Conformity to Social roles

Without looking at your booklet, write down as many factors as you can that affect how much conformity there is to a group Which ones do you have to know for the exam?

Variables affecting conformity: (purple shows ones on specification) Features of test Level of conformity Original study 6 confederates gave unanimous wrong answer 36.8% Non-unanimous majority A confederate dissented (went against) from the majority and supported the genuine pt Conformity dropped to 5% Size of majority With one real pt and two confederates, conformity is low When this increases to three confederates, conformity increases sharply Beyond this, it did not increase massively 12.8% 31.8% Losing a partner Being deserted by a partner who had previously given correct answers 28.5% Nature of task Levels of conformity increased as tasks made more difficult e.g. Asch made the stimulus lines more similar to the comparison lines Conformity increased Mode of response When pts had to write down their answers rather than call out, conformity dropped sharply Dropped from 36.8%

Zimbardo We have looked at conformity to the group Majority influence Zimbardo looked at a different kind of conformity Conformity to social roles Social roles= the parts people play as members of various social groups (Egs parent, child, passenger, student), accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate in that role.

Task – test yourself first, then go back and use your notes – write onto handout Procedure Zimbardo set up a………………………… in the basement of Stanford university Psychology department He used a ……………………sample of pt.s and used those who were emotionally stable These students were…………………………..to the roles of prisoner or guard Prisoners were arrested at home, blind- folded………………………..&……………………… issued a number and uniform Social roles of the prisoner and guard were strictly divided: Prisoners had…………………………they had to follow and prisoners were only referred to by………………… Guards had their own uniform including……………………………………. They were told they had complete control over the prisoners

Findings Main finding was that after a slow start, guards enthusiastically took up their roles The study was stopped after …………..instead of the intended …………due to threats to …………………………… Within two days, prisoners rebelled against their harsh treatment, by …………………………………………………. Guards harassed & reminded prisoners constantly they were being monitored, e.g…………………………… Prisoners were punished even for small offences Prisoners were humiliated, stripped naked, put bags over theirs heads, making them do push-ups as punishment, clean toilets with bare hands After the rebellion, prisoners became subdued, ……………………… One prisoner was released on day 1 due to psychological disturbance, two more released on the …………………….. Guards identified more and more with their role, becoming more and more…………………, especially after the rebellion

TASK: Check that your fill in the gaps answers are correct, mark using a different coloured pen One strength of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that it was controlled. For example, pts were randomly assigned to role of prisoner or guard. This helped to rule out the role of individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings and therefore attempts to control for this extraneous variable as any behaviour must then be due to the social role they were in NOT their personality. This therefore allows the study to have high levels of internal validity.   However, it can be argued that the study is lacking in internal validity . This is because it could be said that the pt.s were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. For example, one guard claimed he had based his role on a character from a film (Cool Hand Luke). On the other hand, Zimbardo argued that the situation was incredibly real to the pt.s. For example, prisoner 416 expressed the view that it was a real prison, only run by psychologists. 90% of the prisoner’s conversations were about prison life . This data suggests that the study does have high realism as the situation did seem real to pts.

TASK: check that you have labelled and paired up your ethics AO3 points correctly and written the pairs onto booklet p11 – mark your own using a different coloured pen Right to withdraw Unethical – was not willing to let leave, too involved in role as superintendent Ethical – let 5 out of 10 leave Protection from psychological harm Unethical – 5 were released due to depression…and acute anxiety Ethical – re-interviewed, no lasting effects, learnt important lessons Deception Unethical – arrest was unexpected, guards thought prisoners being studied Ethical – no other deception Informed consent Unethical – did not provide a full understanding Ethical – signed a certificate stating invasion of privacy and loss of rights Value of research Unethical – hasn’t helped American prison service, Ethical – shows that good people are not enough to prevent abuse, A situation can lead to good people causing abuse – IMPORTANT LESSON……………..

Just read…… "You don't need a motive," Zimbardo said. "All you really need is a situation that facilitates moving across that line of good and evil." Prison abuses – Iraq 2004 Allegations of severe maltreatment and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US military and intelligence personnel and contractors at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison began emerging in 2003, prompting an internal US army investigation beginning in January 2004. The Taguba report found soldiers had been committing "grave breaches of humanitarian law" in their treatment of prisoners. Seventeen soldiers and officers - including the camp commandant - were suspended and criminal proceedings were launched. The same social psychological processes--deindividualization, anonymity of place, dehumanization, role-playing and social modeling, moral disengagement and group conformity--that acted in the Stanford Prison Experiment were at play at Abu Ghraib, Zimbardo argued. So is it a few bad apples that spoil a barrel? "That's what we want to believe--that we could never be a bad apple," Zimbardo said. "We're the good ones in the barrel." But people can be influenced, regardless of their intention to resist, he said. As such, the Abu Ghraib soldiers' mental state--such as stress, fear, boredom and heat exhaustion, coupled with no supervision, no training and no accountability--may have further contributed to their "evil" actions, he noted. "I argue situational forces dominate most of us at various times in our lives," Zimbardo said, "even though we'd all like to believe we're each that singular hero who can resist those powerful external pressures, like Joe Darby, the whistle-blowing hero of the Abu Ghraib prison."

Zimbardo experiment clip https://youtu.be/oAX9b7agT9o

Task – Obedience to Authority 1. Use a textbook, complete the definition of obedience on p.12 2. Use a textbook, complete the Aims, Procedure, Findings and Conclusions of Milgram’s study Textbooks available in library or Psych office 3. Use the attached word document, match up the “case for the defence” ethical points to those in your booklet, ensure they match up to deception, psych harm etc, and write into your booklet (please email me/come and see me to check if you’re not sure)

Homework (not to be handed in until 21st/22nd May) Start your revision notes on types of conformity, explanations of conformity (and evaluation), Asch’s research into conformity (and evaluation) Assessment Qs coming up in next few lessons, and trial exam coming up in June – this will be equivalent to a whole paper 1 A level paper and so will cover Social, Attachment, Memory, Psychopathology (and of course, Research Methods, since Research Methods makes up 35% of the whole A level course and will be assessed on every exam paper!)