Conformity

what is internalisation?

-when a person genuinely accepts group norms

-private and public change of opinions/behaviour

-change is more likely to be permanent and persist in absence of group members as it has become part of how the person thinks

what is identification?

-when we identify with a group we value, we want to become part of it

-we publically change opinions/behaviour, even if we don't privately agree with everything the group stands for

what is compliance?

-'going along with others' in public but privately not changing opinions/behaviour

-results in only a superficial change and the behaviour stops as soon as group pressure ceases

what is informational social influence (ISI)?

-about information, a desire to be right

-a cognitive process- people generally want to be right

-you may not know answer but if most other people agree, you go along with them because you feel they are probably right

-most likely in situations which are new or where there is some ambiguity, so it isn't clear what is right

-may happen when decisions need to be made quickly and one person or group is considered 'more expert'

what is normative social influence (NSI)?

-about norms, a desire to behave like others and not look foolish

-an emotional process- people prefer social approval rather than rejection

-most likely in situations where you don't know the norms and look tk others about how to behave

-important with people you know rather than strangers because people more concerned about the social approval of friends

-may be more pronounced in stressful situations where people have a need for social support

strength of ISI: research support

-lucas et al. asked student to give answers to easy and more difficult maths problems

-more conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were more difficult. most true for students who rated their maths ability as poor

-people conform in situations where they feel they don't know the answer (ISI). we look to others and assume they know better than us and must be right

limitation of ISI: individual differences

-asch found that students were less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%)

-perrin and spencer's also found less conformity in students- in this study they were engineering students (confident about precision)

-people who are knowledgable and/or more confident are less influenced by the apparently 'right' view of a majority. therefore, there are individual differences in how individuals respond to ISI

limitation of ISI and NSI: 'two-process' approach is oversimplified

-this approach states that behaviour is due to either NSI and ISI

-however, conformity reduced when there was a dissenting partner in asch's experiment. dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (by providing social support) or reduce the power of ISI (because they are an alternative source of information

-therefore it isn't always possible to know whether NSI or ISI is at work. this questions the view of ISI and NSI as operating independently in conforming behaviours

strength of NSI: research support

-asch asked participants to explain why they agreed with the wrong answer. some said they felt self-conscious giving the right answer and afraid of disapproval

-when asch asked participants to write down their answers, conformity rates fell to 12.5%

-supports the participants own reports that they were conforming because of NSI

limitation of NSI: individual differences

-people who care more about being liked are more affected by NDI. they are mAffiliators

-mcghee and teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform

-desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others. one general theory does not cover the fact there are individual differences

what are nAffiliators?

people who have a greater need for social relationships

asch (1951) conformity research: procedure

-123 american males

-each tested individually with a group of six to eight confederates

-each trial participants identified the length of a standard line

-first few trials, confederates gave correct answers but then all selected the same wrong answers. each participant completed 18 trials, on 12 'critical trials' confederates gave the wrong answer

asch (1951) conformity research: findings & conclusions

-naive participants gave wrong answer 36.8% of the time. shows a high level of conformity, called the asch effect- the extent to which people conform in an ambiguous situation

-25% never gave a wrong answer, 75% conformed at least once, a few participants conformed most of the time

-most participants said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) and continued to privately trust their own opinions (compliance)

asch (1955) variables affecting conformity, group size: procedure

number of confederates varied between 1 and 15

asch (1955) variables affecting conformity, unanimity: procedure

asch introduced a truthful confederate or a confederate who was dissenting but inaccurate

asch (1955) variables affecting conformity, task difficulty: procedure

asch make the line-judging task harder by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar in length

asch (1955) variables affecting conformity, group size: findings & conclusions

-2 confederates: conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%

-3 confederates: rose to 31.8%

-adding any more confederates made little difference

asch (1955) variables affecting conformity, unanimity: findings & conclusions

-presence of a dissenting confederate reduced conformity, whether the dissenter was giving the right or wrong answer

-figure was, on average, 25% wrong answers

-having a dissenter enabled a naive participant to behave more independently

asch (1955) variables affecting conformity, task difficulty: findings & conclusions

