© Hodder Education 2011 Recap on … Social psychology

© Hodder Education 2011 Conformity A definition of conformity is yielding to group pressure. Conformity occurs when an individual’s behaviour and/or beliefs are influenced by a larger group of people. Conformity is also referred to as ‘majority influence’.

© Hodder Education 2011 Types of conformity Compliance: When an individual alters their behaviour and opinions to that of a group to gain their acceptance or avoid their disapproval. Internalisation: Public and private acceptance of majority influence where the majority’s belief system is accepted.

© Hodder Education 2011 Research into conformity Solomon Asch’s study (1955) Aims: To discover the extent of conformity to a majority. Procedure: Participants stated which lines matched in length, with confederates either stating the correct or incorrect stimulus. Findings: 36.8 per cent conformity rate to wrong answers. 75 per cent of participants conformed to at least one wrong answer. 5 per cent of participants conformed to all 12 wrong answers. Conclusions: Judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions, even when majority are blatantly wrong. Other studies: Jenness’ Beans in the jar (1932) and Smith and Bond (1996).

© Hodder Education 2011 Explanations of why people conform 1 Informational social influence: When we feel the need to be part of a group. So we may agree with the opinions of a group to be considered a member of that group, or maybe even to be popular. There is research evidence for informational social influence in the Jenness study.

© Hodder Education 2011 Explanations of why people conform 2 Normative social influence: If we are unsure of our knowledge on a topic or situation, we may feel others are more secure in their knowledge and so we conform to their behaviour or opinion. Research evidence for this includes the Asch study.

© Hodder Education 2011 Obedience: Stanley Milgram’s research (1963) Aims: To test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis. Procedure: Participants asked to administer electric shocks to a confederate when they performed a test inaccurately. Findings: Obedience rate was 62.5 per cent (25 out of 40). In terms of qualitative data, many participants showed extreme distress but some showed minimal or no discomfort, and concentrated on the task. Conclusions: We will often obey orders that distress us and go against our moral code. ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis is incorrect.

© Hodder Education 2011 Explanations – why people obey Situational factors: Milgram argues that we all obey and it is due to the situation. Perception of legitimate authority: Authority figures persuade us to obey them by their status. The agentic state: Individuals may feel like they are acting on someone else’s behalf. Personal responsibility: People more likely to obey if they feel it is not their responsibility. Gradual commitment (‘foot in the door’): Once participants commit to a task, they feel unable to withdraw.

© Hodder Education 2011 Resistance of pressures to conform Unanimity: If there is dissent in a situation, then individuals will be more likely to resist conforming. Similarity: We are more likely to conform if the majority are similar to us. Therefore, resistance is greater if they are perceived as different.

© Hodder Education 2011 Resistance to pressures to obey Proximity: Obedience levels drop if the person giving the orders is not easily seen or not in close proximity. Personal responsibility: Anything that diminishes the feeling of responsibility for the act reduces obedience levels. Conformity: If an individual sees someone else not obeying, they are likely to be disobedient too.

© Hodder Education 2011 Influence of individual differences Locus of control (LOC): Rotter (1966) believed that having an internal LOC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure. Those who see themselves in control of a situation are more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey. The opposite is true for those with an external LOC. Other influences: Attributional style.

© Hodder Education 2011 Research and understanding social change Social change can be informed by research into minority influence. This research explains how the gradual process of changing a minority viewpoint to a majority one occurs. The key factors are that the minority group is consistent, flexible, committed and relevant.

© Hodder Education 2011 Minority influence research Moscovici (1969) Aims: To investigate the role of a consistent minority upon the opinions of a majority. Procedure: Four participants in a group with two confederates were asked to make a judgement on the colour of a slide. Sometimes the confederates were consistent, sometimes not. Findings: There was 8.2 per cent agreement with the minority in the consistent condition (with 32 per cent agreeing at least once), but only a 1.25 per cent agreement in the inconsistent condition. Conclusions: Minority influence is a relatively small influence, but consistency is the important variable.