The Socio-Cultural Level of Analysis
Introduction
In what appeared to be a contrary movement, as social psychologists turned their attention to exploring the power of culture, other investigators were focusing attention on the biological bases of human social behaviour: the role played by genes. These investigators explained important social behaviours as special adaptations to becoming social organisms acquired throughout the course of human evolution. As social psychologists continue to integrate the biological and cultural contributions to social behaviour, they describe that the discipline of psychology is a synthesis of the biological, cognitive and sociocultural levels of analysis holds out the greatest promise of bringing us closer to the goal of more fully understanding the nature of the complex interacting systems that make up the human being.
Principle One: Human beings are social animals with a basic need to belong - this means they are motivated to have important relationships with other people
Principle Two: Culture influences human behavior - this means that humans create and shape culture and they are influenced by their culture
- culture norms provide general prescriptions for behaviors that are expected in a given culture or society
Principle Three: Humans have a social self which reflects their group memberships - group memberships give rise to social identities (ingroups) and comparison with other groups (outgroups). This might lead to bias in information processing (stereotyping) and discrimination. Third Principle
Enduring understanding:
4.1 Outline the principles that define the socio-cultural level of analysis
4.2 Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behaviour
- Milgram (1963)
4.3 Discuss two errors in attributions
- Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz (1977) (FAE) The fundamental attribution error
- Miller and Ross (1975)
4.4 Evaluate social identity theory
- Tajfel (1970/71)
4.5 Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behaviour
- Cohen (1981)
4.6 Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies
- Albert Bandura – Bobo Doll Experiment
- Charlton et al. – St Helena TV violence study (SLT, covert observation) (2000)
4.7 Compliance techniques
- Regan (1971)
4.8 Evaluate on conformity to group norms
- Asch (1951)
4.9 Discuss factors influencing conformity
- Asch (1951)
4.10 Define the terms culture and cultural norms
- Matsumoto (2004), Hofstede (1995) and Lonner (1995)
4.11 Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behaviour
4.12 Explain, using examples, emic and etic concepts
In what appeared to be a contrary movement, as social psychologists turned their attention to exploring the power of culture, other investigators were focusing attention on the biological bases of human social behaviour: the role played by genes. These investigators explained important social behaviours as special adaptations to becoming social organisms acquired throughout the course of human evolution. As social psychologists continue to integrate the biological and cultural contributions to social behaviour, they describe that the discipline of psychology is a synthesis of the biological, cognitive and sociocultural levels of analysis holds out the greatest promise of bringing us closer to the goal of more fully understanding the nature of the complex interacting systems that make up the human being.
Principle One: Human beings are social animals with a basic need to belong - this means they are motivated to have important relationships with other people
- Human beings are social animals, and we have a basic need to belong
- Biological and cognitive systems that make up the individual are embedded in an even larger system of interrelationships with others
- Relationship between individual and group is bidirectional
- The individual is affected by the group & the group can affect the individual
Principle Two: Culture influences human behavior - this means that humans create and shape culture and they are influenced by their culture
- culture norms provide general prescriptions for behaviors that are expected in a given culture or society
- Culture influences behavior
- Culture: norms and values that define a society
- In multicultural society, there is a need to understand the affect of culture on a person's behavior
- Studying culture helps us understand and appreciate cultural differences
Principle Three: Humans have a social self which reflects their group memberships - group memberships give rise to social identities (ingroups) and comparison with other groups (outgroups). This might lead to bias in information processing (stereotyping) and discrimination. Third Principle
- Humans are social animals, therefore they have a social self
- People have more than one individual identity
- People have collective or social identity
- When princess diana died, many people across UK mourned as if she was family - Social identities define who we are
- Many behaviors determined by members of the group that they're in, such as family, community, club or nationality
Enduring understanding:
- What makes you who you are?
- Culture influences behaviour.
- To what extent is our behavior determined by our culture?
- How do psychologists study socio-cultural factors on human behavior?
- How does our social cognition influence our behavior?
4.1 Outline the principles that define the socio-cultural level of analysis
4.2 Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behaviour
- Milgram (1963)
4.3 Discuss two errors in attributions
- Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz (1977) (FAE) The fundamental attribution error
- Miller and Ross (1975)
4.4 Evaluate social identity theory
- Tajfel (1970/71)
4.5 Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behaviour
- Cohen (1981)
4.6 Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies
- Albert Bandura – Bobo Doll Experiment
- Charlton et al. – St Helena TV violence study (SLT, covert observation) (2000)
4.7 Compliance techniques
- Regan (1971)
4.8 Evaluate on conformity to group norms
- Asch (1951)
4.9 Discuss factors influencing conformity
- Asch (1951)
4.10 Define the terms culture and cultural norms
- Matsumoto (2004), Hofstede (1995) and Lonner (1995)
4.11 Examine the role of two cultural dimensions on behaviour
4.12 Explain, using examples, emic and etic concepts
Studies
4.1 Principles of the SCLOA
4.2 Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behaviour
Dispositional causes - when attributing the cause of people's behaviour to their internal characteristics, we are making a dispositional attribution. The term disposition refers to somebody's beliefs, attitudes and personality.
Situational causes - when we attribute people's behvaiour to external factors such as the immediate rewards and punishments in a social setting or social pressure, we are making a situational attribution.
Personality is often defined in terms of traits. These are dispositions to behave in a particular way over a range of similar situations. If you are high on the trait of anxiety, for example, you will behave in an anxious manner in a variety of related settings such as interviews or when meeting new people. Thus, your anxiety exhibits cross-situational consistency, and it will also show stability over time. If you are an anxious person today, you will be an anxious person next year, the year after and possibly beyond that. But is behaviour as consistent and as stable as personality theories relying on traits seem to suggest?
Milgram (1963, 1974)
Aim: to see determine the role of obedience to authority
Procedure: the participants in the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50. Milgram created a shock generate with switches using different voltage levels. - Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.
- As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.
- Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:
"Please continue."
"The experiment requires that you continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice, you must go on."
Results: of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception.
Conclusion:
According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:
-The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
- The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
- The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
- Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
- The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.
Strengths: A main strength of Milgram’s experiment was the amount of control he was able to administer. For example, participants believed they were being randomly assigned to either the teacher or learner, they believed they were actually administering electric shocks, they all used the same apparatus, had the same prods from the same person and so on.
