Social psychology

Social psychology

• 1.
  C O NF O R M I T Y T O M A J O R I T Y I N F L U E N C E Conformity
• 2.
  Conformity to amajority influence Kelman  Compliance – When a person will publically agree but privately disagree, e.g. A person might laugh at a joke that others are laughing at but privately does not find it funny  Internalisation – A person conforms publically and privately because they have internalised the views of the group, e.g. A person may turn vegetarian after living with a group of them at uni  Identification – Person conforms publically and privately because they have identified with the group and feel a sense of membership Asch  123 male students agreed to do a visual perception task  One main line was drawn which they had to match with an option of 3 other lines  In this experiment, only 1 participant in each group of 6 was real, they others were all confederates  Overall there was a 37% conformity  25% of participants did not conform  5% conformed on every line
• 3.
  Conformity to amajority influence Evaluating Asch  Lack of ecological validity – artificial situation  Highly controlled – cause and effect  Lack of informed consent  Only used males - androcentric  Participants were given the right to withdraw  Deception – They didn’t know that the others were confederates Smith and bond – culture and conformity  Meta-analysis of 133 studies in 17 countries  Collectivist countries (UK, USA) tended to show higher levels of conformity than individualist countries (Japan)  The impact of culture variables was higher than any other variable (e.g. Gender) Variations of Asch  Difficulty of task – The lengths of the lines was made much smaller so that it was harder to spot the correct answer  Under this condition, conformity increased.  Size of the majority – When the confederates decreased to just 1 or 2 participants were less likely to conform.  When confederates were increased to 3 conformity rose to 30%  Any more confederates above 3 did not impact levels of majority at all
• 4.
  C O NF O R M I T Y I N T O S O C I A L R O L E S Conformity
• 5.
  Conformity into socialroles Zimbardo  Used male volunteers who were paid $15 a day to take part in a 2 week stimulation of prison life  Participants were randomly allocated into roles of prisoners or guards  9 ‘prisoners’ were arrested in the night, put in prison and given smocks to wear  There were 3 guards of each shift who wore khaki uniforms and dark glasses  Guards harassed and humiliated prisoners but physical aggression was not permitted  The study had to be discontinued after 6 days as prisoners became too depressed and anxious  This shows that people will readily conform into social roles if expected to do so Evaluation  Zimbardo acted as a guard as well as the researcher so could have influenced the behaviour of the guards  Demand characterstics
• 6.
  C O NF O R M I T Y T O M I N O R I T Y I N F L U E N C E Conformity
• 7.
  Conformity to aminority influence Conditions necessary for social change by minority:  Drawing attention to the issue – If we are exposed to the views of minority then it draws attention to it. If their view is different to the norm it causes conflict which we want to reduce so go along with.  The role of conflict – As a result of conflict we actually look into the minorities idea and think deeply about it. If we are deeply looking into an issue then we consider changing our opinions.  Consistency – Minorities are more effective if they are more consistent as they are taken more seriously  The augmentation principle – If there is a risk of violence or death involved in putting forward an argument then people will listen and take the situation more seriously.
• 8.
  Conformity to aminority influence Moscovici  32 groups of women participants were put into groups of 6  In these groups of 6, 2 were confederates  They were shown slides of a PowerPoint of which were all varied shades of blue  There were two conditions;  Consistent – Confederates said that all the slides were green  Inconstant – Confederates said that the slides were green 24 times and blue 12 times  Participants in the inconsistent condition called the slides green in 8.4% of trails  32% of participants in the inconsistent condition said at least one slide was green  Minorities can still influence the majority in certain circumstances  Lack of ecological validity  Deception  Highly controlled – clear established cause and effect  Lack of informed constent
• 9.
  Conformity to aminority influence Moscovici – conversion theory  If an individual is exposed to an argument that is contradictory to the majority it causes conflict  People do not like to experience conflict therefore look into this minority idea and are motivated to reduce this conflict and to do this they have to go along with the minority influence  With majority influence, individuals are less likely to closely analyse the argument and just simply adjust their attitudes Evaluation  Mackie completely disagrees with Moscovici by saying that its the majority which promotes greater message processing. People genuinely believe that their views are the same as the majority.If the majority share a different opinion to us we think deeply about changing our opinion and don't worry about what the minority are doing
• 10.