-conformity increased when the task was more difficult

-so ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder

-the situation is more ambiguous, so we are more likely to look to others for guidance and assume they are right

limitation of asch: findings may be a 'child of the times'

-perrin and spencer found just one conforming response in 396 trials. participants (UK engineering students) felt more confident measuring lines than asch's original sample, so were less conformist

-the 1950s were also a conformist time in america and people might be less likely to conform in subsequent decades

-so the asch effect is not consistent over time, so is not an enduring feature of human behaviour

limitation of asch: situation and task were artificial

-participants knew they were in a study so may have just responded to demand characteristics

-the line task was trivial so there was no reason not to conform. also, the naive participants were in a 'group' but not like groups in everyday life

-findings do not generalise to everyday situations where consequences of conformity are important, and where we interact with groups more directly

limitation of asch: findings only apply to certain groups

-only men tested by asch. neto (1995) suggested that women might be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships and being accepted.

-participants from the usa- an individualist culture. smith and bond (1998) suggest that conformity rates are higher in collectivist cultures (e.g. china) which are more concerned with group needs

-suggests that conformity levels are sometimes even higher than asch found- his findings may be limited to american men

limitation of asch: findings only apply to certain situations

-participants answered out loud and were with a group of strangers they wanted to impress. conformity could be higher than usual

-but williams and sogon found conformity higher when the majority were friends rather than strangers

-therefore the asch effect varies depending on circumstances

ethical issues associated with asch's research

-naive participants were deceived. they thought the others in the procedure (confederates) were genuine

-but this ethical cost should be weighed against the potential benefits of the study

-the main benefit was highlighting people's susceptibility to group conformity and the variables surrounding it

zimbardo stanford prison experiment: procedure

-recruited 24 'emotionally stable' students determined by psychological testing: randomly allocated guard or prisoner

-to increase realism: 'prisoners' arrested in their homes and delivered to prison blindfolded. they were deloused, strip searched and given a uniform and number

-daily routines heavily regulated- 16 rules enforced by guards working in shifts three at a time

-de-individuation:

-prisoners names never used, only their numbers

-guards had their own uniform- wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades. told they had complete power over the prisoners i.e. deciding when they could go to the toilet

zimbardo stanford prison experiment: findings & conclusions

-after 2 days, prisoners rebelled against their treatment- ripped uniforms and swore at guards who retailiated with fire extinguishers

-guards harassed prisoners constantly by frequent headcounts, often at night

-guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules and punish slight mistakes

-guards took up their roles with enthusiasm & their behaviour often threatened prisoners' psychological and physical wellbeing (e.g. by putting a prisoner in 'the hole', a tiny dark closet, to punish him)- some prisoners released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance

-study stopped after 6 days instead of planned 14

-revealed the power of the situation to influence people's behaviour. all conformed to their roles within the prison

-the more the guards identified with their roles, the more brutal they became

strength of SPE: researchers had some control over variables

-emotionally stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard or prisoner

-the guards and prisoners has those roles only by chance. so their behaviour was due to the pressures of the situation and not their personalities

-control increases the study's internal validity. we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influences of social roles on behaviour

limitation of SPE: lack of realism

-banuazizi and mohavedi suggest participants were play-acting. their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards were supposed to behave

-one guard based his role on a character from the film cool hand luke. prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did

-but zimbardo's data showed 90% of the prisoners' conversations were about prison life. the simulation seemed real to them, increasing the study's internal validity

limitation of SPE: fromm argues that zimbardo understated dispositional influences

-only a third of the guards behaved brutally. another third applied the rules fairly. the rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges

-zimbardo's conclusion, that participants conformed to social roles, may be over-stated, exaggerating the power of the situation

-the differences in the guards' behaviour show that they could exercise right and wrong choices, despite situational pressures to conform to a role

limitation of SPE: lacks research support and has been contradicted by subsequent research

-reicher and haslam partially replicated the SPE, with different findings. prisoners eventually took control

