Conformity

• Jennes' study into Informational social influence


  Jennes, in 1932, conducted his 'how many jellybeans in a jar' test :

  found that people based their answers off of previous answers (used other answers as a guide)

  example of informational social influence
• What is compliance?


  The lowest level of conformity. Involves going along with the group publicly, but privately disagreeing with their beliefs and opinions. This change in behaviour or opinion only lasts as long as the pressure from the group is present
• What is identification?


  Identifying with the group, by conforming to their behaviours and opinions, as we wish to be accepted by the group. Therefore, we change our public behaviours and opinions to fit in with the group and be a part of them, while we may privately disagree with some of their principles
• What is internalisation?


  When we accept that the group's behaviours and opinions are correct, and therefore publicly AND privately agree with them, leading to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour and opinion, even when the group is absent
• Who developed the two-process theory and what does it involve?

  Deutsch and Gerard developed this in 1955. This argues that people conform because of informational social influence (ISI) and normative social influence (NSI)
• Describe Informational Social Influence


  When the situation is ambiguous, new, or scary (a crisis situation), we look to others who we believe are more knowledgeable and will have the correct answer. We follow the behaviour of the majority as we desire to be correct, therefore making this a COGNITIVE process; it is to do with what we think
• Describe Normative Social Influence

  This is to do with following the 'norm' and being accepted and liked by others. Driven by our desire to be accepted and not deemed foolish, therefore making this an EMOTIONAL process. Results in compliance. Most likely to occur in situations with strangers, where you fear rejection, however also occurs frequently with people we do know, as we respect them and wish to be accepted and liked by them. Is also pronounced in stressful situations, where people need social support
• Describe the participants in Asch's 1951 line study

  123 NAIVE male American students from Swarthmore College in the USA, who were all placed in groups with different numbers of confederates
• Describe the process of Asch's line study


  Standard line, and three comparison lines (A,B and C). Participants stated aloud which comparison line was most like the standard line. The naïve participant would always give their answer either last or second to last. The answer was always clear. The confederates gave the correct answers in 6 of the 18 trials, and the incorrect ones in the other 12 (the critical trials). There was one participant who walked in late and wrote down their answers, one confederate eventually joined the naïve participant, and there was also a control group
• Findings of Solomon Asch's study


  75% conformed at least once, and on average the naïve participants conformed about 33% of the time. 25% never conformed. In the control group, with no confederates, the wrong answer was given by less than 1% of the participants, eliminating lack of perception or knowledge as extraneous variables
• What variables did Asch investigate?


  Group size, unanimity and task difficulty
• How did Asch investigate the effect of task difficulty on conformity?

  As the experiment progressed, the difficulty of the task gradually increased, and it became more difficult for the naïve participant to correctly guess which comparison line matched the standard line. This led the naïve participants to rely on the confederates, who they believed had the correct answers (Informational Social Influence), as they desired to be correct
• How did Asch investigate the effect of unanimity on conformity?


  Introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates and allied with the naïve participant, creating flaws and inconsistencies in the majority's answers. Conformity levels decreased to about 5%, which is less than a quarter of what they were before. Even when the dissenter would give the incorrect answer, the naïve participant was less likely to conform, so even just their presence was enough
• How did Asch investigate the effect of group size on conformity?


  ranged the number of confederates from 1 to 15. Found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity; conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point (3 confederates), which was when conformity rates reached about 32%. Adding more confederates past this point didn't have much impact on conformity; it remained at about 32%. This shows that even two or three people are enough to sway opinion, therefore we are sensitive to others' opinions and crave validation from others
• Bath towel experiment (NSI)


  Wesley Schultz et al in 2008 used printed messages encouraging hotel guests to save energy. Message that suggested other guests used fewer bath towels were the most successful in changing behaviour
• Describe Abu Ghraib


  2003-04 US troops took control over Abu Ghraib prison, in Baghdad, Iraq. The prisoners were tortured, physically and sexually abused, humiliated often and some were even murdered. Zimbardo noticed a few similarities between these troops and the guards from his experiment
• Describe Zimbardo's participants

  Responded to a 1973 newspaper advert, which asked for male students to partake in a study in a mock prison in the basement of the psych department at Stanford University. 24 male students, who were tested to ensure they were 'mentally and emotionally stable', were selected and randomly assigned roles of prisoners or guards

  Prisoners wore smock, given numbers and nylon stocking caps. Guards wore sunglasses, khakis, had wooden batons and handcuffs
• Process of Zimbardo's study


  'Prisoners' arrested, handcuffed, taken to 'prison' by police. Upon arrival guards stripped, cleaned and checked the prisoners, then gave them uniforms. Prisoners kept in a cell with 3 others (not separated into men and women). After 2 days prisoners rebelled and barricaded themselves into rooms, so punished by guards, who would wake them up during the night, line them up against the wall and force exercise. Prisoners = hopeless. One prisoner so depressed they had to 'go on parole'. Backup sent in & went on hunger strike. Guards = angry, threw him in 'the hole'
• What happened to Zimbardo himself during the study?


  He became so invested in his role as prison superintendent that he didn't realise the absolute brutality and inhumanity his guards were exerting on the prisoners. It took two psychologists to visit the mock prison and tell him how ethically wrong it was for him to finally end the experiment after 6 days, rather than the initial 14
• Describe the process of Adnorno et al's research


  1950 - studied more than 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. Researchers developed f scale, which is used to measure authoritarian personality.
• Describe the f scale


  Consists of 30 questions, from which you have options 1-6. 1 being strongly disagree and 6 strongly agree
• Findings of Adnorno's research

  People scoring highly on the f scale (w/ authoritarian personality) associated with the strong and displayed discontent for the weak. Very conscious of status and showed extreme respect and deference to those of higher status. Also found they have a certain cognitive style, in which they had black and white, definite thinking. Strong positive correlation between prejudice and authoritarianism
• Conclusion of Zimbardo's study

  Study supports situational hypothesis because environment led to change in behaviour. Social roles appear to have strong influence on behaviour; guards became brutal and prisoners submissive. The guards were surprised by their behaviour in interviews afterwards