Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Influence (TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS OF CONFORMITY
Herbet Kelman
…
Social Influence
TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS OF CONFORMITYHerbet Kelman
- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalisation
Deutsch and Gerard
- ISI
- NSI
Lucas et al
The least confident students in maths conformed the most
nAfilliators
McGhee and Teevan
Students have the highest need for affiliation hence conform the most
but
Perrin and Spencer
They found that only 1/396 maths and engineering students conformed
Asch
Two process approach assumes that it is either on or the other
VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITYAsch
Visual Discrimination task
12/18 critical trialsGroup size
Little conformity with 1-2 confederates but it rose to 33% with 3Unanimity
With a dissenter conformity dropped to 6%Task difficulty
The harder the task, the more conformity
Child of it's time
Perrin and Spencer
McCarthyism
Bond
Truly large majorities have never been investigated
Neto
Women are more conformingBond and Smith
Participants in collectivist countries are more conforming
Ethical concerns
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLESZimbardo
24 participants were prisoners/guards
Both were dehumanised by uniforms and lack of namesGuards became abusive
Prisoners initially rebelled but then submitted to their role
Experiment had to be 6 days instead of 14
The positive and negative effects of control
Banuazizi and Mohavedi
Participants were acting based off of stereotypes not genuine conformity
but
Zimbardo found that 90% of conversation in the staff room was prison related
Fromm
Only 1/3 of guards became abusive
1/3 were normal
1/3 were sympathetic
Ethical concerns
Deception was used when the prisoners were arrested
When participants asked to leave the study, Zimbardo remained in his role which mean that he did not immediately let them go
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES OF OBEDIENCEMilgram
Participants and deceptively separated into teachers and learners. The teachers had to shock them whenever they got an answer wrong
The volts ranged from 15 to 450
If the teacher refused they were given 4 control prods to elicit an obedient response
Regardless 65% continued all the way to the endLess proximity: 21%Poor location: 48%UniformSocial support: 10%
Gina and Perry
Found recordings were the participants expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the shocks
but
Sheridan and King
Gave shocks to real puppies and found that the results were
Men: 54%
Women: 100%
Hofling et al
The doctor asked the nurses to administer knowingly administer dangerous dosages of drugs and 21/22 nurses did
Ethical concerns
Reseach was done in 1953
but
Burger
Replicated the study in 2009 he found very similar results
SOCIAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE Milgram
Agentic state: being an agent for someone else's desires
Legitimacy of Authority: someone who is perceived as having social control
Blas and Schmidt
Showed students a video of Milgram's experiment and found that they acknowledged the impact of legitimate authority and they blamed the experimenter
Nurses in Hofling's study should show the same high levels of anxiety as was seen in Milgram's but they weren't
Kilham and Mann
Replications in different countries
Australia: 16%
Germany 85%
Lifton
Doctors from WW2 showed a slow gradual change into cruelty rather than an immediate shift into the agentic state
DISPOSITIONAL FACTORSAuthoritarian personalities are those with black and white thinking.Altheymer
Right wing authoritarianism
-Conventionalism
-Authoritarian aggression
-Authoritarian submissionAdorno
Authoritarianism is a result of strict discipline and conditional love based parenting styles≠≠
Elms and Milgram
There was a correlation between the obedient participants and their levels of authoritarianism
Christie and Jahoda
The explanation is against right wing extremism as it does not explain tragedies that occurred in Russia
It is unlikely that everyone is Germany had the same personality type for the holocaust to occur.
Better explanation is that the population identified with the Nazi party so did not object when the Jews were scapegoated
Greenstein
He noticed that if you answered every questions in the same order, you would be identified as authoritarian, so people who just agree to everything may be identified incorrectly. Also when Adorno interviewed participants for authoritarianism, they knew their f-scale score.
RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCESocial support
-Asch
-Milgram
Locus of control
-Internal locus of control: I decide my life
-External locus of control: Whatever happens, happens
Twenge
When comparing locus of control in America over 40 yrs, even though obedience decreased, people had more of a external locus of control
Allen and Levine
A dissenter with poor vision was still able to reduce conformity because there was social support for the correct answer
Rotter
LoC is not influential in familiar situations as you rely on experience
In a protest in WW2, when a single women demanded their sons and husbands were release, they eventually were because of the increase in social support
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Moscovici
When 2 confederates in a group of 6 participants had to influence the majority in a blue-green slide study:
-Consistency: 8%
-Inconsistency: 1%
So most important features of minority influence are:
- Consistency
- Commitment
- Flexibility
Macki
If the majority have a different view, then that will be processed deeper
Wood
He found, in a meta analysis, that consistency was the greatest factor in the effect of minority influence
Artificial tasks make it hard to apply to real situations of minority influence
In a variation of the baseline study where the participants had to answer privately, more agreed with the minority suggesting that people did not agree because of the fear of the label
SOCIAL CHANGE
- Draw attention
- Consistency
- Deeper processing
- Augmentation principle
- Snowball effect
Nolan
Referring to conformity to reduce energy use in California was most effective
Mackie
Bashir
People hesitate to change beause of the fear of associating with the minority
Dejong
Even when using conformity to persuade teenagers to less, it did not have an effect