Studied by 0 people
compliance
identification
internalisation
public + private acceptance of majority influence
through adoption of majority belief because view is consistent with own
normative social influence
informative social influence
conform to majority to gain social approval or avoid social disapproval (do something in order to be liked)
doesn't necessarily mean we agree with everyone else
suggests we have need to be right
when situation is uncertain / ambiguous we look to others to know what to do
sometimes follow what others do if we assume they might be an expert
participants made individual private estimates of number of jellybeans in jar
participant then discussed their estimates in groups
group estimates were created
participants again made individual private estimates of number of jellybeans in a jar
123 American male student volunteers took part in what they thought was visual perception task (were deceived about true aim)
carried out in lab using independent group designs
each group made up of 7-9 confederates + 1 participant
each person asked to decide which comparison line matched standard line (lines made obviously different in order to be sure of conforming)
on 12 out of 18 trials confederate gave wrong answer (standardised so incorrect answer given on same trials)
participant always last or second to last to give answer so able to hear confederates view first
control group where one real participant completed same experiment without any confederates
participants gave wrong answer 75% of time with 33% conforming to at least one answer
1/4 of participants never conformed to any of trials
control error of 0.04% this was to check ambiguity of task + showed easy to identify difference between each line + what correct answer was
post event interviews showed three reasons for conformity
distortion of action -> majority conformed did so publicly not privately
distortion of perception -> some participants believed their perception might be wrong
distortion of judgement -> some participants had doubts concerning accuracy of judgement
group size
unanimity of majority
difficultly of task
original study there were 7-9 confederates
variation minimum number of people needed to conform = 3
32% of people conformed when there were 3 confederates
further increases did not have major influences on conformity levels
concluded larger group size more likely conformity will occur up to point
original study all confederates gave wrong answer (unanimous in decision)
variation participant given support of another participant / confederate conformity dropped from 33% to 5%
concluded when group disagrees with each other others less likely to conform to majority
original study differences between each line large + answer is obvious
variation made lines less distinguishable from each other so task is harder
conformity increased
concluded harder the task the more likely people are to conform as answer is more ambiguous
75 made university students responded to newspaper asking for volunteers for prison study paying $15 per day
24 students rated most physically + mentally were chosen
basement of Stanford university was converted into mock prison
prisoners arrested from their homes without knowledge by county police
when arrive they were stripped + deloused
prisoners given smock, number, ball + chain
guards wore khaki uniform, reflective sunglasses, baton + whistle
guards + prison randomly assigned to roles
75 male university students responded
24 selected
most of data was qualitative
found all participants settled quickly into their roles
guards created several rules + games such as counting numbers backwards, cleaning toilets + pretending to have gay marriage prisoners reporting feeling stressed + dehumanised
rebellion by prisoners occurred because were told they weren't allowed to leave prison
after 48 hours one prisoner had to be released as showed signs of mental breakdown
after only 6 days experiment was stopped
quantitative data showed 90% of conversations in the prison was about prison life this shows prisoner fully immersed themselves into role of prisoner
study showed that participants conformed to their social roles of prisoners + guards
started to become deinvidulated (lost personal identity + took on identity of group)
sample consisted of 40 male participants + were volunteers who responded to advert $4.50 to take part + payed as soon as arrived
told experiment was on "punishment and learning"
laboratory at Yale University
met with experimenter + other participant (Mr Wallace) who both confederates
experimenter explained one participant randomly assigned role of teacher + other learner
real participant always teacher
teacher read learner series of word pairs then test recall
teacher instructed to administer electric shock every time learner made mistake + increase voltage after each mistake
participant given sample electric shock to convince procedure was real
learner's screams recorded to become louder + more dramatic + after 300 volts become silent
experiment continued until teacher refused to continue or 450 volts reached
if teacher tried to stop experiment the experimenter responded with series of prods like "the experiment requires you continue"
(participants deceived)
participants experienced severe psychological distress including shaking, sweating + uncontrollable seizures
84% of participants said were glad to have taken part
prior to study Milgram had asked 14 psychology students to predict participants behaviour students estimated only 3% would continue to 450 volts
suggests findings were unexpected
proximity
location
power of uniform
changed distance of experimenter to be further away (phone)
confederate nearer (same room) rather than experimenter in same room
different room to confederate
closer teacher was to learner the less likely he was to continue the shocks showed reduced obedience
closer teacher was to experimenter more likely e was to obey
obidience decreased in less prestigious environment
could be due to being seen as less legitimate as participant did not feel experimenter would take responsibility
personality factors / characteristics
(introversion, extroversion, neuroticism, stability)
way of explaining those with right wing views
personality type characterised by a belief in absolute obedience to authority + domination of minorities
questionnaire to measure levels of authoritarian personality
F = Fascism + used to measure how likely you are to obey authority figures
example question "obedience + respect for authority are the most important virtues a child should learn"
found authoritarian personalities are more likely to obey authority figures
was strong positive correlation between authoritarianism + prejudice
more likely to be hostile to those inferior to them, have rigid opinions + beliefs + uphold traditional values
hostile + aggressive to those inferior to them
ethnocentric
black + white thinkers
inflexible to rules / laws
asked participants who took part in Milgram's study to complete follow up questionnaire
selected 20 defiant participants + 20 submissive participants to complete F-scale questionnaire
when person sees themselves as agent for carrying out another person's wishes
instead believe responsibility is held by authority figure
move responsibility from ourselves to an authority figure
autonomous state -> agentic state
participants interviewed after + asked why administered electric shocks
majority of people said they were just doing what they were told
suggests participants had entered agentic state
are social people so look for approval from others therefore tend to follow social etiquette of the situation
this is binding factor which holds us to situation + makes us obey
Milgram (1974) believed people presume that in most situations there is a person who has control over the situation
for example in Milgram's study the participants have expectation that someone will be in charge of experiment + when the experimenter presents himself he makes it clear that he is in charge of experiment
this allows participant to identify him as legitimate authority figure + therefore authority goes unquestioned
real life example of this is the American soldiers in the village of My Lai who murdered 500 villagers after they were expecting Vietnamese fighters to be there but just found old men, women + child
the soldiers claimed at their trials that they were just following the orders of their superior officer
independence
anti conformity
lack of consistent movement either towards or away form social expectancy
"doing your own thing"
consistent movement away from majority group views
"adopting beliefs of smaller groups"
believe things turn out a certain way regardless of your actions
"everything happens for a reason"
believe things happen as result of own decisions rather than luck or fate
see themselves in control of situation more likely to perceive themselves as having free choice to conform or obey
conformity dropped to 5.5%
suggests it is important in reducing conformity
had two confederates who were acting as participants alongside real participant
gave electric shocks together
each confederate told to refuse to continue + leave experiment at different points
obedience dropped from 65% to 10%
shows social support is important in resisting social influence
majority of people are persuaded to adopt the beliefs, attitudes + behaviours of minority
form of social influence
greater the perceived assurance the greater the influence
people in minority are taking risk going against social norms therefore showing confidence in their beliefs helps to influence others in strength of their belief
usually requires them to take part in activity which is socially / physically risky
when exposed to minority view immediate thought is that must be incorrect
if minority are stable in views over period of time people gain confidence in them
minorities hold little power must negotiate to show willing to compromise
however should not be overly compromising as are likely to show lack of consistency
commitment
consistency
flexibility
Note 
Flashcard (95)