Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CONFORMITY (VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY (VARIABLES (TASK DIFFICULTY…
CONFORMITY
VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY
KEY STUDY: ASCH
FINDINGS
AVERAGE 32% ON ALL CRITICAL TRIALS
75% AT LEAST ONCE
25% NEVER
CONTROL = LESS THAN 1% (NO CONFEDS)
PROCEDURE
PPTS VIEW LINE LENGTHS AND COMPARE TO A STANDARD LINE
GROUP CONTAINED CONEDS WITH NAIVE PPT 2ND LAST
CONFEDS GAVE SAME WRONG ANSWER ON 12/18 TRIALS
LAB EXPERIMENT, 123 MALE US COLLEGE STUDENTS
VARIABLES
GROUP SIZE
30% INCREASE WITH 3 CONFEDS BUT MORE HAD NO CHANGE
UNANIMITY OF MAJORITY
ONE BREAK AWAY = 33% TO 5.5% (SOCIAL SUPPORT)
ONE CONFED GIVE DIFFERENT ANSWER ALL TOGETHER = 33% TO 9%
TASK DIFFICULTY
CONFORMITY HIGHER IF ANSWER LESS OBVIOUS
LUCAS (2006) - SELF EFFICACY
SITUATIONAL AND INDV DIFFS = IMPORTANT
EVALUATION
UNCONVINCING CONFEDS
REDUCES VALIDITY
MORI AND ARAI = POLARISING GLASSES/ FEMALE PPTS MATCHED ASCH ORIGINAL STUDY MALES DIDN'T/ ASCH CONFEDS WERE CONVINCING
PROBLEMS DETERMINING EFFECT OF GROUP SIZE
BOND (2005) = NO STUDIES OTHER THATN ASCH USE MAJORITY SIZE GREATER THAN NINE, OTHERS RANGE = MUCH NARROWER
KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT LARGER SIZES ON MAJORITY LEVELS
CHILD OF ITS TIME
ANIT-COMMUNIST IN US
YOUTH PROBATION AND OFFICERS = SIMILAR TO ASCH
CONFORMITY HIGH IF COST = GREAT
PERRIN AND SPENCER = 1/396 CONFORMING ANSWERS
TYPES/ EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
TYPES
1.
COMPLIANCE
(GAIN APPROVAL)
2.
INTERNALISATION
(ACCEPTANCE OF VIEWS PRIVATELY
3.
IDENTIFICATION
(ACCEPTED INFLUENCE BECAUSE OF A DESIRE TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH GROUP
EXPLANATIONS
NSI
- NEED TO BE LIKED TO AVOID REJECTION (LEAD TO COMPLIANCE)
ISI
- NEED TO BE RIGHT, ASSUME MAJORITY KNOW BEST (LEAD TO INTERNALISATION)
EVALUATION
DIFFICULT TO OPERATIONALISE (DISTINGUISH BETWEEN COMPLIANCE AND INTERNALISATION
LINKENBACK AND PERKINS - PEER SMOKING / ASCH - 33% TO 12.5% WHEN WRITTEN DOWN
WITTENBRINK AND HENLEY - AFRICAN AMERICANS AND NEGATIVE VIEWS OF MAJORITY
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
KEY STUDY: SPE
PROCEDURE
STANFORD UNI = MOCK PRISON
70 APPLICANTS = DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEWS
MOST STABLE 24 CHOSEN AND PAID $15 A DAY
RANDOMLY ASSIGNED ROLES
PRISONERS = STRIPPED, GIVEN NUMBERS, PRISON CLOTHES
GUARDS = SAME UNIFORM , SUNGLASSES TO AVOID EYE CONTACT AND POWER TO MAKE RULES
ZIMBARDO = PRISON WARDEN (TO GAIN QUALITATIVE DATA)
FINDINGS
GUARDS = ABUSIVE QUICKLY HARRASING AND SADISTIC
FIVE PRISONERS RELEASED EARLY WITHIN 24 HOURS
ENDED AFTER 6 DAYS
CONCLUSION
READILY CONFORM IF ROLES STRONGLY STEREOTYPED
SUPPORT SITUATIONAL NOT DISPOSITIONAL
BBC PRISON STUDY: REICHER AND HASLAM
PROCEDURE
MALE VOLUNTEERS
MATCHED ON SOCIAL AND CLINICAL MEASURES ASSIGNGED ROLES
FINDINGS
NO ROLES CONFORMED
PRISONERS WORKED COLLECTIVELY = POWER SHIFT
EVALUATOIN
GOOD GUARDS AS WELL AS SADISTS
EVIDENCE AGAINST SITUATIONAL/ CONFORMING TO BHV IS NOT AUTOMATIC/ GUARDS CHOSE BHV
DEMAND CHARACTERISITCS
UNAWARE STUDENTS GUESSED AIMS AND ACTIONS
QUESTIONABLE ETHICS
APPROVED BY STANFORD ETHICS COMMITTEE/ OVERCOME BY INTERVIEWING AFTER