Sociocultural ERQ

Conformity, SIT, SCT

Conformity

Conformity is a change of behavior as a result of real or imagined group pressure and norms

Conformity is the result of?

Social comparison, the tendency to compare ourselves to others around us to validate our behavior

Conformity is the result of which two key factors?

Informational Social influence and normative social influence

Information social influence

One’s need for certainty. So when we are in ambiguous situations we engage in social comparison

Normative social influence

Our need for social acceptance and approval. We conform to be accepted and to fit in, group influence.

Asch - Aim

To test the power of formative social influence on one’s likelihood to conform in a non ambiguous task

Asch - procedure

• lab experiment

• 50 male students

• told to be taking part in a vision test

• IV: unanimous incorrect response

• DV: level of conformity, agreeing with the incorrect response

• there was a naive participants and 6 confederates

• presented participants with an ambiguous stimulus, on card 1 there was a single line

• asked to choose the line on card 2 which was the same length as the first card

• 6 confederates were instructed to give wrong answers on certain trials and a naive participant alway answered second to last

• 18 trials - asked to compare the lines 18 times and 12/18 of those times were answered incorrectly

• control: 18 trials without the confederates present and only experimenter

• then carried out interviews

Asch - Results

• 12 critical trials - 75% participants conformed at least once

• 25% never conformed

• control = less than 1 % gave the wrong answer

Asch - findings

concluded that one of 3 reasons they conformed

• genuinely thought thy were wrong

• unsure of answer

• didn’t want to be ridiculed

Asch - GRAVE

Validity: done in a lab, no personal connection to the confederates nor the task - lacks mundane realism and has low ecological validity

Credibility: even through the use of interviews, hard to determine why an individual behaved the way they did. no way to know what they were thinking during the experiment only through memory recall

Abrams - aim

To determine if in group identity would affect one’s willingness to conform

Abrams - procedure

• independent samples design

• included 4 groups

• 2 independent variables

  • one

    • if they were from the in group (psych students)

    • or out group (history students)

  • two

    • if the participants responses were public or private

      

• 50 students- 23 males 27 females

• 3 confederates were introduced either as a first year student from the psych department (in) or history (out)

• shown a stimulus line + 3 other lines

• asked which was the same length as the stimulus line

• identify which of the 3 lines matched the stimulus line

• 18 trials

• 9 trials = confederates gave the right response

• other 9 = unanimous incorrect response

• each session

  • confederates and one naive participant sat in a row facing the monitor

  • public condition:

    • 4 members of the group gave their judgements aloud

    • recorded the real participants response

  • private condition:

    • A participant was asked to privately record responses while confederates gave their judgments aloud.

In group

group we identify with, we belong to

out group

the group we don’t belong to

Abrams - results

77% of all paticipants conformed to the wrong confederate judgements on at least one trial

no gender differences

conforming responses was 32%

conformity was the most in in group public condition

least conformity in group private and out group private did not differ

Abrams findings

social categorization plays a role in a decision to conform publicly

less likely to conform when they can do so privately

Abrams GRAVE

• validity; low ecological validity

  • does not mimic naturalistic situation

• or high internal validity

  • high level of control allows us to see a casual relationship between group membership and the DV

  • rate of conformity to an incorrect response

• Generalizability

  • low generalizability because only used uni students who tend to be

  • YAVIS: young, affluent, verbal, intelligent, and social

CAPER conformity - reductionist

overlooks the complex interplay of factors such as personal values, emotions, and contextual situational variables.

CAPER conformity - alternative theory

SIT focuses on personal belonging, so intrinsic pressures where conformity focuses on external pressures to seek validation

While conformity theory focuses on external pressures to align with majority norms, SIT posits that individuals conform to strengthen their identification with their social groups, driven by a desire for belonging and self-esteem. This perspective highlights in-group dynamics, suggesting that people may behave in ways that favor their group, thereby resisting conformist pressures from out-groups.

CAPER conformity - practical application

• Marketing and Advertising: Understanding how social proof can influence consumer behavior to drive sales.

• Education: Employing group dynamics to facilitate learning and teamwork.

• Organizational Behavior: Utilizing conformity insights to promote company culture and values.