-tajfel's social identity theory (SIT) explains this. guards in the replication failed to develop shared social identity as a group, but prisoners did and refused to accept limits of their assigned roles

-so the brutality of the guards in the original SPE was due to a shared social identity as a cohesive group, rather than conformity to their social roles

limitation of SPE: major ethical issues

-one issue arose because zimbardo was both researcher and prison superintendent

-a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to zimbardo, who responded as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher

-this limited zimbardo's ability to protect his participants from harm because his superintendent role conflicted with his lead researcher role

procedure of milgram original obedience study

-recruited 40 male participants through volunteer sample. ad said he was looking for participants for a memory study

-told they could leave study at any time

-learner (confederate) strapped into chair with electrodes behind wall. experimenter (confederate) in lab coat. teacher (naive) sat at desk opposite side of wall

-whenever learner made mistake on task (learning word pairs) the teacher was instructed to give gradually increasing shocks through 15 volts (labelled 'slight shock' on machine) to 450 volts ('danger- severe shock')

-after 300 & 315 volt shock learner pounded on wall and gave no answer to next question

-when teacher turned to experimenter for guidance he gave standard instruction 'absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'

-if teacher felt unsure about continuing- the experimenter used a sequence of four standard 'prods'

what were the four standard 'prods'?

prod one: 'please continue' or 'please go on'

prod two: 'the experiment requires that you continue'

prod three: 'it is absolutely essential that you continue'

prod four: 'you have no other choice, you must go on'

findings & conclusions of milgram's original obedience study

-no participant stopped below 300 volts

-12.5% stopped at 300 volts

-65% continues to 450 volts

-observations (qualitative data) showed participants showed signs on extreme tension: sweating, trembling, biting their lips, groaning, digging fingernails into palms. 3 had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'

-prior to study milgram asked 14 psych students to predict results. estimated no more than 3% of them would continue to 450 volts- therefore the results were unexpected

-participants debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal. in follow-up questionnaire 84% reported they were glad to have participated. 74& said they learned something of personal importance

limitation of milgram's study: lacked internal validity

-orne and holland suggest participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. so milgram was not testing what he intended to test (obedience)

-however, sheriden and king's participants gave real shocks to a puppy: 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock

-so the obedience in milgram's study might be genuine. 70% of milgram's participants believed the shocks were genuine

strength of milgram's study: has good external validity

-milgram argues that the lab-based relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships

-hofling et al. found that levels of obedience in nurses on a hospital ward to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21/22 nurses obeyed)

-therefore the process of obedience in milgram's study can be generalised

strength of milgram's study: replications have supported his research findings

-in a french documentary contestants in a reality TV show were paid to give (fake) electric shocks- when ordered by the presenter- to other participants (actors)

-80% gave the maximum 450 volts to an apparently unconscious man. their behaviour was like that of milgram's participants e.g. many signs of anxiety

-this supports milgram's original conclusions about obedience to authority and shows that his findings were not just a one-off

limitation of milgram's study: social identity theory (SIT) is an alternative explanation to milgram's

-obedience is about group identification. milgram's participants identified with the experiments (the science of the study). when obedience levels fell, the participants identified more with the victim

-haslam and reicher suggest the first 3 'prods' are appeals for help with science ('experiment requires you continue'). only the 4th prod demands obedience. every time this was used, the participant quit.

-the participants did not give shocks due to obedience, but due to their identification with the experimenter as a scientist (as explained by SIT)

limitation of milgram's study: ethical issues

-baumrind criticised milgram's deceptions. participants believed the allocation of roles was randomly allocated, but it was fixed

-the most significant deception was that participants believed that the electric shocks were real. baumrind objected because deception is a betrayal of trust that damages the reputation of psychologists and their research

-deception of participants may also make them less likely to volunteer for future research

what are the explanations for obedience based on situational variables?