Weaknesses:
- A major criticism of Milgram’s study was his unrepresentative sample. Milgram chose to study only American men (thus he was deliberately ethnocentric), but from a variety of backgrounds and different ages. It could be argued that by using men this produced a sample that was biased, or did not reflect the general population.
- The study was also limited to those people who read the advertisement and were prepared to participate in a laboratory experiment. These men who replied may have been somehow different from the general population.Because of such an unrepresentative sample the results cannot be generalised to all people.
- Another main criticism of Milgram’s experiment was that it was not ecologically valid. It can be argued that Milgram’s work was carried out in an artificial setting and has little relevance to the real world.
Ethical Considerations: The Milgram study goes against three of the ethical procedures, as it was of deception to the ones willing to take part in the experiment, the experimenter didn’t allow them to leave and this caused them distress and so therefore a possibility of mental harm. However, when a survey was done afterwards, 84% were glad that they participated.
http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
It is clear that Milgram's experimental setting is an example of what Mischel (1973) called a strong situation. Strong situational forces are in the strength of which people do not seem capable of imagining until they experience them.
4.3 Errors in attribution
Background information:
Attribution bias is the illogical reasoning behind a decision about behaviour, whether it be your own or someone else’s. It is essentially a failure in the process of the interpretation of a situation and can lead to errors in how people view themselves as we do not necessarily examine all the evidence provided or we take mental shortcuts to reach a conclusion, leading to wrong assumptions (dispositional). It may also be because insufficient information is available or specific information is portrayed more than others (situational). There are many factors in how people assign attributes to behaviours like our view of the world, previous experiences with particular people or situations and the knowledge of the person’s behaviour. Yet, when studying this, there are two important errors we tend to make when assigning attributes.
Fundamental attribution error refers to the inclination to overemphasise the internal and underestimate the external factors when explaining the behaviours of others. This may result in a tendency to pay more attention to the situation rather than to the individual (Heider, 1958) and is especially true when we know little about the other person. Self-serving bias is the other error and describes how we normally equate success to your internal but failure to external attributes (Miller & Ross, 1975) but for those that are depressed, have low self-esteem, or view themselves negatively, the bias is typically the opposite.
The way in which people observe themselves plays an important role in how we see the world. The way we see the world plays an important role in how we view ourselves. It is important for psychologists to understand the errors when looking at groups and making judgements on people.
Ross (1977) The fundamental attribution error (FAE)
this occus when people overestimate personality traits (dispositional fators) and underestimate environmental factors when they explan oher people's behvaiour. According to social psychologist Fiske (2004), people rely too much on personality in explaining behaviour and they underestimate - or never cosndier - the power of situations.
Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz (1977) FAE
Aim: to investigate whether knowledge of allocated social roles in a quiz show would affect particiapnts' judements of people's expertise
Procedure: eighteen pairs of students from an introductory class at Stanford University particiapted ina stimulated quiz game where they were randomly assigned to the roles of either questioner or contestant. In the experimental condition the role of questioner or sontestant was randomly allocated to one person in each pair. 24 observers watched the quiz. The questioners were asked to compose 10 questions based on their own knowledge and the contestants were asked to answer these questions. The questioner was instructed toask each question and then wait around 30 seconds for a response. If the contestants did not answer correctly the questioner gave the correct answer. After the quiz, all participants and the observers were asked to rae "general knowledge" of contestants and questioners.
Results: The contestants consistently rated the general knowledge of the questioners in the experimental condition as superior. The observers did the same.
Conclusion: This is a clear demonstration of the FAE. The contestants and the observers attributed the questioners' ability to answer the questions to dispositional factors and failed to take into consideration the situational factors that gave the questioners an advantage. The questioners themselves did not rate their own knowledge as being superior to that of the contestants.
Strengths:
Weaknesses: the set-up was ingenious; it clearly gave the opportunity to demonstrate attributional biases because the questioners made up their own questions and this was known by all participants. The participants were university students so there may be sampling bias and it is difficult to generalise the results. The issue of ecological validity could also be raised.
Ethical considerations:
strengths of the FAE
- the theory has promoted understanding of common errors in explanation of what happens in the world
- the theory has proven very robust and has been supported by many research studies
limitations of the FAE
- the theory is culturally biased with too much focus on individualism
- much research on the theory has been conducted in laboratories and with a student sample (problems with generalisation of the findings)
A demonstration of SSB (Miller and Ross)
Miller and Ross (1975) proposed that several uses of self-serving attributions are rational and not at all based on the need to enhance self-esteem. They argue that what seem to be self-serving biases often arise because effort changes together with success but not with failure. If trying harder does not improve performance, then it is reasonable to conclude that something about the task is presenting the obstacle. However, if trying harder does improve performance, then success is logically attributable to your trying.
We tend to equate successes to internal and failures to external attributes (Miller & Ross, 1975). Imagine getting a promotion. Most of us will feel that this success is due to hard work, intelligence, dedication, and similar internal factors. But if you are fired, well obviously your boss wouldn't know a good thing if it were staring her in the face. This bias is true for most people, but for those who are depressed, have low self-esteem, or view themselves negatively, the bias is typically opposite. For these people, a success may mean that a multitude of negatives have been overlooked or that luck was the primary reason. For failures, the depressed individual will likely see their own negative qualities, such as stupidity, as being the primary factor.
strengths of the SSB
-the theory can explain why some people (mostly from individualist cultures) explain their failures as being caused by situational factors
limitations of the SSB
- the theory is culturally biased. It cannot explain why some cultures emphasize a self-effacing attribution (modesty bias)
4.4 Evaluate social identity theory
Tajfel (1970/71)
Aim: to investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary task (minimal group) would display ingroup favouritsm and intergroup discrimination
Procedure: The participants were 64 schoolboys age 14-15 from a state school in the UK. They came to a psychology laboratory in groups of 8. They all knew each other well before the experiment. The boys were shown clusters of varying numbers of dots, flashed onto a screen and had to estimate the number of dots in each cluster. The experimenters assigned the boys to groups at random categorised as 'over-estimator', 'under-estimator' etc. Subsequently, the boys had to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys in the experiment. The only thing they knew of the boys was if they belonged to the same or a different category. In a second experiment, boys were randomly allocated to groups based on their suppose artistic preferences for two painters. then they had to award money to the other boys.