SIT

Individuals self concept derived from perceived membership of social groups

perceived: what people think of you

associated with the membership of groups we’re part of

What are the two aspects oof social identity?

personal identity

• personality, self knowledge, attributes, humor

social identity

• self concept from group membership

• could be part of personal identity, the values we take in from groups

What are the 3 psychological mechanisms part of SIT?

social categorization, social identification, social comparison/positive distinctiveness

Social categorization

Identifying which groups we belong to

in group = the group we are belonging to other us

out-group is the group we dont belong to the they and them

Social identification

identify with the values and behavior of the group

when social identity becomes personal

values shape who we are, the group is part of us and shapes how we see ourselves

Social comparison/positive distinctiveness

justifying our group membership

seeking positive self esteem

comparing in group to an out group on some dimension to achieve positive distinctness

favor traits of our in group → even groups we didnt choose

Sherif - aim

To study if conflict between groups could be diminished if they worked together on a superordinate goal and to study informal groups and observe the natural and spontaneous developments of group organization attitudes and group norms and realistic conflict theory

Superordinate goal = goals achieved by the contribution and cooperation of two or more people with individual goals that are normally in opposition, working together

What is realistic conflict theory

Groups that are positively independent, working towards common goals, will have good intergroup relations

groups that are negatively independent, in competition for scarce resources will create conflict and ethnocentric attitudes

Sherif - procedure and results

• 22 boys, aged 11-12

  • above average intelligence, from stable white protestant middle class homes

• field experiment

• randomly assigned boys to 2 groups

• organized a summer camp with camp staff

• collected data by making written records of observed behavior + using cameras and mics

• Stage 1: groups were kept separate from each other and played activities to help the group bond and create an identity

  • chose name for the group

  • eagles and rattlers

  • stenciled their team name onto shirts and flags

  • to establish group identities

• Stage 2: researchers introduced conflict through games

  • one winner and one loser

  • fight over resources

  • group delayed getting to a picnic so the other group ate their food

  • During this stage

    • name calling

    • solidarity increased within each group

    • hostility towards other group

      • stealing the flag and burning it

  • established that conflict and negative attitues can arise from group identity and fighting for resources

• 2 day cooling off period

  • asked to list features of the two groups

  • characterized their own in group in favorable terms

  • out group in unfavorable terms

• Stage 3: series of situations to make the boys work together, both groups

  • camp truck was breaking down

  • cooperate to pull the truck

  • Results: superordinate goals eased the tension between groups

  • no longer intergroup hostility

Sherif - findings

revealed how intergroup conflict and negative intergroup attitudes emerge

confirmed that conflict stemmed from social identity

holds in group biases, in group > out group

Sherif - GRAVE

• Validity: field experiment, high ecological validity because it was in a naturalistic setting, however the experimenters could not control extraneous variables like private convos so it also had low internal validity

• Ethical concerns - deception used about the fake summer camp. Not protected from physical and psychological harm. Symptoms of anxiety + hostility from other group.

Practical Application - SIT

• SIT in theory and research can be applied in the real world.

• The salience of these group identities can impact behavior and interactions. For example,

• in the workplace, the salience of an employee’s gender or ethnicity may influence team dynamics and collaboration.

• In political movements, activists often highlight the salience of a shared identity, such as being part of a marginalized group, to unite supporters.

• By understanding the salience of social identities, organizations and leaders can foster inclusivity, reduce conflicts, and promote unity among diverse groups.

Alternative Theory - SIT

Evolutionary:

• Early humans who cooperated in groups had better chances of survival through mutual protection, resource sharing, and coordinated hunting.

• Over time, natural selection may have favored individuals who were more inclined to form strong group bonds, leading to an innate drive to categorize people into in-groups and out-groups.

Biological:

• Additionally, genetic factors may influence traits like empathy, aggression, or group conformity, shaping how individuals interact within social groups.

• This perspective suggests that our behaviors are not just learned but also rooted in biological predispositions that shape our group dynamics.

Social Cognitive Theory

Assumes that humans learn behavior through observational learning → people learn by watching models and imitate behavior

• theory based on operant conditioning

  • getting rewarded for doing something even it just feels good

What are the four things that SCT says needs to occur for learning to happen?