-proximity

-location

-uniform

milgrams study: proximity

-original study: teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms. teacher could hear the learner but not see him

-in proximity variation, teacher and learner in the same room, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%

-in touch proximity variation, teacher had to force learners hand onto shock plate. obedience rate dropped to 30%

-in 'remote-instruction' proximity variation, experimenter left room and gave instructions by phone. obedience rate dropped to 20.5%. participants also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones when they were ordered to.

milgrams study: location

-location of the obedience study was a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted (yale university)

-obedience fell to 47.5%. indicates that the experimenter has less authority in this setting.

milgrams study: uniform

-original baseline study: experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority

-in one variation: experimenter called away because of an inconvenient phone call at start of procedure. role of the experimenter taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat

-obedience rate dropped to 20%, lowest of the variations

-suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol and a cue to behave in an obedient manner.

strength of milgrams variations: research support for the influence of situational variables

-bickman looked at the effect of authority on obedience (confederate dressed in jacket/tie, milkman or security guard). the confederate asked passers-by to provide a coin for the parking meter, for example

-people were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ rather than the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate

-this supports milgrams conclusion that a uniform conveys authority and is a situational factor producing obedience

limitation of milgrams variations: may lack internal validity

-orne and holland suggest participants in milgrams variations were even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of the extra experimental manipulation

-in the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a ‘member of the public’, even milgrams recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out

-so it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and ‘play acted’

strength of milgrams variations: been replicated in other cultures

-miranda et al. found over 90% obedience in spanish students. milgrams findings are not limited to american males

-however, smith and bond note that most replications have taken place in western societies (e.g. spain), culturally not that different from the USA

-it is premature to conclude that milgrams findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people everywhere

strength of milgrams variations: has control of variables

-milgrams systematically altered one variable at a time to test results on obedience

-other variables were kept consistent as the study was replicated many times with over 1000 participants

-this control gives us more certainty that changes in obedience were caused by the variable manipulated (e.g. location), showing cause and effect relationships

limitation of milgrams variables: conclusions provide an 'obedience alibi'

-milgrams findings are an ‘excuse’ for obedience- suggesting that it is the situation not the person who is responsible

-mandel claims this is offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that the nazis simply obeyed orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control

-milgrams situational perspective is dangerous because it ignores the roles that discrimination, racism and prejudice played in the holocaust

explanations for obedience: social-psychological factors

agentic state and legitimacy of authority

when does an agentic state occur?

-when we act on behalf of another person

-milgram proposed that obedience tk destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an 'agent', someone who acts for or in place of another

-in an agentic state, a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions

what is the opposite of an agentic state?

-an autonomous state

-'autonomy' means to be independent or free

-so a person in an autonomous state behaves according to their own principles and feels responsible for their own actions

what is an agentic shift

the shift from autonomy to being an 'agent'

when does an agentic shift occur?

-when a person defers to the authority figure

-milgram suggested this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. this person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy

what are binding factors?

-aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the 'moral strain' they feel

-milgram proposed a number of strategies the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing to victims

we obey people at the top of a social hierarchy

-most societies structured hierarchically

-people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us

-parent, teachers, police officers, nightclub bouncers, all have some kind of authority over us

how do authorities have legitimacy?

-it is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society

-most of us accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly

one consequence of legitimate authority

-some people are granted the power to punish others

-we give up some of our independence to people we trust to exercise their authority properly

-we learned to accept this authority during childhood from parents and teachers

charismatic leaders use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes

history has shown too often that leaders (e.g. hitler, stalin, pol pot) use legitimate authority destructively, ordering people to behave in callous, cruel, dangerous and stupid ways

strength of the agentic state: has research support

-blass and schmidt showed students a film of milgram study and asked them to identify who was responsible for harm to the learner

-students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the participant. this responsibility was due to the legitimate authority (the 'experimenter' was top of the hierarchy) but also to expert authority (he was a scientist)

-the students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation

limitation of the agentic shift: doesn't explain many of the research findings

-some participants did not obey- humans are social animals in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey

-also, in hofling et al.’s study, nurses should have shown anxiety as they have responsibility over to the doctor, because they understood their role in a destructive process. but this was not the case