Results: A large majority of the boys gave more money to members of their own category (ingroup) than to members of other categories (outgroups). In the second experiment the boys tried to maximize the difference between the two groups. The results of both experiment indicate that the boys adopted a strategy of ingroup favourtism. This supports the predictions of the social identity theory.
Conclusion:
· Out-group discrimination was found and is easily triggered
· There is no need for groups to be in intense competition, this goes against the realistic conflict theory
· In the two experiments, all the boys needed was to see themselves as in an in-group and out-group situation, and discrimination ensued
· People acted according to the social norms that they had learnt, such as favouring the in-group
· The boys responded to the social norms of “groupness” and fairness and in general kept a balance between the two
· In real life “groupness” may override fairness, for example, if the group is more important than counting dots, or choosing a preference between Klee and Kandinsky
· Given the side effects of discrimination that were found in these experiments, teams in schools may not be a good idea
Strengths: A major strength of the procedure was the high level of control Tajfel managed to employ. For example, there was no face-to-face interaction between group members; the boys only knew of other in-group/out-group members by a code number; although the boys did not realise this, they were in fact assigned randomly to the e two groups; the boys could only award points to others (either in-groupers or out-groupers) and never to themselves and that they could not know what others would do or in any way influence how others behaved.
Weaknesses: Tajfel’s experiment has been criticised because it is very artificial (not ecologically valid). Would the simple act of categorisation be sufficient to create discrimination in a more ecologically valid situation? In everyday life categorisation does often come with some degree of competition. Importantly Tajfel’s experiment has also been criticised because it contains demand characteristics. The experiment aimed to demonstrate that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel demonstrated that merely categorising people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination. However it has been suggested that if schoolboys are divided into groups, by adults, they will automatically interpret these groups as ‘teams’ and think in terms of competition. Tajfel has also been criticised for the way he interpreted his results. Brown (1988), for example, suggests that the behaviour of the boys can be seen in terms of fairness as much as discrimination. Although the boys showed bias towards their own group, this bias was not very extreme and seemed to be moderated by a sense of fairness.
Cultural and Gender Considerations:
- Would the same experiment work on girls, a different age group and do you have to know the people you are participating in the experiment with or does this work with people you don’t know too?
- We are unaware of which cultures they all come from but assume that it is mixed based on the fact the children were from a school
Ethical Considerations:
It doesn’t specify if the participants were told about the nature of the experiment afterwards and we are unaware if they were allowed to leave the experiment at any point.
4.5 Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behaviour
Stereotypes: distorted, exaggerated, or oversimplified assumptions about the personalities, attitudes and behavior of a certain category of people. (Hogg & Vaughan, 1995)
Why Stereotypes are formed:
Cohen (1981)
4.6 Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies
Albert Bandura – Bobo Doll Experiment (SLT)
Aim: he had two aims. The first was to see if children would imitate aggression modeled by an adult. The second was to discover whether children were more likely to imitate same-sex models.
Hypothesis: The researchers made the following 4 predictions:
· "...subjects exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of the models..."
· "...the observation of non-aggressive models will have a generalised inhibiting effect on the subject's subsequent behaviour..."
· "...subjects will imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the opposite sex..."
· "...boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression..."[1]
Method – briefly describe the procedure
The 36 boys and 36 girls were divided into groups into how aggressive they are (chosen by teachers and parents). The groups were exposed to different levels of aggression and some of the models were same-sex and some were opposite-sex models. They were then asked to play with toys themselves.
IV: The condition the children were exposed to, the sex of the role model and the sex
of the child.
DV: the aggression of the children and the type of it (verbal or physical or both)
Sampling Method, Characteristics of Participants, and Assignment: 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University Nursery School aged between 3 to 6 years old were the participants.
The sampling method used was experimental and
Results and Conclusions: Bandura found that children who had seen the aggressive models were significantly more aggressive – both physically and verbally. The social learning theory was demonstrated as the children showed signs of observational learning. In regard to the second aim of his experiment Bandura saw that girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression but boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression. He concluded that children were more likely to imitate the same-sex adult.
So What? How did this study contribute to understanding human behavior?
This experiment remains one of the most well-known studies in psychology for being able to continue to study the impact of observed violence on children’s behaviour. It has helped contribute because we are able to understand whether the violence children witness on television can translate to aggressive or violent behaviour later in life. Also it furthers knowledge about verbal aggression with girls and physical aggression with boys – and encourages psychologists to further investigate this topic.
Strengths of the Methodology:
- It allowed for precise control of the variables like; the gender of the model, the time that the children observed the model and the behaviour of the model.
- The experiment can be replicated
Limitations of the Methodology:
- Low ecologically validity because the situation uses the child and an adult model, which is limited to a social situation and there is no interaction between the child and the model at any point. The child doesn’t even have the chance to influence the model which is not realistic. Also the child and model were strangers and this isn’t as realistic as a typical situation with a mother/father and child would be.
- A further criticism of the study is that the demonstrations are measured almost immediately. With such snap shot studies we cannot discover if such a single exposure can have long-term effects.[2]
Gender and Cultural Considerations:
They tested both boys and girls but we are unaware of their nationality but we could assume that they were all American because of the school they are at. Would this study affect different cultures more than others?
Ethical Considerations
It is also possible to argue that this experiment was unethical; did the children suffer any long term effects by being exposed to this violence?
Charlton et al. – St Helena TV violence study (SLT, covert observation) (2000)
The first study we learn about is by Huesmann and Eron (1986) and takes place over 15 years to study children’s behaviour. They found a positive correlation of hours of violence watched on television by young children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they turned into teenagers. They also found that if a child was to watch a lot of television violence then they were more likely to be arrested for criminal acts later in life.
The second is by Charlton et al. (2002) to test the effect of the introduction of television and the impacts of aggression it had on the children. This experiment showed no increase of antisocial behaviour among the children – and the good behaviour from before the television was introduced was maintained even after five years of expose to violent television.
