Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

conformity - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 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.
  - - - proximity: obedience 40% with T and l in the same room, 30% for touch proximity. psychological distance affects obedience.
      - location: obedience 47.5% in a run down office building. the prestige of Yale university affected the experiments perceived authority.
      - uniform: obedience of 20% when the experimenter was a ' member of the public'. uniform is a symbol of legitimate authority.
    - - research support: Bickman Showed power of uniform in his feild experiment.
      - cross cultural replications: Dutch participants where ordered to say stressful things to an interviewee, decreased proximity led to decreased obedience (Meeus and Raaijmakers).
        however most studies in western cultures similar to the USA, so not generalisable.
      - low internal validity: some of Milgram's procedures in the variations especially were extremely contrived, so not genuine obedience (Orne and Holland).
      - the danger of the situational perspective: Gives and obedience alibi for destructive behaviour (Mandel)
  - - - the agentic state: acting as an agent of another person.
      - the autonomous state : free to act according to ones conscience. switching between the agentic state and the autonomous is called the agentic shift.
      - binding factors: allow individuals to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour.
      - 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)
    - - 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).
  - - - AP and obedience: Adorno et al (1950) described the authoritarian personality as extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it, contempt for those inferior to them.
      - origins of AP: harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents to its displaced onto scapegoats.
      - Adorno's research procedure: he used the f-scale to study the unconscious attitudes people had to other racial groups.
      - findings : Aps identified with 'strong' people, have fixed cognitive styles and hold stereotypes and prejudices.
      - evaluation
        
        research support: obedient participants had high f-scale scores (Elms and Milgram 1966). however obedient participants unlike authoritarians in many ways, it's complex.
        
        limited explanation: cant explain obedience across a whole culture (social identity theory is better).
        
        political bias: authoritarianisum equated with right wing ideology, ignores left wing authoritarianism (Christie and Jahoda) .
        
        Flawed evidence: F-scale is basis of the authoritarian personality explanation. but it has flaws like response bias , so its not useful (Greenstein)
- - - - 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).
    - - artificial situation and task: participants knew this was a study so they just payed along with a trivial task ( so demand characteristics).
      - limited application: Asch's research only conducted on American men.
      - 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.
  - - - informational social influence : conform to be correct , assuming others know better than we do.
      - normative social influence: conform to be liked or accepted by the group
    - - 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.
  - - - the Stanford prison experiment:
        
        mock prison with 21 student volunteers, randomly assigned as guards or prisoners.
        conformity of social roles was created through uniforms ( loose smocks for prisoners, wooden club for guards) and instructions about behaviour (guards had power).
        
        findings related to social roles : Guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners rebellion put down and prisoners became depressed. the study stopped after 6 days when it was meant to run for 14.
        
        conclusions related to social roles: participants strongly conformed to their social roles.
        
        evaluation
        
        control: random assighnment of roles increased internal validity.
        
        lack of realism: participants could be play acting the roles according to the stereotypes they have of them (Banuazizi and Movahedi). however evidence that the prisoners thought that the prison was real to them . 90% of conversation was about prison life (McDermott).
        
        Exaggeration of the power of roles: only one third of the guards were brutal so the conclusions where exaggerated. (Fromm)
        
        alternative explanation: social identity theory suggests taking on roles due to active identification, not automatic (Haslam and Reicher)
- - - - real world research support: Having a buddy helps resist peer pressure to smoke (Albrecht et al).
      - research support for disagreeing peers: obedience to an order from an oil company fell when participants where in groups (Gamson et al).
      - social support explanation: resistance lower (36% versus 64%) when the confederate had poor eyesight. (Allen and Levine 1971).
  - - - research support: internals are less likely to fully obey in Milgram- type procedures (Holland).
      - contradictory research: people now more independent but also more external (Twenge et al ).
      - limited role of LOC: role of LOC only applies in new situations (Rotter).