Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Conformity & Obedience - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Research support - Lucas et Al (2006) maths questions conformity study, more conformity found on harder questions
    - - Individual differences - some people have a greater need to be liked, people who are are more likely to conform
  - - - Line study, three comparison lines, participants told to say which comparison line was the same length as the standard line
      - Participant always sat either last or second last in the sequence
    - - 75% conformed at least once
      - Participants reported that they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
    - - Changes in group size
        
        As long as majority was around 3 group size makes no difference
      - Unamity
        
        Added confederates who also broke group consensus
        
        When the confederate broke the agreement made a difference (Beginning decreased to 5.5% while half way decreased to 8%)
      - Task Difficulty
        
        The more difficult test, the more conformity occurred due to ISI (look for guidance
    - - When repeated Perrin & Specer (1980) the conformity rates were much lower - Asch 1950 - more conformity to social norms
        
        Less consistency across situations & time
      - Risk of demand characteristics, group which P's needed to conform to weren't already a group - cannot generalise
      - Limited application due to only testing men, some research suggests women conform more (more concerned about social relationships). - less generalisable (didn't take into account gender, cultural differences etc)
      - Ethical issues - deception
  - - - Set up a mock prison, emotionally stable participants
      - Random assortment into guards and prisoners
      - Given outfits to match role
      - Guards told they had been selected to be guards due to characteristics
    - - People conformed to their roles
        
        90% of prisoner's convos were about prison life, referred to selves as prisoner numbers etc
      - Ended with concern for the prisoners psychological and physical health
      - 1 Prisoner released 1st day, 2 on the 4th, 1 went on hunger strike, guards attempted to force feed
        
        Shunned by other prisoners
        
        Guards fit role, more aggressive
    - - Ethics - WTF?!? - wouldn't release P's at first
      - Lack of realism
        
        Roles based on stereotypes, not real behaviour
      - Some control over variables - selection of participants (only mentally stable etc)
      - Cannot generals to lots of people, all male uni students
- - - - Lab study, 40 male participants to see how many volts they would give to a "student" when told to by "scientist" in a lab coat
      - If P turned to researcher 4 Prods could be issued
        
        "Please go on"
        
        "The experiment requires you to continue"
        
        "It is absolutely essential that you continue"
        
        "You have no other choice, you must go on"
      - Volts labelled e.g. 15V - Slight shock, 450V - Danger, Severe Shock
    - - No participants stopped below 300V - 12.5% stopped at 300V, 65% continued to 450V
      - P's showed signs of extreme tension
        
        3 had "full-blown uncontrollable seizures
      - Previously predicted no more than 3% of Ps would continue to 450V
      - All P's debriefed and assured they were normal, 85% said they felt glad to have participated
    - - Low internal validity - guessed the shocks weren't real?
      - Good external validity - lab experiment reflected wider authority relationships in real life
      - Supportive evidence - repeated in 2010, 80% of Ps fully shocked a "unconscious man"
      - Cross cultural support
    - - Proximity - when "student" was in the room conformity dropped from 65% to 40%
      - Location: run down building decreased 65% to 47.5%
      - Uniform - when lab coat was removed conformity down to 20%