• ARMP

1. Attention

2. Retention

3. Motivation

4. Potential

Attention

• paying attention to the model

• things that could help and depend on

  • the attractiveness of the model

    • could be an authority figure

    • desirability of behavior

Retention

The learner must be able to remember what is observed

Motivation

outcome expectations

• wanting to do what was observed

• understand the outcome is behavior is repeated

Consistency

• diff situations same behavior

identification

• imitate like models

affinity

• kind and warm to learner

OCIA

Potential

• physically or mentally able to be carrying out behavior

• certain level of self efficacy

• know you’re capable of doing it

Self efficacy

• one’s belief in their ability to succeed accomplishing a task

• high = more likely to believe you can master challenges

  • recover from setbacks easier

• Low = fear failure, less likely to try challenges

  • struggle to recover from setbacks

Bandura and the bobo doll - Aim

To see if children would imitate aggression modeled by an adult and to see if children were more likely to imitate same sex models

Bandura - procedure

• 36 boys and 36 girls

• 3-6 years old

• divided into groups

• 3 major conditions

  • control group

  • aggressive model

    • same sex

    • opposite sex

  • passive model

    • same sex

    • opposite sex

• researchers pre tested children and assessed aggressiveness

  • 5 point rating scale

  • physical verbal and aggression toward inanimate objects

• matched pairs design

• 6 per condition

• Stage 1: observing the model

• brought into a room with other toys like blocks

  • non aggressive condition = model ignored the bobo doll (10 minutes)

  • aggressive condition =

    • 1 minute other toys

    • 9 minutes aggressive to the doll in a scripted way - verbal and physical

      • standardized acts repeated 3 times

• Stage 2: brought to another room and played w toys for 2 minutes then asked to leave

• stage 3:

  • behavior was observed for 20 minutes in a one way mirror

  • interval sampling - observations at certain time marks

  • observed for

    • imitative physical

    • imitative verbal

    • imitative non aggressive

    • 3 aggressive behaviors that were not imitations

      • punching

      • non imitative physical and verbal

      • aggressive gunplay

Bandura results

aggressive role model - displayed more physical and verbal

aggressive male = boys 25.8 acts of agg avg

non aggressive male = boy 1.5 acts of agg avg

Boys in control = 2 avg acts

Boys > aggression to agg same sex model than girls

girls more verbal aggression than boys from same sex

aggressive = more likely to show non imitative aggression

Bandura findings

• children exposed to an agg model = more likely to display agg behavior

• boys more physical and girls more verbal

• boys more likely to imitate same sex than girls

GRAVE Bandura

generalizability = only children, small sample size, all of people who had uni professor parents, same household situation possibly or socioeconomic situation, hard to generalize

ethics = exposing children to adult violence, could result in psychological trauma or learnt aggressive behavior

Charlton - aim

To investigate the effects of television on children’s aggression and social behavior

Charlton - procedure

• remote island of St Helena

• Tv was introduced in 1995

• cameras were set up in the playgrounds of two primary schools

• behavior of children 3-8 were observed before and after the introduction of television

• observed a total of 160 children

• content analysis of programs showed little difference in quantity of violence watched in comparison to children in the uk

• data triangulation = analysis of videotape, interview data from teachers, parents, and older children

• natural experiment

Charlton - results

• no increase in antisocial behavior among the children of st helena

• low rate of behavioral issues and it did not significantly increase after tv was introduced

• even after 5 years of exposure

Charlton - findings

tv does not have a significant impact on aggression or social behavior of children

GRAVE Charlton

• natural experiment = high ecological validity, carried out under natural conditions

• reliability = hard to replicate because it was a natural experiment + unique conditions of the island not having access to tv

Alternative theory - SCT

• Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) does not explain why some individuals are exposed to certain behaviors and have those actions modeled for them, yet do not exhibit the same behavior themselves.

• For example, SCT fails to address why someone without the genetic predisposition for aggression, such as low levels of MAOA does not engage in antisocial behavior despite being exposed to aggressive models.

• This limitation suggests that SCT does not account for the influence of uncontrollable genetic factors on learning.

• Moreover, evolutionary theory presents a challenge to SCT by suggesting that humans may have a biological predisposition for specific behaviors that enhance survival and reproduction.

• This perspective indicates that behavior can arise not only from modeled experiences in early childhood but also from inherited biological traits.

Application - SCT

• SCT can be applied in fields to understand problematic behavior in both children and adults.

• For instance, aggressive behavior can be acquired from growing up in an abusive household or by observing models of aggression.

• This can lead to subconscious learning of aggressive actions, which may contribute to an increase in antisocial behavior.

• Thus, psychologists and scientists can also use this theory to predict behavior as a result of childhood background or based on the environment that people live in.

Bandura’s bobo TV study - sct

SIT magic words

SCT magic words