Perhaps the reason why these studies differ so greatly from each other is that the second study doesn’t classify whether the study was continued into the teenager stages and weren’t studied for 15 years – like in the first study. Maybe this has an effect on whether they are more likely to undergo change. It also may have been the environment they have grown up in and the parents that they have – these are very important factors when determining if a person is more likely to be violent. The reason for why these studies are longitudinal is because in order to see any change in behaviour, the participants must be studied for a long time – perhaps if the second study was longer there may have been more change visible.
Aim: To investigate the effects of television on children’s behaviour.
Procedure:
• Study began 2 years before TV was connected to the island.
• The independent variable was television before and after its introduction.
• The dependent variable was the children’s behaviour.• Researchers used questionnaires and parent/teacher reports to gather info about children’s behaviour.
• Behaviour in the playground was observed, specifically the level of aggression displayed by children.
• Researchers monitored how much TV watched, content analysed this and also monitored how much violence was watched.
• Video cameras placed in classrooms and playgrounds to measure aggression.
Results:
• Very little difference in children’s behaviour before and after TV introduced.
• No significant increase in rate of behavioural problems
• Small community allows parents to have a high level of control over their children. The impact of TV may have been greater in a less isolated place.
Conclusion:
•The study suggests TV did not have any significant effect on children’s behaviour.
• Violence that was watched, was not copied.
• Community control and surveillance from parents may have been a contributing factor
Strengths:
• Natural experiments have greater realism than a lab experiment. The researcher does not set up the situation- it happens naturally
• Cameras used were DISCREET therefore the children acted naturally because they did not know they were being watched.
Weaknesses:
• Relying on parent/teacher reports means results may be biased.
• Children may have acted more aggressively but the community did not want to report this in order to stop a negative view of the island.
• Playground violence could also have carried on and spurred the children to be violent in the future?
Ethical Considerations:
• They were deceived and didn't even know they were being watched (even with parent consent)
• Could have been damaged because of it and exposed to violence
4.7 Compliance techniques
- Regan (1971)
Aim: to test whether participants who had received a favour from another would be more likely to help this person than if they had not received a favour.
Procedure: partipants were asked to rate paintings. The experimenter condition involved two people (one a participant and the other a researcher). The researcher went away for a few minutes and returned with a bottle of coca-cola for himself and another for the participant. In the control condition, the participant didn't get a coca-cola but only watched as the researcher drank theirs.
The researcher then said he was seiling raffle tickets and the person who sold the most tickets could win $50, and asked if the participant would like to buy.
Results: the participants in the experimental condition bough twice as many raffle tickets than participants in the control condition who had not received the favour first. It was also based on how much they liked the researcher that they bought more tickets from him too. Participants who received the coca-cola but didn't like the researcher bought as many tickets as those that liked him.
Conclusion: this just shows the powerful influence of the rule of reciprocity. Even if people don't like a person, they will still return a favour.
Strengths:
- a laboratory experiment with a high degree of control
- it was possible to establish cause-effect relationships between receiving a favour and returning a favour
- supports the principle of reciprocity
Weaknesses:
- issues of artificiality in the experiment
- sampling bias
- therefore limiting the possibility of generalisation
Ethical Considerations:
- they weren't told they were taking part in an experiment
Foot in the door technique
Door in the face technique
4.8 Evaluate research on conformity to group norms
Asch (1951)
Aim: to what extent a person would conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous
Hypothesis: the participants would conform to the group’s decision - even if it wasn’t the correct answer
Method: In Asch's experiments, students were told that they were participating in a 'vision test.' Unbeknownst to the subject, the other participants in the experiment were all confederates, or assistants of the experimenter. At first, the confederates answered the questions correctly, but eventually began providing incorrect answers.
IV: the vision test
DV: whether people conformed to the group
Sampling Method and Characteristics of Participants:
Opportunity Sampling as an Experiment. Asch gathered seven to nine male college students for what he claimed was an experiment in visual perception.
Results and Conclusions: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials. Over the 12 critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% of participant never conformed.
Why did the participants conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar". A few of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were correct. Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group (normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are (informational influence).
So What? How did this study contribute to understanding human behavior?
The Asch conformity experiments are among the most famous in psychology's history and have inspired a wealth of additional research on conformity and group behavior. This research has provided important insight into how, why and when people conform and the effects of social pressure on behavior.
Strengths and Limitations of the Methodology:
- Asch had not expected to see such a high degree of conformity. The fact that the results of the experiment were not what he expected suggests that this was a well-designed and useful experiment: rather than confirming the experimenter's prejudice, it provided information which challenged it.
• Weakness of Asch’s experiment was that the participants could have guessed what was required of them. This is called a demand characteristic, the participants realised the experimenters wanted them to conform (the participants were also paid to take part in the experiment), so in response the participants may not have wanted to ruin the experiment.
• Another weakness is that there were no limitations to the experiment, e.g. the participants were never asked for the reason behind there answer so it is unclear why they did or did not conform.
• Another weakness is that the sample of participants were all male which fits in the andocentric theory.
• Another weakness is that it was a trivial situation, for example if 99% of the population held a strong belief would someone conform against that deeply held belief e.g. God ( Darwin), there is a clear difference between conforming against the length of lines to conforming against a topic e.g. God ect.
Gender and Cultural Considerations:
They were only male candidates and their culture is unknown but could make a difference on the results so is important to know.
Ethical Considerations:
The participants were deceived, and they were made to feel anxiety about their performance. This is why the experiment would not be allowed to be repeated today.
4.9 Discuss factors influencing conformity (look at formative ERQ also)
ASCH (1851) again
A classic study of conformity was carried out by Asch (1951). In his study, he wanted to find out to what extent a person would conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous. What Asch found was that even if some of the participants knew their answer was incorrect, they went along with the groups answer so that they wouldn't ruin the experimenter’s results and so they wouldn't appear against the group. Some argue that this could also be explained in terms of the need to belong; the need to be part of the group is stronger than the desire to give the correct answer. This is a classic example of when someone would favour the majority of the group’s decision.
There are four main factors that could have influenced the participant’s decision.
1. Firstly the group size has been known to cause an effect as Asch (1955) found that with only one confederate, just 3 per cent of the participants conformed; with two confederates, the rate rose to 14 per cent; and with three confederates, it rose to 32 per cent. Larger groups did not increase the rate of conformity. In some cases, very large groups even decreased the level of conformity.