  Conformity to aminority influence Fathers 4 justice  O'Conner lead the fathers 4 justice protest  They were campaigning for equal parenting rights  They bought about attention by a super hero climbing on Buckingham palace  Sent 200 Santa clauses into a building to protest Suffragettes  Tried to gain equal rights for women  Attempted using peaceful methods but this didn't work so turned to violence  One women threw themselves in front of the kings horse and got killed  They went on a hunger strike in prison and refused to eat because they were in prison so they got let out  This continued for 15 years
• 11.
  O B ED I E N C E T O A U T H O R I T Y Obedience
• 12.
  Obedience to authority Milgram 40 male volunteers were each paid $4.50  The real participant acted as the ‘teacher’ and the confederate played the role of the ‘learner’  The ‘teacher’ had to give an electric shock every time the ‘learner’ got an answer wrong  The confederate voice was played on a tape recorder and no-one was really given any electric shocks  The electric shock scale varied from 15 volts to 450 volts  All participants went to at least 300 volts  65% went to the full 450 volts  Most participants found the participants found the experiment stressful and wanted to stop  The study showed that most people will obey orders under an authoritive figure even if it goes against the conscience
• 13.
  Obedience to authority Evaluation Androcentric  Got paid - volunteers  Individual differences – personality  Demand characteristics  Lack of realism – lab  Deception  Lack of informed constant before the experiment Variations 1 ) The learner was placed in the same room as the teacher (real participant) – 40% gave the full 450 volts 2) The participant was given the choice of which shock to administer – 2.5% gave the full 450 volts 3) Participants were all female – 65% gave the full 450 volts
• 14.
  Obedience to authority Explanationof obedience  Gradual commitment – As the participants had already given lower-shocks it becomes harder to resist the experiment requirements. Each shock is only 15 volts more than the previous one so it doesn't appear to be as bad.  Agentic shift - an individual may shift from ‘automous’ state (responsible for themselves) to ‘Agentic’ state (agent for someone else) blaming the authoritive figure for their actions  Roles of buffers – Protection from guilt. The learners were in a different room from the teachers so did not have to witness the learner in pain  Justifying obedience – the participants are lead to believe that they are doing something for the greater good and for the need of science so what harm can a little bit of pain really cause Criticising the explanations  Milgram ignored other plausible explanations  Not a justified explanation for ‘just obeying orders’ this is not an excuse for killing someone  In Milgrams study, participants were told that they were not causing harm on the learner whereas in the Holocaust they knew they were shooting to kill
• 15.
  R E SI S T I N G T H E P R E S S U R E T O C O N F O R M Independent behaviour
• 16.
  Resisting the pressureto conform Desire for individuation:  Wanting to stand out from the crowd and not be like everyone else; having a sense of uniqueness  Snyder and Frankin - Led group 1 to believe that their attitudes were different from the norm. Led group 2 to believe that their attitudes were identical to the norm. Those who had their identity stolen resisted conformity pressures due to wanting to be different Desire to maintain control:  Group pressure may be a threat to their freedom as they do not want to be one of the crowd  Burger – People with a desire for personal control resist conformity pressures easier Prior commitment:  When someone announces publically to an opinion then you are less likely to change your view as you do not want to appear indecisive or to ignorance even if a better answer is found  Asch – Participants under took an allusions test, after the test was done and each participant had already given their individual answer, they were asked to come up with a group estimate, after this group estimate participants were offered to change their answer which the majority did. Time to think and social support:  Some feel that they must be mindful and engage in critical thinking when faced with a situational demands in order to approach situations probably  Asch – Conformity dropped to 8.7% when participants received social support from an ally in the original Asch study with the lines
• 17.
  Resisting the pressureto obey Disobedient role models  Exposing people to the actions of a disobedient role model encourages disobedience in those who agree with the motives of the deviant person  In a Milgram variation, when the confederate participants refused to give the electric shock, 90% of the real participants didn't either Questioning authorities motives and status  Some people chose to question what reasons an authoritive figure has would make them have an increased motivation to defy  In a variation of Milgrams research, when the study a run down block of flats, the surroundings made it easier to question the authority Feeling and Empathy  Honest feelings of care are superior to the feeling of obeying  A variation of Milgrams study showed that some participants did not want to continue to obey when they knew that the ‘Learner’ was in distress and knowing that they were causing harm went against their beliefs
• 18.
  Locus of control InternalExternal Characteristics High level of personal control over their lives and behaviour Life is determined by external/environmen tal factors such as luck Relation to social influence Less likely to rely on others, more achievement orientated, resist pressure to change More likely to be influenced by others, do not believe they are in control of their lives