Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE (Conformity (Types of conformity (Internalisation -…

- - - - In another variation of the original experiment Asch broke up the unanimity (total agreement) of the group by introducing a dissenting confederate. Asch (1956) found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity as much as 80%. For example, in the original experiment 32% of participants conformed on the critical trials, whereas when one confederate gave the correct answer on all the critical trials this conformity dropped to 5%.
    - - When the (comparison) lines (e.g. A, B, C) were made more similar in length it was harder to judge the correct answer and conformity increased. When we are uncertain, it seems we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task the greater the conformity.
    - - Asch (1956) found that group size influenced whether subjects conformed. The bigger the majority group (no of confederates) the more people conformed, but only up to a certain point. With one other person (i.e. confederate) in the group conformity was 3%, with two others it increased to 13% and with three or more it was 32% (or 1/3).
- - - - Being in an agentic state is the opposite of beingin an autonomous state (where you act for yourself). It involves acting on the behalf of someone in authority because they are responsible for your actions
      - Legitimacy of authority: we obey because we are taught to listen to authoritative figures, especially those in uniform, e.g parents, police, teachers e.g. the teacher in Milgram's experiment wore a white lab coat to seem like a legtamate figure of authority.
    - - Milgram (1963)
        Aim: To see if people would carry out an order from a perceived authority figure.
        Method: Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising. He recruited 40 American male volunteers for a lab experiment investigating “learning”. He paid them $4.50 even if they withdrew from the study. Two confederates were used, one an 'experimenter' and one the 'learner'. Participants drew lots but always ended up with the role of teacher. They were ordered to administer shocks each time the learner in another room gave the wrong answer in a learning task. The machine was tested on the participant but shocks administered were fake.
        Results: 65% went all the way to 450V and 100% minimum 300V.
        Conclusion: We are likely to carry out orders even of they go against our morals if they come from a perceived authority figure.
        
        Location: The experiment was moved to a set of run down offices rather than the impressive Yale University. Obedience dropped to 47.5%. This suggests that status of location effects obedience.
        
        Uniform: In the original baseline study – the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform). Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ ( a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience level dropped to 20%.
        
        Proximity: The teacher had to force the learner's hand down onto a shock plate when they refuse to participate after 150 volts. Obedience fell to 30%. The participant is no longer buffered / protected from seeing the consequences of their actions.
    - - Adorno et al. (1950) developed a questionnaire called the California F scale, to measure levels of authoritarian personality. He studied over 2000 Americans mainly white, middle-class and interviewed them on their political views and childhood experiences. Adorno drew up Freud's findings about the unconscious mind to build his explanation, arguing that harsh and physical punishment led to hostile feelings to the ppts'' parents. The child then often displaces these feelings on others.
- - - - Spector (1981) gave the LOC scale to157 university students. He found the external students conformed more than the internal students. However, this was only in normative cases. In informational, it was equal. We can learn that an internal person is happy to stand out from the crowd but both will conform when unsure.
        Moghaddan (1998) observed Americans and Japanese. Found that Japanese tended to conform more as a result of external LOC compared to Americans.
    - - Schurtz (1985) found no relation between LOC and obedience. They did note that high internal took greater responsibility for their actions compared to high external who blamed the researcher. The participants we all Austrians. (repeated Milgram)
        Blass (1991) found those with high LOC would not obey if they felt forced or manipulated, suggesting control is very important to internals. Externals obeyed without question. (repeated Milgram)
- - - - When the majority is confronted with someone with self-confidence and dedication to take a popular stand and refuses to back own, they may assume that he or she has a point.
    - - Research suggests that minorities require a degree of flexibility to remain persuasive and that rigid and dogmatic minorities are less effective.
        Nemeth (1986) investigated the idea of flexibility in which participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident. Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view.
    - - Moscovici et al. (1969) Blue-Green Study
        Aim: To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority.
        Method: They were then placed in a group consisting of four participants and two confederates. They were shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the color of each slide out loud. In the first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for each of the 36 slides. They were totally consistent in their responses. In the second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. In this case they were inconsistent in their answers.
        Results: In condition one it was found that the consistent minority had an affect on the majority (8.42%) compared to an inconsistent minority (only 1.25% said green). A third (32%) of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once.
        Conclusion: Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways (e.g. consistent behavior style).