2. The second factor that influences conformity in this situation was unanimity as cconformity was most likely when all the confederates agreed (Asch 1956). If one of the confederates disagreed, even if it was also an incorrect answer, the participant was significantly less likely to conform.
3. The third factor is confidence; when individuals feel that they are more competent to make decisions with regard to a field of expertise, they are less likely to conform. Perrin and Spencer (1988) found that when they replicated Asch’s study with engineers and medical students, conformity rates were almost nothing.
4. The final factor is self-esteem; Stang (1973) found that participants with high self- esteem were less likely to conform to incorrect responses.
4.10 Define the terms culture and cultural norms
- culture (three definitions from cultural researchers)
1. Lonner (1995): Culture can be defined as the common rules that regulate interactions and behaviour in a group as well as a number of shared values and attitudes in the group
2. Hofstede (1995): Culture can be defined as a collective mental programming that is the "software of the mind" that guides a group of people in their daily interactions and distinguished them from other groups of people
3. Matsumoto (2004): culture can be defined as a dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, established by groups in order to ensure their survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms and behaviours
- cultural norms
- can be defined as the rules that a specific group uses for stating what is seen as appropriate and inappropriate behaviours, values, beliefs and attitudes
- cultural norms give people a sense of order and control in their lives as well as a sense of safety and belonging. Cultural norms may encompass communication style, whom to marry and how, child-rearing practices, or interaction between generations
- cultural norms can be explicit (e.g legal codes) or implicit (e.g conventional practices and rituals)
4.2 Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behaviour
Dispositional causes - when attributing the cause of people's behaviour to their internal characteristics, we are making a dispositional attribution. The term disposition refers to somebody's beliefs, attitudes and personality.
Situational causes - when we attribute people's behvaiour to external factors such as the immediate rewards and punishments in a social setting or social pressure, we are making a situational attribution.
Personality is often defined in terms of traits. These are dispositions to behave in a particular way over a range of similar situations. If you are high on the trait of anxiety, for example, you will behave in an anxious manner in a variety of related settings such as interviews or when meeting new people. Thus, your anxiety exhibits cross-situational consistency, and it will also show stability over time. If you are an anxious person today, you will be an anxious person next year, the year after and possibly beyond that. But is behaviour as consistent and as stable as personality theories relying on traits seem to suggest?
Milgram (1963, 1974)
Aim: to see determine the role of obedience to authority
Procedure: the participants in the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50. Milgram created a shock generate with switches using different voltage levels. - Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.
- As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.
- Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:
"Please continue."
"The experiment requires that you continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice, you must go on."
Results: of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception.
Conclusion:
According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:
-The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
- The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
- The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
- Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
- The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.
Strengths: A main strength of Milgram’s experiment was the amount of control he was able to administer. For example, participants believed they were being randomly assigned to either the teacher or learner, they believed they were actually administering electric shocks, they all used the same apparatus, had the same prods from the same person and so on.
Weaknesses:
- A major criticism of Milgram’s study was his unrepresentative sample. Milgram chose to study only American men (thus he was deliberately ethnocentric), but from a variety of backgrounds and different ages. It could be argued that by using men this produced a sample that was biased, or did not reflect the general population.
- The study was also limited to those people who read the advertisement and were prepared to participate in a laboratory experiment. These men who replied may have been somehow different from the general population.Because of such an unrepresentative sample the results cannot be generalised to all people.
- Another main criticism of Milgram’s experiment was that it was not ecologically valid. It can be argued that Milgram’s work was carried out in an artificial setting and has little relevance to the real world.
Ethical Considerations: The Milgram study goes against three of the ethical procedures, as it was of deception to the ones willing to take part in the experiment, the experimenter didn’t allow them to leave and this caused them distress and so therefore a possibility of mental harm. However, when a survey was done afterwards, 84% were glad that they participated.
http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
It is clear that Milgram's experimental setting is an example of what Mischel (1973) called a strong situation. Strong situational forces are in the strength of which people do not seem capable of imagining until they experience them.
4.3 Errors in attribution
Background information:
Attribution bias is the illogical reasoning behind a decision about behaviour, whether it be your own or someone else’s. It is essentially a failure in the process of the interpretation of a situation and can lead to errors in how people view themselves as we do not necessarily examine all the evidence provided or we take mental shortcuts to reach a conclusion, leading to wrong assumptions (dispositional). It may also be because insufficient information is available or specific information is portrayed more than others (situational). There are many factors in how people assign attributes to behaviours like our view of the world, previous experiences with particular people or situations and the knowledge of the person’s behaviour. Yet, when studying this, there are two important errors we tend to make when assigning attributes.
Fundamental attribution error refers to the inclination to overemphasise the internal and underestimate the external factors when explaining the behaviours of others. This may result in a tendency to pay more attention to the situation rather than to the individual (Heider, 1958) and is especially true when we know little about the other person. Self-serving bias is the other error and describes how we normally equate success to your internal but failure to external attributes (Miller & Ross, 1975) but for those that are depressed, have low self-esteem, or view themselves negatively, the bias is typically the opposite.
The way in which people observe themselves plays an important role in how we see the world. The way we see the world plays an important role in how we view ourselves. It is important for psychologists to understand the errors when looking at groups and making judgements on people.
Ross (1977) The fundamental attribution error (FAE)
this occus when people overestimate personality traits (dispositional fators) and underestimate environmental factors when they explan oher people's behvaiour. According to social psychologist Fiske (2004), people rely too much on personality in explaining behaviour and they underestimate - or never cosndier - the power of situations.
Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz (1977) FAE
Aim: to investigate whether knowledge of allocated social roles in a quiz show would affect particiapnts' judements of people's expertise
Procedure: eighteen pairs of students from an introductory class at Stanford University particiapted ina stimulated quiz game where they were randomly assigned to the roles of either questioner or contestant. In the experimental condition the role of questioner or sontestant was randomly allocated to one person in each pair. 24 observers watched the quiz. The questioners were asked to compose 10 questions based on their own knowledge and the contestants were asked to answer these questions. The questioner was instructed toask each question and then wait around 30 seconds for a response. If the contestants did not answer correctly the questioner gave the correct answer. After the quiz, all participants and the observers were asked to rae "general knowledge" of contestants and questioners.
Results: The contestants consistently rated the general knowledge of the questioners in the experimental condition as superior. The observers did the same.
