Sherif (1936) light autokinetic effect
Aim: Find if individuals alter opinions when reflecting as a group about measurement of a stimulus using the autokinetik effect.
Procedure: Focus on spot of light and estimate how far it moved.
This was ambiguous as there was no correct answer.
Second condition: Repeat task in groups of 3.
result: Individuals changed views so they were similar.
Those with high estimates lowered them, vise versa.
In third trial, group norm emerged.
Types of conformity
- Compliance:
- Superficial
- Conform publicly but privately think own view. - Identification:
- Deeper type.
- Change views publicly and privately to fit in but when identification takes place the belief/behaviour may be temporary, - Internalization:
- Conversion, deepest.
- Views taken becomes part of persons cognitive system and can retain for life.
Asch (1951): majority influence COMPLIANCE.
Aim: To assess if a minority would change their minds to conform to an obviously wrong majority.
Procedure: Experimental paradigm method to study responses.
- 123 male students groups on 7-9.
- 'Visual perception' task of lines on a card.
- 18 trials, confederates gave wrong answer. (only on p)- 123 male students groups on 7-9.
- 'Visual perception' task of lines on a card.
Result: 37% conformed overall.
5% conformed every trial
25% remained independant and gave correct answer.
P's doubted their eyes.
Moscovici (1969) Minority influence :INTERNALIZATION
Aim: To see if consistent minority of p's influence majority on colour perception task.
Participants: 172 p's.
- 6 p's at a time estimated 36 slides (all blue, diff shades)
- 2/6 confederates.
2 conditions
- CONSISTENT: 2 confederates called slides green all.
- INCONSISTENT: 2 c's green 24 times, blue 12 times.
Results: P's in consistent yielded and called shades green 8.4% trials.
- 32% in consistent at least once.
- Ibconsistent only 1.3%.
Conclusion: Important minority behave consistently.
- Individual members of minority maintain viewpoint with each other.
Clark (1994) MINORITY INFLUENCE
270 role play jurors.
- 12 angry men
- Guilt or not?
- Summary of murder and key pieces of evidence.
Result: Persuasive of arguments and views of jury's was manipulated by one person.
Conclusion: combo of convincing arguments and shift of majority members resulting in minority exerting greatest influence.
Zimbardo (1973) IDENTIFICATION.
Aim: How people conform to roles by observing how people adopt to guard or prisoner simulating prison life.
The brutality of prison guard in USA due to environment or sadistic personality.
Procedure: Male volunteers 2 weeks. Randomly allocated P or G.
- Arrested 9 prisoners at homes without warning. Blindfolded, stripped disinfected, given numbers not names.
- 3 guards.
Result: Guards devised on roles. Harrassed prisoners. and conformed to role thatit had to be stopped after 6 days.
Prisoners rebelled after 2 days.
- Some p's became depressed and anxious and one had to be released after one day.
Two more on 4th day.
Conclusion: Prison environment important factor = brutal guards.
People readily conform to social roles if stereotyped.
Roles played shape attitudes and behaviours.
Factors affecting conformity
- Size of majority
- Asch's method allowed him to manipulate factors to see which influenced conformity rates.
- In one variation he manipulated size of group of confederates.
- Found conformity low when one confederate changed view.
- When group had 3 confederates, conformity was 33%. - Importance of time
- Asch in USA. Conformity high. - Importance of place and culture
Smith and Bond (1993)
- meta analysis Aschs's method study conformity.
- Conformity high in Fiji.
- Low in Belgium.
- Differences in individualistic and collectivist cultures.
Individualistic: (USA+UK) Independence and individuality.
Collectivist: Importance to social group. - Importance of modern technologies.
People interact without seeing each other e.g. chatrooms.
Crutchfield
- People unable to see each other less prone to conformity.
No comments:
Post a Comment