Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
conformity - Coggle Diagram
conformity
obedience
obedience
Milgram (1963)
baseline procedure: American male participants gave fake electric shocks to a learner in response to instructions (prods) from an 'experimenter'.
baseline findings: 65% gave the highest shock of 450v . 100% gave shocks up to 300v. Many showed signs of anxiety like sweating.
evaluation:
research support: French documentary/ game show found that 80% gave maximum shock, and had similar behaviour to those in Milgram's participants (Beusvois et al)
low internal validity: participants realised that shocks where fake , so they were play acting ( Orne and Holland) . this is supported by Perry who when referring to the tapes said only 50% believed the shocks where real.
however the participants did give real shocks to a puppy (Sheridan and King).
alternative interpretations of findings: Haslam et al found that participants didn't obey the fourth verbal prod. the participants identified with the scientific aims (social identity) not blind obedience.
ethical issues: deception meant the participants could not properly consent. this may be balanced by the benefit of the research.
-
situational explanations
the agentic state
-
the autonomous state : free to act according to ones conscience. switching between the agentic state and the autonomous is called the agentic shift.
-
evaluation
research support: Milgram's resistant participants continued giving shocks when the experimenter was given full responsibility.
a limited explanation: cannot explain why Rank and Jacobson (1977)'s nurses and some of Milgram's participants disobeyed.
Obedience alibi revisited: police battalion 101 behaved autonomously but destructively (Mandel 1998)
legitemacy of authoirty
legitimacy of authority: created by hierarchal nature of society. some people entitled to expect obedience. this is taught in childhood.
destructive authority: problems arise when used destructively (Hitler , Trump , Boris)
evaluation
explains curltural differences: in Australia 16% obeyed ( Kilham and Mann) but 85% in Germany (Mantell), related to the structure of society.
cannot explain all obedience: Rank and Jacobson's nurses where in a hierarchical structure but did not obey legitimate authority.
real-world crimes of obedience: Rank and Jacobson found disobedience to doctors, but stronger hierarchy and obedience at Mai Lei (Kelman and Hamilton).
-
conformity
Asch (1951)
baseline procedure: 123 male participants judged the leant of lines , the majority where confederates instructed to give incorrect answers. only one participant was actually naïve.
-
variations:
group size : Asch varied the group size from two to sixteen. conformity increased up to three and then levelled off.
unanimity: Asch placed a dissenter (confederate) in the group (who answered differently from the majority). conformity reduced in this variation.
task difficulty: Asch made line lengths more similar. Conformity increased when task was harder (ISI).
evaluation
artificial situation and task: participants knew this was a study so they just payed along with a trivial task ( so demand characteristics).
-
research support: Lucas et al (2006) found more conformity when the task was more difficult (maths problems harder).
counterpoint: however conformity is more complex, confident participants conformed less ( confounding variable/ individual factor) .
ethical issues: the research may help avoid mindless conformity, but participants where deceived.
types and explanations
-
identification: change behaviour to be a part of the group we identify with, this may change privately too.
-
explanations
informational social influence : conform to be correct , assuming others know better than we do.
-
evaluation
research support for NSI: when nor normative group pressure (written answers) conformity went down to 12.5% (Asch)
research support ISI: participants relied on other peoples answers with harder maths problems (Lucas et al).
however its hard to separate ISI and NSI, the presence of a dissenter may reduce the power of NSI or ISI.
individual differences in NSI: naffiliators want to be liked more, so they conform more (McGhee and Teevan) .
is the NSI and ISI distinction useful? : the NSI/ISI distinction may not be useful but Asch's research supports both theory's.
-
minority influence
research
consistency: if the minority is consistent (synchronic or diachronic) this attracts the attention of the majority over time.
commitment : personal sacrifices show commitment , attract attention , reinforcing the message (augmentation).
-
Explaining the prosses of change : these three factors make the majority think about the issue more deeply.
the snowball effect - is when the minority view gathers force and becomes the majority influence.
evaluation
research support for consistency: Moscovici's blue and green slide test and Wood et all's meta analysis.
research support for deeper possessing: participants exposed to the minority view resisted the conflicting view (Martin et al). however real world majorities have more power or status than minorities, this is missing from the research.
-
-
-