Conclusion: This is a clear demonstration of the FAE. The contestants and the observers attributed the questioners' ability to answer the questions to dispositional factors and failed to take into consideration the situational factors that gave the questioners an advantage. The questioners themselves did not rate their own knowledge as being superior to that of the contestants.
Strengths:
Weaknesses: the set-up was ingenious; it clearly gave the opportunity to demonstrate attributional biases because the questioners made up their own questions and this was known by all participants. The participants were university students so there may be sampling bias and it is difficult to generalise the results. The issue of ecological validity could also be raised.
Ethical considerations:
strengths of the FAE
- the theory has promoted understanding of common errors in explanation of what happens in the world
- the theory has proven very robust and has been supported by many research studies
limitations of the FAE
- the theory is culturally biased with too much focus on individualism
- much research on the theory has been conducted in laboratories and with a student sample (problems with generalisation of the findings)
A demonstration of SSB (Miller and Ross)
Miller and Ross (1975) proposed that several uses of self-serving attributions are rational and not at all based on the need to enhance self-esteem. They argue that what seem to be self-serving biases often arise because effort changes together with success but not with failure. If trying harder does not improve performance, then it is reasonable to conclude that something about the task is presenting the obstacle. However, if trying harder does improve performance, then success is logically attributable to your trying.
We tend to equate successes to internal and failures to external attributes (Miller & Ross, 1975). Imagine getting a promotion. Most of us will feel that this success is due to hard work, intelligence, dedication, and similar internal factors. But if you are fired, well obviously your boss wouldn't know a good thing if it were staring her in the face. This bias is true for most people, but for those who are depressed, have low self-esteem, or view themselves negatively, the bias is typically opposite. For these people, a success may mean that a multitude of negatives have been overlooked or that luck was the primary reason. For failures, the depressed individual will likely see their own negative qualities, such as stupidity, as being the primary factor.
strengths of the SSB
-the theory can explain why some people (mostly from individualist cultures) explain their failures as being caused by situational factors
limitations of the SSB
- the theory is culturally biased. It cannot explain why some cultures emphasize a self-effacing attribution (modesty bias)
4.4 Evaluate social identity theory
Tajfel (1970/71)
Aim: to investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary task (minimal group) would display ingroup favouritsm and intergroup discrimination
Procedure: The participants were 64 schoolboys age 14-15 from a state school in the UK. They came to a psychology laboratory in groups of 8. They all knew each other well before the experiment. The boys were shown clusters of varying numbers of dots, flashed onto a screen and had to estimate the number of dots in each cluster. The experimenters assigned the boys to groups at random categorised as 'over-estimator', 'under-estimator' etc. Subsequently, the boys had to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys in the experiment. The only thing they knew of the boys was if they belonged to the same or a different category. In a second experiment, boys were randomly allocated to groups based on their suppose artistic preferences for two painters. then they had to award money to the other boys.
Results: A large majority of the boys gave more money to members of their own category (ingroup) than to members of other categories (outgroups). In the second experiment the boys tried to maximize the difference between the two groups. The results of both experiment indicate that the boys adopted a strategy of ingroup favourtism. This supports the predictions of the social identity theory.
Conclusion:
· Out-group discrimination was found and is easily triggered
· There is no need for groups to be in intense competition, this goes against the realistic conflict theory
· In the two experiments, all the boys needed was to see themselves as in an in-group and out-group situation, and discrimination ensued
· People acted according to the social norms that they had learnt, such as favouring the in-group
· The boys responded to the social norms of “groupness” and fairness and in general kept a balance between the two
· In real life “groupness” may override fairness, for example, if the group is more important than counting dots, or choosing a preference between Klee and Kandinsky
· Given the side effects of discrimination that were found in these experiments, teams in schools may not be a good idea
Strengths: A major strength of the procedure was the high level of control Tajfel managed to employ. For example, there was no face-to-face interaction between group members; the boys only knew of other in-group/out-group members by a code number; although the boys did not realise this, they were in fact assigned randomly to the e two groups; the boys could only award points to others (either in-groupers or out-groupers) and never to themselves and that they could not know what others would do or in any way influence how others behaved.
Weaknesses: Tajfel’s experiment has been criticised because it is very artificial (not ecologically valid). Would the simple act of categorisation be sufficient to create discrimination in a more ecologically valid situation? In everyday life categorisation does often come with some degree of competition. Importantly Tajfel’s experiment has also been criticised because it contains demand characteristics. The experiment aimed to demonstrate that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel demonstrated that merely categorising people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination. However it has been suggested that if schoolboys are divided into groups, by adults, they will automatically interpret these groups as ‘teams’ and think in terms of competition. Tajfel has also been criticised for the way he interpreted his results. Brown (1988), for example, suggests that the behaviour of the boys can be seen in terms of fairness as much as discrimination. Although the boys showed bias towards their own group, this bias was not very extreme and seemed to be moderated by a sense of fairness.
Cultural and Gender Considerations:
- Would the same experiment work on girls, a different age group and do you have to know the people you are participating in the experiment with or does this work with people you don’t know too?
- We are unaware of which cultures they all come from but assume that it is mixed based on the fact the children were from a school
Ethical Considerations:
It doesn’t specify if the participants were told about the nature of the experiment afterwards and we are unaware if they were allowed to leave the experiment at any point.
4.5 Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behaviour
Stereotypes: distorted, exaggerated, or oversimplified assumptions about the personalities, attitudes and behavior of a certain category of people. (Hogg & Vaughan, 1995)
- They can be both positive or negative
- The generalizations do not consider any variations from one individual to another.
- These can stem from prejudice, or an unjustified negative attitude toward an individual based of the individual’s membership in a group.
- A stereotype can also be considered a schema, as we categorize people into a group and apply general characteristics to this schema.
- If we limit our perceptions of others to the definitions of the stereotypes, and do not add specific information for each person, then we can develop biases against whole groups of people
Why Stereotypes are formed:
- Our social world is very complex and has a great deal of information
- To avoid information overload, we use stereotypes because they save energy and can easily be applied to people.
- Stereotypes are derived from:
- Personal experience with group members and the groups themselves
- We make generalizations based on our experiences with people
- Personal experience with group members and the groups themselves
- Gatekeepers like the media, family members, and authority figures
- Our opinions are influenced by the media
Cohen (1981)
- Performed an experiment to determine whether stereotypes can affect the memories of people.
