real-life obedience- milgram - rapid agentic shift
- gradual + irreversible shift - german - vile + lethal exp on prisoners
- not agentic shift, evil experience over time.
2) Agentic state or plain cruel
- miglram - detected signs of cruely
- brought out sadistic impulses
- no authority figure saying so
- unflattering human nature.
3) Legitimate authority explanation and real-life obedience.
- gradual + irreversible shift - german - vile + lethal exp on prisoners
- not agentic shift, evil experience over time.
2) Agentic state or plain cruel
- miglram - detected signs of cruely
- brought out sadistic impulses
- no authority figure saying so
- unflattering human nature.
3) Legitimate authority explanation and real-life obedience.
- legitimacy - basis for harming others ,
= morals aren't relevant - not to blame - historic examples
The authoritarian Personality
- dispositional explanation for obedience- f-scale - agree w/ statement = AP
= rigid thinkers, obeyed authority,
raised by authoritarian style - assume expected norm.
imitation + learning - develop authoritarian personality
Right-wing Authoritarianism
high RWA:
Conventionalism - stick to norm + values
Authoritarian aggression - aggressive->violation of norms
Authoritarian submission - to legitimate authority
Key study - Elms + Milgram
Procedure
- follow up study
- 20 obedient/20 disobedient ppts
- mmpi scale + f-scale + open ended question
Findings
- obedient, disobedient - MMPI scale = little difference
- obedient = higher authoritarianism
=> less likely to describe father positively
= rigid thinkers, obeyed authority,
raised by authoritarian style - assume expected norm.
imitation + learning - develop authoritarian personality
Right-wing Authoritarianism
high RWA:
Conventionalism - stick to norm + values
Authoritarian aggression - aggressive->violation of norms
Authoritarian submission - to legitimate authority
Key study - Elms + Milgram
Procedure
- follow up study
- 20 obedient/20 disobedient ppts
- mmpi scale + f-scale + open ended question
Findings
- obedient, disobedient - MMPI scale = little difference
- obedient = higher authoritarianism
=> less likely to describe father positively
Evaluations
1) The social context is more important
specific social situations = obey/resist - not personality.
= milgram - proximity, location etc)
2) Education may determine authoritarianism and obedience
less educated = more authoritarianism
milgram - ppts ^
3) differences between authoritarian and obedient participants.
- important characteristics
- obedient - good relations with parents
- authoritarians - strict parenting
Resistance to social influence
less educated = more authoritarianism
milgram - ppts ^
3) differences between authoritarian and obedient participants.
- important characteristics
- obedient - good relations with parents
- authoritarians - strict parenting
Resistance to social influence
Social support
resisting conformity
Asch - breaking unanimity 33% - 5.5%
presence allows independent assessment
resisting obedience
Milgram - ally = 10% - 450v
disobedience = confidence.
resisting conformity
Asch - breaking unanimity 33% - 5.5%
presence allows independent assessment
resisting obedience
Milgram - ally = 10% - 450v
disobedience = confidence.
Locus of control
- personal perception, personal control - own behaviour
- internality - rely les on others, resist social influence
- externality - passive, fatalistic attitude - accept social influence
internality and resistance to social influence
1. active seekers of info
- wont rely on others opinion
2. achievement orientated
- likely to become leaders- prisoner-war - resist interrogation
3. resist coercion from others.
- prisoner/war -resist interrogation
- personal perception, personal control - own behaviour
- internality - rely les on others, resist social influence
- externality - passive, fatalistic attitude - accept social influence
internality and resistance to social influence
1. active seekers of info
- wont rely on others opinion
2. achievement orientated
- likely to become leaders- prisoner-war - resist interrogation
3. resist coercion from others.
- prisoner/war -resist interrogation
Evaluations
1) social support: may not have to be valid for a responseacsh - visual discrimination
glasses - (invalid) had slight impact
no glasses - (valid) more impact - more effective if valid
2) Locus of control related to normative but not informational
external conform - normative
no correlation - informational
3) locus of control: ppl more external than past
- meta analysis
young American - more external (1960 - 2002)
= alienation and misfortune experienced - young people
Minority Influence
-a form of social influence - minority persuade the majority to change view
Consistency
- others re-assess situation carefully
- (meta analysis) consistent minority - more influential
Commitment
- suggest - courage, confidence
- minority - greater cost
- taken seriously
Flexibility
- negotiate postition
- rigid minority = dogmatic
- too flexible = inconsistent
some degree - effective
Key study - Moscovici et.al
Procedure
4 naïve - 2 confederates
- blue - green
1- confederates consistently - green
2- confederates inconsistently - greem
3- control - no confederates
Findings
consistent - influence minority
inconsistent - little influence
Evaluation
1) Research support flexibility
jury situation -compensation ski lift accident
- rigid alternative - no effect on group
- compromising alternative - some influence
late shift (flexibility) = influence
early shift (cave in) = little influence
2) The real value of minority influence
dissent opens mind - ppl search for info. = more creative = improved decision quality - exposed to minority perspective.
-a form of social influence - minority persuade the majority to change view
Consistency
- others re-assess situation carefully
- (meta analysis) consistent minority - more influential
Commitment
- suggest - courage, confidence
- minority - greater cost
- taken seriously
Flexibility
- negotiate postition
- rigid minority = dogmatic
- too flexible = inconsistent
some degree - effective
Key study - Moscovici et.al
Procedure
4 naïve - 2 confederates
- blue - green
1- confederates consistently - green
2- confederates inconsistently - greem
3- control - no confederates
Findings
consistent - influence minority
inconsistent - little influence
Evaluation
1) Research support flexibility
jury situation -compensation ski lift accident
- rigid alternative - no effect on group
- compromising alternative - some influence
late shift (flexibility) = influence
early shift (cave in) = little influence
2) The real value of minority influence
dissent opens mind - ppl search for info. = more creative = improved decision quality - exposed to minority perspective.
3) Do we really process minority's message more.
minority X greater processing
majority = greater processing
majority = similar views
when views change = we question why
waste time on minority view - less influential
Social influence processes in social change
Social change through minority influence
1. Drawing attention to an issue
creates conflict
suffragettes = educational, militant tactics
2. Cognitive conflict
conflict = majority to think deeply
moved towards position advocated - suffragettes
3. Consistency of position
consistency = influential
suffragettes - protest for years
4. The augmentation principle
willing to suffer - committed
suffragettes - imprisonment, death by hunger
5. the snowball effect
spreads - more consider
universal suffrage - voting rights
minority X greater processing
majority = greater processing
majority = similar views
when views change = we question why
waste time on minority view - less influential
Social influence processes in social change
Social change through minority influence
1. Drawing attention to an issue
creates conflict
suffragettes = educational, militant tactics
2. Cognitive conflict
conflict = majority to think deeply
moved towards position advocated - suffragettes
3. Consistency of position
consistency = influential
suffragettes - protest for years
4. The augmentation principle
willing to suffer - committed
suffragettes - imprisonment, death by hunger
5. the snowball effect
spreads - more consider
universal suffrage - voting rights
Social Change through Minority influence (conformity)
- behaviour based on what people think or believe others do
- correcting misperceptions (gap between perceived norm + actual norm
- correcting misperceptions (gap between perceived norm + actual norm
Social norms interventions
- identify misperception
- perception correction strategies (ads - most of us don't drink and drive)
- moderate own behaviour
- identify misperception
- perception correction strategies (ads - most of us don't drink and drive)
- moderate own behaviour
No comments:
Post a Comment