quizlet cards social conformity

Conformity

• Conformity involves altering one's behavior or opinions due to real or perceived pressure from others.

Types of Conformity

• Internalization is genuinely accepting group norms, leading to private, public, and permanent changes in opinions and behavior.
• Identification is conforming to a group's opinions and behaviors because the group is valued, resulting in public agreement but not necessarily private acceptance of all group values.
• Compliance is publicly agreeing with the group while privately disagreeing, resulting in a superficial change that stops when public pressure ceases.

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

• ISI occurs when individuals look to others for information, especially in ambiguous or crisis situations, or when others are perceived as experts.
• ISI is driven by the desire to be right and is a cognitive process.

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

• NSI involves conforming to fit in and gain social approval, driven by the desire to be liked and avoid rejection.
• NSI is an emotional process that is stronger in stressful situations or with friends.

Research Support for ISI

• Students conformed more to incorrect answers on difficult math questions, especially those with poor math skills, showing conformity when unsure of the answer.

Individual Differences in NSI

• NSI affects individuals differently, with nAffiliators (those with a greater need for affiliation) being more likely to conform.

Interplay of ISI and NSI

• Dissenting participants in Asch's experiments reduced conformity by either providing social support (reducing NSI) or an alternative information source (reducing ISI).
• It's difficult to determine which process is at work, questioning the view of ISI and NSI as independent processes.

Individual Differences in ISI

• Students were less conformist than other participants in Asch's experiments, and science/engineering students showed very little conformity.

Research Support for NSI

• In Asch's study, participants conformed to avoid feeling self-conscious and fearing disapproval.
• When participants wrote answers down, conformity rates decreased.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Procedure

• Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, with confederates giving incorrect answers on 12 of 18 trials.
• The study involved 123 male American undergraduates in groups of 6-8, with naive participants unaware of the confederates.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Findings

• Naive participants gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time.
• 75% of participants conformed at least once.
• Participants conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Group Size

• Conformity rose to 31.8% with three confederates, but additional confederates made no difference.
• A small minority is insufficient for influence, and a majority beyond three isn't necessary.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Unanimity

• A dissenting confederate reduced conformity by a quarter, enabling independent behavior.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Task Difficulty

• Conformity increased when the line-judging task was made more difficult, suggesting ISI plays a greater role in ambiguous situations.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: A Child of Its Time (AO3)

• A replication with UK engineering students showed very little conformity, possibly due to greater confidence or societal changes since the 1950s.
• The Asch effect might not be consistent across situations or time, questioning its fundamental nature.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Artificiality (AO3)

• Participants may have responded to demand characteristics due to the artificial lab setting and trivial task.
• The study may not generalize to everyday situations.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Limited Application (AO3)

• Asch only tested men; women may be more conformist.
• Collectivist cultures show higher conformity rates than individualist cultures, suggesting the findings may only apply to American men.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Specific Situations (AO3)

• Answering out loud among strangers may have increased conformity to impress, but conformity is higher when the group consists of friends.

Asch's Conformity Experiment: Ethical Issues (AO3)

• Naive participants were deceived, but the ethical cost should be weighed against the benefits gained.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Procedure

• A mock prison was set up in Stanford University's basement, with emotionally stable students randomly assigned as guards or prisoners.
• Prisoners were arrested, strip-searched, and given uniforms and numbers.
• Guards enforced 16 rules and had complete power over prisoners.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Findings

• The study was stopped after 6 days (intended 14) due to threats to psychological and physical health.
• Guards became brutal and aggressive, while prisoners became subdued, depressed, and anxious.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Conclusion

• The experiment revealed the power of the situation to influence behavior, with participants conforming to assigned roles.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Control (AO3)

• Selecting emotionally stable participants and randomly assigning roles increased internal validity by ruling out personality differences.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Lack of Realism (AO3)

• Participants may have been play-acting based on stereotypes, but qualitative data showed that 90% of prisoner conversations were about prison life, suggesting high internal validity.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Dispositional Influences (AO3)

• Only 1/3 of guards were brutal, while others were fair or supportive, suggesting Zimbardo overstated the power of the situation.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Lack of Research Support (AO3)

• A partial replication in 2006 found prisoners taking charge, explained by social identity theory.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: Ethical Issues (AO3)

• Zimbardo's dual roles as researcher and superintendent created ethical issues, with concerns about the well-being of participants.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Procedure

• 40 male participants were recruited for a memory study and paid $4.50.
• Participants were assigned as "teachers" who delivered electric shocks (fake) to a "learner" (confederate) for incorrect answers.
• Shock levels ranged from 15 to 450 volts.
• The experimenter used prods to encourage the teacher to continue.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Findings

• 65% of participants continued to 450 volts.
• Participants showed extreme tension, with some having seizures.
• Prior to the study, it was predicted that no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts.
• Follow-up questionnaires showed 84% were glad to have participated.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Low Internal Validity (AO3)

• Participants may have guessed the shocks were fake.
• A similar study with real shocks to a puppy showed similar obedience levels, suggesting genuine effects.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Good External Validity (AO3)

• The experiment reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
• Nurses obeyed unjustified demands from doctors, suggesting generalizability.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Supporting Replication (AO3)

• A replication on a reality TV show found 80% of participants delivering maximum shocks, supporting Milgram's conclusions.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Social Identity Theory (AO3)

• Obedience is linked to group identification, with participants identifying with the experimenter and the science of the study.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Ethical Issues (AO3)

• Deception was used regarding the randomness of roles and the reality of electric shocks.

