Notes

conformity- type of social influence where you change your views/ behaviour due to real or imagined pressure
compliance- public, not private- temporary
internalisation- public+ private - permanent
identification- role model, change views to fit in with group

NSI- normative social influence- need to be liked . avoid behaviour that would cause us to be ridiculed. change behaviour to fit in
ISI- informational social influence- need to be right- look to others for what to do.
STRENGTHS- Jenness and sherif found ISI in their experiments. Asch(1951) found NSI.
WEAKNESSES- can be together in a situation. Cultural bias and ecological validity. Individual differences.

jenness- jelly beans. guess individually (wide variety) put in group of 3. Guesses become very similar.- shows ISI
Sherif- autokinetic effect (visual illusion) guess alone, then in groups of 3. in a group 2 had similar ideas, 1 didnt. The 1 conformed- showing ISI
Asch(1951)- Line experiment. 123 American male students. 18 trials overall, 12 clinical trials. control tests too. groups of 1 participant + up to 8 confederates.
35% conformance rate overall - 75% conformed at least once - 25% never conformed
in an interview after they said they knew the answers were wrong, but wanted to fit in. - Shows compliance and NSI

Asch testing variables in conformity!
3 tested: group size, unanimity of the majority and task difficulty
1) group size- 1/2 confederates= little conformity. 3 confederates = 30% conformance. >3 = no change
2) unanimity- 1 right answer given.. rates went from 35% to 5.5%. 1 other wrong answer given... 35% to 9%
3) task difficulty- closer lines meant a higher rate of conformity - participants with higher self efficacy didnt conform.
WEAKNESSES- lack of temporal validity (done again in 1980 by Perrin and Spencer w engineering students, only 1 student in 396 trias conformed).
- lack of population validity (only American males)
-lacks ecological validity (not an everyday scenario/ demand characteristics would have been shown.

stanford prison experiment-Zimbardo 1974
70 volunteers (to see the psychological effect of prison life). had personality tests done and made sure they had no history with crime and drugs.
payed 15 dollars a day
24 males were chosen - randomly assigned roles. 11 guards and 10 prisoners.
PRISONERS- arrested from their homes without warning, fingerprints taken and they were booked. given prison smocks, no underwear and given an ID number.
PRISON GUARDS- given a uniform (khaki), worked in shifts, sunglasses which made eye contact impossible.
^ told to do what they thought necessary to maintain law and order and to demand respect from the prisoners. - no physical violence allowed.
they quickly adopted their social roles. Guards dehumanised prisoners and made them do meaningless tasks, they abused their authority.
5 prisoners had to leave early, experiment ended after 6 days (meant to last for 14 days) after Zimbardo's GF Christina Malasch told him to.
STRENGTHS - Internal validity (controlled variables)- the roles were random etc.
- good application (Abu Ghraib) USA military police treated the Iraqi prisoners so bad due to what Zimbardo believes were situational factors.
WEAKNESSES- ethical issues- Zimbardo's dual role. Deception/ lack of consent. Hard to withdraw.
- lack of research support - BBC prison study - prisoner took charge.

MILGRAM (1963).
40 participants. introduced to Mr Wallace. 'randomly' assigned teacher and learner. told to shock for wrong answers. from 180 he shouted he couldn't take it, from 300 he begged to stop and at 315 there was silence.
STANDARDISED PRODS- 1) please continue
2) the experiment requires you to continue
3) it is absolutely essential you must continue
4) you have no other choice you must continue
RESULTS- 100% went to 330 volts. 65% went to 450 volts. they showed nervousness and tension.
WEAKNESSES- lacks ecological + internal validity- demand characteristics (figured out its a set-up)
-ethical issues- deception + hard to withdraw
STRENGTHS- supported by hoflich and the game of death.
hoflich- had a fake doctor (DR Smith) call nurses and tell them to administer 20mg of a made up drug to a patient (without written instructions) the bottle had a label saying the max dose was 10mg. 21 of 22 nurses administered the medicine. 11 later admitted they didnt notice the dose discrepancy.
^ didnt have time to get advice and had no knowledge of the drug... when done again with a known doctor and Valium 2 of 18 obeyed.
game of death had 80% of participants shock to the max amount. they also had the same behaviour as Milgram's participants.

Milgram wanted to test some variables: Proximity, Uniform and Location.
Proximity: same room as the victim- levels dropped from 65% to 40%
pushing their hand onto an electroshock plate- levels dropped to 30%
taking instructions over the phone- levels dropped to 20.5%
Uniform: a random civilian in normal clothes- 20% obeyed compared to 65% when it was a scientist with a labcoat
Location: when in a run down building there was 47.5% conformity.
STRENGTHS- research support- Bickman- 3 researchers dressed as a milkman, guard and civilian. told random pedestrians to do tasks. 80% obeyed the researcher in the guard uniform compared to 40% in the other 2.
- cultural replication- Miranda found 90% of spanish students obeyed
^ but it was only tested in developed countries so cannot be applied all over the world. developing countries may have different levels of conformity.
WEAKNESSES- lack of internal validity (knew it was a setup so acted differently/ showed demand characteristics)
- David Mandel called it the obedience alibi. using situation variables makes an excuse for evil/bad behaviour.