Case studies

who did the study with beans and conformity?

Jenness

Jenness sample?

101 psychology students

Jenness study

used an ambiguous situation involving a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans:

1. they individually estimated how many beans the glass bottle contained

2. participants were then divided into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion

3. following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity to individually guess the number of beans to see if they wanted to change their final answer

Jenness findings

nearly all participants changed their original answer

Asch’s baseline experiment

participants had to compare line X with lines A,B,C and match the one with the same length. The naive participant was always seated either last or second last compared to other confederates. Answers were given out loud.

Asch baseline experiment findings

Participants conformed 36.8% of the time, 25% of participants never conformed- shows individual differences

Asch’s variations

group size, unanimity, task difficulty

Asch group size findings

conformity increased as group size increased:

• with 3 confederates conformity rose to 38.1% from 36.8%

• more confederates made little difference after that

Asch group size results explanation

people are very sensitive to the views of others. they don’t want to stand out- only 1 or 2 confederates was enough to sway opinion

Asch unanimity findings

rate decreased to less than a quarter of when the answer was unanimous

Asch unanimity results explanation

presence of dissenter appeared to free the naive participant. Influence of majority depends largely on it being unanimous. Non-conformity more likely when cracks in unanimity are perceived

Asch task difficulty findings

conformity increased as task difficulty increased

Asch task difficulty results explanation

Participant isn’t as sure of their answer. Look for others for guidance and assume they are correct (ISI)

Lucas et al. study

similar to Asch but with mathematical problems. participants given hard and easy problems and the answers from 3 other students

Lucas et al. findings

higher conformity rates when the problems were harder (ISI)

who did the study about line lengths and conformity?

Asch

positive evaluation of Asch

• support from other studies e.g. Lucas et al.- shows Asch was correct in claiming task difficulty increased conformity rates

• increased our knowledge on why people conform, could help avoid destructive conformity and benefit society

• the levels of psychological harm were low and dealt with by thorough debriefing

negative evaluation of Asch

• low ecological validity- the task and situation was artificial, high risk of demand characteristics, the groups did not resemble groups found in the real world, low external validity- findings do not generalise to the real world where consequences of conformity may be important

• low population validity- all his participants were white, male American students: doesn’t tell us about women and other cultures- in collectivist cultures (e.g. China) conformity rates are found to be higher

• Lucas et al.’s study found conformity is more complex than Asch said- confidence affected maths conformity, individual factors can affect results which Asch didn’t study

• participants were deceived

Asch control of extraneous variables

situational variables: participants sat last, some could be conforming due to bad eyesight, social anxiety etc.

who did the study in a prison about conformity?

Zimbardo

who were Zimbardo’s participants

21 emotionally stable white, male, students who volunteered themselves

how were Zimbardo’s participants prepared for the study

fake arrest, randomly allocated guard or prisoner, searched, stripped naked and deloused with spray

Zimbardo SPE prisoners clothing

loose smock, cap, number

Zimbardo SPE aim

to investigate how people conform to social roles

Zimbardo SPE type of observation

overt, participant and controlled

Zimbardo SPE rebellion

on day 2, 9 guards required to put in out

what happened to prisoners after the rebellion Zimbardo SPE

became subdued, depressed and anxious- on was released due to symptoms of psychological disturbance, guards became more harsh and aggressive

Zimbardo SPE how could prisoners get out of the study

had to apply for parole

how long did SPE last and why

cut short on day 6 (out of 14) due to escalated abuse by guards at night when they thought no one was watching , Stanford PhD student objected to morality of it (prisoners marched with bags on their heads, chained legs, hand on each others shoulders just for the toilet)

Zimbardo SPE findings

1/3 of guards treated prisoners badly, 1/3 were fair, 1/3 were sympathetic and tried to help them, prisoners became depressed and emotionally disturbed- thought it was a real prison

Zimbardo’s SPE conclusion

social roles have strong influence on behaviour, can be easily adopted

positive evaluation of Zimbardo’s SPE

• high internal validity: he had control over key variables so conclusions more likely to be correct

• did replicate the social roles of a prison effectively- high internal validity: 90% of conversations of prisoners were about prison life

negative evaluation of Zimbardo’s SPE

• didn’t have realism of a true prison- participants were acting based on stereotypes of their role, not conforming e.g. a guard based his role from a character from a film, prisoners rioted because they thought that was what was done, doesn’t explain conformity in real prisons

• he exaggerated the power social roles had: only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally, the rest helped the prisoners

• social identity theory is a better explanation- we can resist situational pressures to conform to a social role as long as we do not identify with that role e.g. most of the guards who weren’t brutal

Zimbardo SPE internal validity strengths

• controlled observations limited extraneous variables

• random allocation of prisoners and guards proved change in behaviour was due to social roles not previous personalities- controlled individual differences

  
  

Zimbardo SPE internal validity weaknesses

• only 1/3 of guards became aggressive- can’t just be situational, personality must play a part

• guards may have been influenced by ‘Please U ‘ effect

• all male students- generally more aggressive

• personality cannot be completely controlled because participants volunteered themself

Zimbardo SPE external validity weaknesses

• controlled environment means less realistic situations

• low population validity

• ethical issues

• poor real-life application

  
  

Reicher and Haslam study

similar to SPE, in Britain, ethical committee on site, more modern, televised

what theory did Reicher and Haslam believe was the cause of conformity

social identity theory

Who did a study similar to Zimbardo SPE?

