Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence (Conformity (Types of Conformity (Identification (Desire…

- - - - Desire to be accepted as a member of the group
        Public agreement and some private agreement
        Usually short term; only while in a group
        Moderate level
    - - Desire to adopt new belief system
        Private and public agreement
        Always leads to permanent change
        Deepest level.
    - - Desire to avoid group pressure, seek to fit in.
        Public agreement but private disagreement.
        Agreement stops as soon as majority influence removed
        Shallowest level
  - - - Aim - To investigate whether a majority can influence a minority in an unambiguous situation
        Procedure - He set up a situation where 7 people all sat looking at a display. In turn, they said out loud which of the three lines, A,B,C, or D they thought was the same size as a given stimulus, X. Of the 7 people, 6 were confederates, all who gave the wrong answer, and one was an actual participant. The participant was always last to give their answer.
        Results - The participants conformed on 32% of trials overall. 75% of participants conformed at least once. Many who conformed said they did so because they didn't want to stand out.
        Conclusion - A majority group can influence a minority group to give an incorrect answer, even in an unambiguous situation.
      - Situational Variables
        
        Increasing the difficulty of task increased conformity due to informational social influence.
        
        One confederate giving the correct answer dropped conformity to 5% as when one person supports the belief, you are less likely to conform
        
        Variating the group size - 1 confederate dropped conformity to 3%. 2 confederates drop conformity to 12.8%. 3 Confederates was 32%. This is the highest level. This is because more/less people giving wrong answer so conformity increases/drops
    - - Aim - To see whether people conform to group norms when they are in an ambiguous situation
        Procedure - This involved an autokinetic effect, an illusion where a spot of light projected on a screen appears to move. Estimates of how much the light moved varied considerably when asked to make individual estimations. Participants were tested in groups of 3. Each person had to say how far the light moved.
        Results - It was found that over a number of trials, the group moved to a common estimate. Sherif said this showed people tend to conform to a group.
        Conclusion - When in an ambiguous situation people will look to others for guidance. This is known as informational conformity.
    - - Fail to adhere to cultural guidelines - (Asch decieved Ps. Did not protect participants from psychological harm, Did not give informed consent)
      - Asch's research criticised for being out of date. It was conducted in the 1950s. Perrin and Spencer (1980) replicated the experiment. All participants were maths, science or engineering students. Of 396 trials, there was only one occasion where a participant conformed
      - Both are low in ecological validity and mundane realism
      - Based on lab experiments which are high in reliability.
      - Accused of cultural relativism as it was conducted in America. Other psychologists have found very different results in different countries
  - - - Wanting others to like and respect us
        Having the need for and acceptance from others
        More likely to happen in unambiguous situations
        Unlikely to truly believe in opinions we conform to
        Asch's experiment
    - - Wanting to feel confident that our ideas are correct
        Having the need for certainty when we are unsure about something
        More likely to happen in unambiguous situations
        Likely to truly believe in the opinions we conform to
        Sherifs experiment
    - - Supporting evidence for informational influence. Lucas asked students to give answers to maths problems. He found that more conformed with the harder problems than easier ones
      - Does not account for individual differences.
      - Supporting evidence for normative influence. Asch found conformity levels dropped to 12% when participants wrote down answers privately after hearing confederates.
      - Difficult to establish which type is affecting behaviour. In most cases, both are involved rather than operating independently
  - - - Aim - To investigate whether the behaviour of normal people would change when placed in a simulated prison environment to a designated role
        Procedure - Zimbardo set up a mock prison at Stanford University. He used volunteer sampling to advertise for students and a total of 24 were selected after testing their physical and Mental stability. They were randomly allocated to the role of either prisoners or guards. The prisoners were arrested from their homes and brought to the university. They were dehumanised by being strip searched and deloused on arrival. They were also assigned a number. Guards were anonymised by wearing reflective glasses. They were told they had full control over prisoners.
        Findings - The study was cut short after 6 days. Within 2 the prisoners rebelled. The guards were tyrannical and abusive. One prisoner went on hunger strike and guards tried to force feed and punish him. 5 prisoners released early due to extreme reactions. By day 6 remaining prisoners became passive and accepting. Zimbardo adopted the role of superintendent.
        Conclusion - Guards, prisoners, and researchers all conformed to their roles. Deindividuation of guards allowed them to act in a cruel and sadistic manner. Deindividuation of the prisoners meant they accepted their roles and became helpless victims
      - Evaluation
        
        Replications show different findings. In Reicher and Haslams replication, prisoners increasingly identified as a collective and challenged guards. Guards reluctant to impose their authority
        
        Failing to adhere to ethical guidelines. Did not protect from harm, Participants did not give informed consent.
        
        Demand Characteristics - it has been claimed that participants were merely 'play acting' and their
        
        Can be used to explain real world atrocities - Abu Ghraib