Situational Variables: Proximity

• Obedience rates decreased when the teacher and learner were in the same room (40%), when the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a plate (30%), and when instructions were given over the phone (20.5%).

Situational Variables: Location

• Obedience fell to 47.5% when the study was conducted in a run-down building.

Situational Variables: Uniform

• Obedience dropped to 20% when the experimenter was replaced by an "ordinary member of the public" in everyday clothes.

Situational Variables: Research Support (AO3)

• People were twice as likely to obey a security guard than someone in a jacket and tie.

Situational Variables: Lack of Internal Validity (AO3)

• Participants may have realized the procedure was fake due to manipulations in the variations.

Situational Variables: Cross-Cultural Replications (AO3)

• Replications in other cultures (e.g., Spain) found high obedience rates, but most replications are in Western countries.

Situational Variables: Control of Variables (AO3)

• Milgram altered one variable at a time, keeping other procedures constant, ensuring the results were not due to chance.

Situational Variables: "Obedience Alibi" (AO3)

• The idea that situational factors affect obedience has been criticized as offering an excuse for evil behavior.

Agentic State

• In the agentic state, individuals feel no personal responsibility for their actions because they believe they are acting for an authority figure.

Autonomous State

• In the autonomous state, individuals behave according to their own principles and feel responsible for their actions.

Agentic Shift

• The agentic shift is the transition from autonomy to agency.

Buffer

• Buffers are aspects of a situation that allow individuals to ignore the damaging effects of their behavior and reduce moral strain.

Evaluation of Agentic State

• Blass and Schmitt found that students identified the experimenter as responsible for the learner's harm in Milgram's study.

Legitimacy of Authority

• People are more likely to obey those perceived as having authority, justified by their position within a social hierarchy.

Destructive Authority

• Destructive authority is the use of legitimate powers for destructive purposes, such as Hitler.

Evaluation of Legitimacy of Authority

• Kilham and Mann found 16% of Australian participants went to the highest voltage, while 85% of German participants did.

Dispositional Explanations: The Authoritarian Personality

• Adorno believed that a high level of obedience was a psychological disorder.

Dispositional Explanations: Procedure

• Adorno investigated the causes of the obedient personality using 2000 middle-class white Americans and developed the F-scale (fascism scale).

Dispositional Explanations: Findings

• People who scored high on the F-scale identified with strong people and were contemptuous of the weak, showing excessive respect to those of higher status.
• There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Dispositional Explanations: Characteristics

• Extreme respect and submissiveness to authority.
• Contempt for those inferior to them.
• Highly traditional attitudes.
• Inflexible outlook.

Dispositional Explanations: Origins

• Harsh parenting (strict, critical, conditional love) creates resentment and hostility in the child, which is displaced onto others (scapegoating).

Dispositional Explanations: Research Support (AO3)

• Interviews with fully obedient participants who scored high on the F-scale showed a correlation between obedience and authoritarian personality.
• This does not entail causation.

Dispositional Explanations: Limited Explanation (AO3)

• Social identity theory may provide a more realistic explanation.

Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support Conformity

• A dissenting participant reduces the pressure to conform.
• If the dissenter conforms again, the naive participant does the same.

Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support Obedience

• A disobeying participant reduces the pressure to obey.
• In Milgram's experiment, obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10% with a disobedient confederate.

Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Control (LOC)

• Internals believe they control their own lives, while externals believe external factors control them.
• Internals are more likely to resist social influence pressures.

Resistance to Social Influence: Research Support for Resistance to Conformity (AO3)

• Conformity was reduced in the presence of a dissenting participant
• Resistance is not about following someone else but about acting from one's own conscience.

Resistance to Social Influence: Research Support for Resistance to Obedience (AO3)

• Peer support is linked to greater resistance. 29 out of 33 groups rebelled when asked to participate in a smear campaign.

Resistance to Social Influence: Research Support for LOC (AO3)

• Internals showed greater resistance to authority in a repeat of Milgram's study (37% did not continue to the highest shock level, compared to 23% of externals).

Resistance to Social Influence: Contradictory Research for LOC (AO3)

• Over time, people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external, challenging the link between internal LOC and resistance.

Resistance to Social Influence: Limited Role of LOC (AO3)

• LOC only occurs in new situations and has little influence in familiar situations.

Minority Influence

• Minority influence is a form of social influence in which a minority persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.

Moscovici et al. (1969)

• Participants shown blue-green slides; confederates consistently said they were green.
• Participants gave wrong answer on 8.42% of trails and 32% answered the same as minority at least once but results were inconsistent.

Main Processes in Minority Influence

• Consistency: Maintaining the same beliefs over time.
• Flexibility: Being willing to compromise.
• Commitment: Demonstrating dedication (snowball effect).

Evaluation of Minority Influence

• Uses artificial tasks, lacks external validity and it's much more complicated within in in the real world
• Moscovici inconsistent findings; is not strong evidence

Social Change

• Drawing attention, consistency, deeper processing, augmentation principle, snowball effect, social cryptomnesia.

Lessons From Conformity Research

• A non-conforming confederate increases dissent.
• Health campaigners use NSI.

Lessons From Obedience Research

• Non-obedient confederate decreases obedience.
• Social change can be created by the use of obedience through the process of gradual commitment.

Evaluation of Social Change

• Barriers to social change: People don't want to be associated with negative stereotypes
• MI in indirectly effective as effects are delayed; social change is fragile and MI role in social change is very limited
• Majority may have more power.