Reicher and Haslam

Reicher and Haslam findings

prisoners became aggressive and guards were uncomfortable in their role and did not want authority. disproved Zimbardo’s conclusion that groups led to tyranny- shows groups were a basis for resistance

who did a study on obedience

Milgram

Milgram baseline procedure

40 American male volunteers were paid £4.50 to take part, took part in a fixed draw to become the teacher, ordered to give (fake) shocks to the learner when they made mistake by the experimenter

Milgram shock range

15V to 450V (in 15V increases)

Milgram baseline findings

all participants went up to 300V, 12.5% stopped at 300V, 65% went to 450V, many started to sweat, tremble

Milgram prior survey results

predicted only 3% would obey fully

Milgram baseline study dealing with ethical issues

debriefed and assured their behaviour was entirely normal, 84% said in a questionnaire they were glad to have participated

positive evaluation of Milgram

• high external validity- research support: findings replicated in a French documentary of a fake TV show, contestants delivered same fake shocks to 460V, exhibited same nervous behaviour

• Sheridan and King: participants delivered real shocks to a puppy despite obvious distress (54% of men 100% of women went all the way)

negative evaluation Milgram

• low internal validity- participants could have been responding to demand characteristic because they did not believe the set up to be real

• social identity theory may be a better explanation- when participants given fourth prod (‘you have no other choice, you must go on’) all disobeyed because they no longer identified with the scientific aims

• the deception could have psychological consequences

Milgram’s situational variables

proximity, location, uniform

Milgram proximity variations

general proximity, touch proximity, remote instructions

Milgram general proximity variation compared to baseline

baseline: teacher could hear but not see learner, proximity: teacher and learner in the same room

Milgram general proximity variation findings (T and L in same room)

obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

Milgram touch proximity variation compared to baseline

baseline: teacher and learner in different rooms, touch proximity: teacher had to force learner’s hand onto the ‘electroshock plate’ if he refused to put it there himself

Milgram touch proximity variation findings

obedience dropped from 65% to 30%

Milgram remote instructions variation compared to baseline

baseline: experimenter gave instructions in the same room, remote instructions: experimenter left the room and gave instructions via phone

Milgram remote instructions variation findings

obedience dropped from 65% to 20.5%, participants often pretended to give shocks

Milgram proximity variations explanation

decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves e.g. teacher was less aware of harm being caused when in a separate room to the learner

Milgram location variation compared to baseline

baseline: Yale, location variation: run-down office block

Milgram location variation findings

obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%

Milgram location variation explanation

the prestigious university environment gave the study legitimacy, experimenter shared legitimacy and obedience was expected

Milgram uniform variation compared to baseline

baseline: experimenter wore grey lab coat as a symbol of authority, uniform variation: experimenter called away by a phone call and so role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’

Milgram uniform variations findings

obedience rates dropped from 65% to 20%- the lowest of the variations

Milgram uniform variation findings explanation

uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority, someone in uniform is accepted to be entitled to expect obedience, authority is legitimate

positive evaluation of Milgram’s situational variables

• research support e.g. field experiment in New York, three confederates dressed in different outfits-jacket and tie, milk man’s outfit, security guard uniform, asked passers by to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter, twice as likely to obey security guard outfit

• high population validity: findings have been replicated in other cultures e.g. in the Netherlands participants had to say stressful things to someone in a job interview, when examiner not present obedience decreased

negative evaluation of Milgram’s situational variables

• not very cross-cultural e.g. most replications done in similar countries to US, only 2 not (India and Jordan) so findings may not apply to people in all or most cultures

• low internal validity: participants might have been aware it was fake, were responding to demand characteristics, situation were too unbelievable e.g. examiner being replaced by a member of the public

• provides an excuse for destructive obedience

• overlooks the role of dispositional factors e.g. personality

Milgram ethical issues

deception, lack of informed consent, lack of protection from harm

Milgram deception issue and how it was dealt with

participants believed roles were randomly allocated, shocks were real, debriefed participants after and did a friendly reconciliation (let participant meet and talk to confederate learner)

Milgram lack of informed consent issue and how it was dealt with

participants didn’t know truth of the trial so could not give informed consent, debriefed participants after and got retrospective consent

Milgram lack of protection from harm issue and how it was dealt with

participants had pressure to continue when asking to stop, interfering with the right to withdraw at any time, debriefed participants after, friendly reconciliation (let participant meet and talk to confederate learner)

who did a study on authoritarian personality

Adorno et al.

Adorno et al. procedure

studied around 2000 middle-class, white Americans, their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups, used F-scale

Adorno et al. findings

people with authoritarian learnings/higher score on F-scale identified with ‘strong’ people and contemptuous of the ‘weak’, conscious of status, extreme respect for those of higher status, black and white way of thinking, had fixed stereotypes, strong, positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

who did a follow up study on obedience to support Authoritarian personality explanation

Elms and Milgram

Elms and Milgram procedure

interviewed a group who had been completely obedient in the previous study, they all completed the F-scale, comparison group of disobedient participants

Elms and Milgram findings

the previously obedient participants scored higher overall on the F-scale than the comparison group of disobedient participants, groups were clearly different in terms of authoritarianism

who did a study on minority influence

Moscovici

Moscovici procedure

participants had to decide if a blue slide was blue or green, 3 conditions- 2 confederates consistently saying green, 2 confederates inconsistently saying green, control group with no confederates

Moscovici findings

consistent minority- 8.42% of trials participants conformed in, inconsistent minority- 1.25% of trials participants conformed in, control- 0.25%

who did a study on flexible minority influence

Nemeth

Nemeth procedure

participants in groups had to decide on amount of compensation to give a victim of a ski-lift accident, 2 conditions: one confederate argued for a low compensation and refused to change their position, one confederate argued for a low compensation but compromised and offered a slightly higher one

Nemeth findings

minority had little to no effect on majority in inflexible condition, in flexible condition majority was more likely to compromise