-so agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience

limitation of the agentic state: cannot account for the behaviour of the nazis

-mandel described german reserve police battalion 101 - men shot civilians in a small town in poland (WW2)

-they did this even though they were not directly ordered to (they were told they could be assigned other duties)

-this challenges the agentic state explanation because the reserve police was not powerless to disobey

strength of legitimacy of authority: useful account of cultural differences in obedience

-counties differ in obedience to authority: only 16% of australians went to the top of the voltage scale (kilham and mann); 85% of german participants did (mantell 1971)

-authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures. this reflects how different societies are structured and children raised to perceive authority figures

-supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the explanation

strength of legitimacy of authority: can explain real-life obedience

-kelman and hamilton suggest the my lai massacre (vietnam war) is explained by the power hierarchy of the us army

-the army has authority recognised by the us governmeny and the law. soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal; even orders to kill, rape and destroy villages

-the legitimacy of authority explanation is able to give reasons why destructive obedience is committed

what is a dispositional explanation for obedience?

the authoritarian personality

a high level of obedience is pathological

therefore, adorno et al. wanted to understand the anti-semitism of the holocaust. they believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder, and tried to find its causes in the individuals personality.

what did adorno et al. conclude about people with an authoritarian personality?

-extremely obedient to authority

-have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it

-express contempt for people of inferior social status

-have conventional attitudes towards race and gender

where does the authoritarian personality originate/form?

-form in childhood through harsh parenting: extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism

-it is also characterised by conditional love- parents' love depends entirely on how their child behaves

where is hostility towards/fear of parents displaced? (authoritarian personality)

-these experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, but they cannot express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear reprisals

-so the feelings are displaced onto others who are seen as weaker- this is scapegoating. this explains hatred of people seen as socially inferior, a psychodynamic explanation

procedure of adorno et al.: the authoritarian personality

-investigated unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups of more than 2000 middle-class white americans

-several scales were developed, including the potential for facism scale (F-scale)

give examples from the F-scale

-'obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn'

-'there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents'

findings and conclusions of adorno et al.: the authoritarian personality

-authoritarians (people who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous of the 'weak'

-they were conscious of their own and others' status, showing excessive respect and deference to those of higher status

-authoritarian people also had a cognitive style where there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups

strength of the authoritarian personality: support for the link between authoritarian personality and obedience

-elms and milgram interviews fully obedient participants- all scored highly on the F-scale

-however, this link is just a correlation between measured variables. we cannot conclude from this that authoritarian personality causes obedience

-a ‘third factor’ may be involved. both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education (hyman and sheatsley)

limitation of the authoritarian personality: explanation is limited

-millions of individuals in germany displayed obedient and anti-semitic behaviour- but didn't have the same personality

-it seems unlikely that the majority of germanys population possessed an authoritarian personality

-an alternative explanation is more realistic- social identity theory. most germany identified with the anti-semitic nazi state and adopted its views

limitation of the F-scale: it is politically biased

-christie and jahoda suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology

-but right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism (e.g. chinese maoism) both insist on complete obedience to political authority

-adornos theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation of obedience to authority because it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism. i.e. it is politically biased.

limitation of authoritarian personality. explanation is based on a flawed methodology

-greenstein suggests the F-scale is a ‘comedy of methodological errors’, for example items are worded in the same ‘direction’ so the scale just measures the tendency to agree to everything

-also, researchers knew the participants test scores when they interviewed them. so they know who had authoritarian personalities. they also knew they study’s hypothesis, which makes biased results likely

-this suggests that the data collected is meaningless and the concept of authoritarian personality lacks validity

limitation of research into authoritarian personality: uses correlations

-adorno measured many variables and found significant correlations between them (e.g. authoritarianism correlated with prejudice against minority groups)

-no matter how strong a correlation between two variables is, it does not mean that one causes the other

-therefore adorno could not claim that harsh parenting style caused development of an authoritarian personality

explanations of resistance to social influence

-social support

-locus of control (LOC)