- Participants were shown a video, and half were told the woman in the video was a waitress; half were told she was a librarian.
- When participants recalled details about the video, they remembered details that seemed to be consistent with the commonly accepted stereotypes of the careers.
- Those who thought she was a librarian were more likely to remember she wore glasses,
- Those who thought she was a waitress were more likely to remember her drinking alcohol.
- Therefore, stereotypes can affect the type of information we focus on and what we remember.
4.6 Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies
- A.R.R.M.
- Consistency
- The model must act in a consistent way across situations. - Relevance/Appropriateness- Behaviours are more likely to be learnt if relevant and socially appropriate to the learner.
- Powerfulness
- Models with more power and control are more likely to be learnt from. - Identification
- The ability of the learner to identify with the model, e.g. age, gender. - Reward
- If the model was rewarded, the learner is more likely to learn from the model.
- If the learner is rewarded, they will more likely repeat the behaviour that was learnt. - Friendliness
- Friendly models are more likely to be imitated.
Attention – Paying attention to the model.
Retention – Retain the behaviour of the model that was observed.
Reproduction – Replicate the behaviour of the learning model.
Motivation – Learners must want to display what they have learnt from the learning model.
Factors influencing SLT
Albert Bandura – Bobo Doll Experiment (SLT)
Aim: he had two aims. The first was to see if children would imitate aggression modeled by an adult. The second was to discover whether children were more likely to imitate same-sex models.
Hypothesis: The researchers made the following 4 predictions:
· "...subjects exposed to aggressive models will reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of the models..."
· "...the observation of non-aggressive models will have a generalised inhibiting effect on the subject's subsequent behaviour..."
· "...subjects will imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the opposite sex..."
· "...boys will be more predisposed than girls towards imitating aggression..."[1]
Method – briefly describe the procedure
The 36 boys and 36 girls were divided into groups into how aggressive they are (chosen by teachers and parents). The groups were exposed to different levels of aggression and some of the models were same-sex and some were opposite-sex models. They were then asked to play with toys themselves.
IV: The condition the children were exposed to, the sex of the role model and the sex
of the child.
DV: the aggression of the children and the type of it (verbal or physical or both)
Sampling Method, Characteristics of Participants, and Assignment: 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University Nursery School aged between 3 to 6 years old were the participants.
The sampling method used was experimental and
Results and Conclusions: Bandura found that children who had seen the aggressive models were significantly more aggressive – both physically and verbally. The social learning theory was demonstrated as the children showed signs of observational learning. In regard to the second aim of his experiment Bandura saw that girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression but boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression. He concluded that children were more likely to imitate the same-sex adult.
So What? How did this study contribute to understanding human behavior?
This experiment remains one of the most well-known studies in psychology for being able to continue to study the impact of observed violence on children’s behaviour. It has helped contribute because we are able to understand whether the violence children witness on television can translate to aggressive or violent behaviour later in life. Also it furthers knowledge about verbal aggression with girls and physical aggression with boys – and encourages psychologists to further investigate this topic.
Strengths of the Methodology:
- It allowed for precise control of the variables like; the gender of the model, the time that the children observed the model and the behaviour of the model.
- The experiment can be replicated
Limitations of the Methodology:
- Low ecologically validity because the situation uses the child and an adult model, which is limited to a social situation and there is no interaction between the child and the model at any point. The child doesn’t even have the chance to influence the model which is not realistic. Also the child and model were strangers and this isn’t as realistic as a typical situation with a mother/father and child would be.
- A further criticism of the study is that the demonstrations are measured almost immediately. With such snap shot studies we cannot discover if such a single exposure can have long-term effects.[2]
Gender and Cultural Considerations:
They tested both boys and girls but we are unaware of their nationality but we could assume that they were all American because of the school they are at. Would this study affect different cultures more than others?
Ethical Considerations
It is also possible to argue that this experiment was unethical; did the children suffer any long term effects by being exposed to this violence?
Charlton et al. – St Helena TV violence study (SLT, covert observation) (2000)
The first study we learn about is by Huesmann and Eron (1986) and takes place over 15 years to study children’s behaviour. They found a positive correlation of hours of violence watched on television by young children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they turned into teenagers. They also found that if a child was to watch a lot of television violence then they were more likely to be arrested for criminal acts later in life.
The second is by Charlton et al. (2002) to test the effect of the introduction of television and the impacts of aggression it had on the children. This experiment showed no increase of antisocial behaviour among the children – and the good behaviour from before the television was introduced was maintained even after five years of expose to violent television.
Perhaps the reason why these studies differ so greatly from each other is that the second study doesn’t classify whether the study was continued into the teenager stages and weren’t studied for 15 years – like in the first study. Maybe this has an effect on whether they are more likely to undergo change. It also may have been the environment they have grown up in and the parents that they have – these are very important factors when determining if a person is more likely to be violent. The reason for why these studies are longitudinal is because in order to see any change in behaviour, the participants must be studied for a long time – perhaps if the second study was longer there may have been more change visible.
Aim: To investigate the effects of television on children’s behaviour.
Procedure:
• Study began 2 years before TV was connected to the island.
• The independent variable was television before and after its introduction.
• The dependent variable was the children’s behaviour.• Researchers used questionnaires and parent/teacher reports to gather info about children’s behaviour.
• Behaviour in the playground was observed, specifically the level of aggression displayed by children.
• Researchers monitored how much TV watched, content analysed this and also monitored how much violence was watched.
• Video cameras placed in classrooms and playgrounds to measure aggression.
Results:
• Very little difference in children’s behaviour before and after TV introduced.
• No significant increase in rate of behavioural problems
• Small community allows parents to have a high level of control over their children. The impact of TV may have been greater in a less isolated place.
Conclusion:
•The study suggests TV did not have any significant effect on children’s behaviour.
• Violence that was watched, was not copied.
• Community control and surveillance from parents may have been a contributing factor
Strengths:
• Natural experiments have greater realism than a lab experiment. The researcher does not set up the situation- it happens naturally
• Cameras used were DISCREET therefore the children acted naturally because they did not know they were being watched.
Weaknesses:
• Relying on parent/teacher reports means results may be biased.
