The Dilemma of Obedience    

Abnormality

 

 

Home AS A2 Links
Informational and Normative
Evaluation of Research
Minority Influence
Explaining Conformity
Stanford Prison Simulation
Milgram and Obedience
Milgram Evaluation
Explaining Obedience
Remaining Independent
Individual Differences
Implications for Social Change
 

 

 

 

 

 

Social influence

It’s important to remember at the outset that although psychological research generally gets conformity a bad name without it Society would not function.  In the majority of real life situations conformity is seen as good!

 

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

This happens when there is no obvious right answer so we look to others for information in order to be right.

Examples of Psychological research:

Jenness (1932): ‘Beans.’

A basic study in which Jenness gave a jar of beans to individuals and got them to estimate the number of beans inside.  He then grouped the same participants together and got them to discuss the contents.  Later when they were separated and asked their opinions Jenness found that the estimates had converged around a central figure. 

Conclusion: when we are unsure of an answer we look to others for help assuming that a majority figure will be more reliable. 

Sherif (1935): ‘Autokinetic effect’

Participants sit in a darkened room and stare at a pinpoint of light that appears to move, (try it sometime).  They are asked to estimate the distance it moves.  Since the movement is only apparent the correct answer is it doesn’t, but Sherif’s participants were obviously not aware of this.  Again, when put in rooms with others their guesses converge towards a group norm. 

In a follow up experiment Sherif started the participants in groups were they agree on an approximate answer.  When individuals are taken from this group and do the experiment on their own they stick to the answer agreed earlier.

 

Findings of this sort of research

Clearly there is conformity when people are unsure of the answer since group norms emerge.

Evaluation

Both studies are very artificial so lack ecological validity.  Can we generalise from this to real life situations?

 

 

Normative Social Influence

This happens when we go along with the crowd because we want to be accepted or liked or because we want to avoid embarrassment or being ridiculed.

Real life examples: smoking because others in your peer group smoke, dressing like your friends in order to fit in or avoid bullying

Examples of Psychological research

Asch (1951 etc.): ‘The lines’

Mind Changers: Solomon Asch

Again, you are all aware of the procedure.  Briefly stated: participants are deceived into taking part in a study on visual perception.  They are seated at a desk with others that they believe to be fellow participants but who in reality are in league with the researchers (stooges or confederates).  Lines are presented on a screen and participants simply have to say which line (out of 3 possibilities, is the same length as the target line).  The stooges get the right answer on the first two trials but then start to make deliberate mistakes. 

Conformity is measured by counting the number of times the real participant conforms when stooges give the wrong answer.

Findings

Overall conformity rate was 37% (sometimes reported as 32%)This means that participants conformed on 37% of all trials.

However, within this there were substantial individual differences:

Nobody conformed on 100% of trials

13 out of the original 50 never conformed at all

Highest rate of conformity was a participant who conformed on 11 out of 12 trials 75% conformed at least once.

Also mention what Asch found in his variations:

Factor

Description and conformity

Size of group

One stooge (3%), two stooges (14%), three stooges (32%).  Further increases in group size do not increase conformity.  With very large groups conformity actually begins to fall!

Supporter

If one of stooges also disagrees with others conformity drops sharply

Difficulty of task

As task becomes more difficult conformity increases

Familiarity of task

We are less likely to conform when we are confident in our ability, e.g. men are less likely to conform to incorrectly named tools than they are to incorrectly named kitchen utensils.  Clearly research of the 1950s!

 

Next page