• Children may have acted more aggressively but the community did not want to report this in order to stop a negative view of the island.
• Playground violence could also have carried on and spurred the children to be violent in the future?
Ethical Considerations:
• They were deceived and didn't even know they were being watched (even with parent consent)
• Could have been damaged because of it and exposed to violence
4.7 Compliance techniques
- Regan (1971)
Aim: to test whether participants who had received a favour from another would be more likely to help this person than if they had not received a favour.
Procedure: partipants were asked to rate paintings. The experimenter condition involved two people (one a participant and the other a researcher). The researcher went away for a few minutes and returned with a bottle of coca-cola for himself and another for the participant. In the control condition, the participant didn't get a coca-cola but only watched as the researcher drank theirs.
The researcher then said he was seiling raffle tickets and the person who sold the most tickets could win $50, and asked if the participant would like to buy.
Results: the participants in the experimental condition bough twice as many raffle tickets than participants in the control condition who had not received the favour first. It was also based on how much they liked the researcher that they bought more tickets from him too. Participants who received the coca-cola but didn't like the researcher bought as many tickets as those that liked him.
Conclusion: this just shows the powerful influence of the rule of reciprocity. Even if people don't like a person, they will still return a favour.
Strengths:
- a laboratory experiment with a high degree of control
- it was possible to establish cause-effect relationships between receiving a favour and returning a favour
- supports the principle of reciprocity
Weaknesses:
- issues of artificiality in the experiment
- sampling bias
- therefore limiting the possibility of generalisation
Ethical Considerations:
- they weren't told they were taking part in an experiment
Foot in the door technique
Door in the face technique
4.8 Evaluate research on conformity to group norms
Asch (1951)
Aim: to what extent a person would conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous
Hypothesis: the participants would conform to the group’s decision - even if it wasn’t the correct answer
Method: In Asch's experiments, students were told that they were participating in a 'vision test.' Unbeknownst to the subject, the other participants in the experiment were all confederates, or assistants of the experimenter. At first, the confederates answered the questions correctly, but eventually began providing incorrect answers.
IV: the vision test
DV: whether people conformed to the group
Sampling Method and Characteristics of Participants:
Opportunity Sampling as an Experiment. Asch gathered seven to nine male college students for what he claimed was an experiment in visual perception.
Results and Conclusions: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials. Over the 12 critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% of participant never conformed.
Why did the participants conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar". A few of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were correct. Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group (normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are (informational influence).
So What? How did this study contribute to understanding human behavior?
The Asch conformity experiments are among the most famous in psychology's history and have inspired a wealth of additional research on conformity and group behavior. This research has provided important insight into how, why and when people conform and the effects of social pressure on behavior.
Strengths and Limitations of the Methodology:
- Asch had not expected to see such a high degree of conformity. The fact that the results of the experiment were not what he expected suggests that this was a well-designed and useful experiment: rather than confirming the experimenter's prejudice, it provided information which challenged it.
• Weakness of Asch’s experiment was that the participants could have guessed what was required of them. This is called a demand characteristic, the participants realised the experimenters wanted them to conform (the participants were also paid to take part in the experiment), so in response the participants may not have wanted to ruin the experiment.
• Another weakness is that there were no limitations to the experiment, e.g. the participants were never asked for the reason behind there answer so it is unclear why they did or did not conform.
• Another weakness is that the sample of participants were all male which fits in the andocentric theory.
• Another weakness is that it was a trivial situation, for example if 99% of the population held a strong belief would someone conform against that deeply held belief e.g. God ( Darwin), there is a clear difference between conforming against the length of lines to conforming against a topic e.g. God ect.
Gender and Cultural Considerations:
They were only male candidates and their culture is unknown but could make a difference on the results so is important to know.
Ethical Considerations:
The participants were deceived, and they were made to feel anxiety about their performance. This is why the experiment would not be allowed to be repeated today.
4.9 Discuss factors influencing conformity (look at formative ERQ also)
ASCH (1851) again
A classic study of conformity was carried out by Asch (1951). In his study, he wanted to find out to what extent a person would conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous. What Asch found was that even if some of the participants knew their answer was incorrect, they went along with the groups answer so that they wouldn't ruin the experimenter’s results and so they wouldn't appear against the group. Some argue that this could also be explained in terms of the need to belong; the need to be part of the group is stronger than the desire to give the correct answer. This is a classic example of when someone would favour the majority of the group’s decision.
There are four main factors that could have influenced the participant’s decision.
1. Firstly the group size has been known to cause an effect as Asch (1955) found that with only one confederate, just 3 per cent of the participants conformed; with two confederates, the rate rose to 14 per cent; and with three confederates, it rose to 32 per cent. Larger groups did not increase the rate of conformity. In some cases, very large groups even decreased the level of conformity.
2. The second factor that influences conformity in this situation was unanimity as cconformity was most likely when all the confederates agreed (Asch 1956). If one of the confederates disagreed, even if it was also an incorrect answer, the participant was significantly less likely to conform.
3. The third factor is confidence; when individuals feel that they are more competent to make decisions with regard to a field of expertise, they are less likely to conform. Perrin and Spencer (1988) found that when they replicated Asch’s study with engineers and medical students, conformity rates were almost nothing.
4. The final factor is self-esteem; Stang (1973) found that participants with high self- esteem were less likely to conform to incorrect responses.
4.10 Define the terms culture and cultural norms
- culture (three definitions from cultural researchers)
1. Lonner (1995): Culture can be defined as the common rules that regulate interactions and behaviour in a group as well as a number of shared values and attitudes in the group
2. Hofstede (1995): Culture can be defined as a collective mental programming that is the "software of the mind" that guides a group of people in their daily interactions and distinguished them from other groups of people
3. Matsumoto (2004): culture can be defined as a dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, established by groups in order to ensure their survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms and behaviours
- cultural norms
- can be defined as the rules that a specific group uses for stating what is seen as appropriate and inappropriate behaviours, values, beliefs and attitudes
- cultural norms give people a sense of order and control in their lives as well as a sense of safety and belonging. Cultural norms may encompass communication style, whom to marry and how, child-rearing practices, or interaction between generations
- cultural norms can be explicit (e.g legal codes) or implicit (e.g conventional practices and rituals)