Social Influence and Conformity Studies - Essay Example

TAQ 1) Audience effects- Audience effects indicate that individual performance changes when done in front of an audience (Edwards and Archambault, 1989, p.360). The kinds and degrees of audience effects may depend in different factors, however, such as whether the audiences are evaluators or depending on task complexity, among others (Edwards and Archambault, 1989, p.360). An example of audience effect is when a young student does better on a class task with teachers as audience than without any audience. 2) Co-action- Co-action refers to the effects of doing something with others on the individual who is performing the action (Edwards and Archambault, 1989, p.358). It shows that actions that are done together or done in competition with others tend to increase the performance of involved participants (Edwards and Archambault, 1989, p.358). An example is the observation that people tend to eat more when they are eating with others than when they are eating alone, and that some children can shoot more basketball if they are competing with other classmates. 3) Majority influence- It refers to conformity where individuals follow the judgment or decisions of others only because the majority believes it, not because it is necessarily right (Edwards and Archambault, 1989, p.262). An example of majority influence us in cases where team members are deciding through bandwagon effects, where they agree with the option presented by the leader because others did so, instead of thinking critically about other options. These members may not even recognize that the option is immoral or illegal because they want to conform and follow others. 4) Roles- Roles refer to specific situations, jobs, and functions, either in organizations or inside one’s family or homes and communities (Zimbardo, 2007, p.215). Roles can also be set aside when doing what may be immoral or illegal to those roles (Zimbardo, 2007, p.215). A good example of social roles is Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, where college students embraced their roles as guards and prisoners too well that guards became brutal and prisoners felt powerless. 5) Deindividuation- Deindividuation refers to the state of being less aware and less in control of the self because of being placed in a situation of being part of a large, controlled crowd (Zimbardo, 2007, p.402). Deindividuation happened in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment when students forgot that they were acting only as prisoners and they lost their sense of self and control over the conditions of their lives. Word Count: 402 TAQ 2 In 2009, a Psychology Professor at Santa Clara University, Jerry Burger, replicated Milgram’s prominent Obedience Experiment. Burger made changes in his experiment to address ethical issues in Milgram’s original version (Milgrams Obedience Experiment, 2009). First, the maximum shock level was set to 150-volts instead of 450-volts. Second, Burger screened out people who showed indication that they were familiar with Milgram’s experiment. Third, a clinical psychologist carefully screened potential participants, so that he could remove those who might have negative reactions to the experiment (Milgrams Obedience Experiment,2009). All participants were initially informed that the experiment was to test the impact of punishment on learning. The same lab procedures applied as in Miligram’s experiment, where the study was rigged, so that all participants would act as “teachers,” while confederates served as “learners.” Participants were given $50 and told that it was theirs to keep whether they completed the study or not. The participants applied electric shocks for every wrong answer of the learners paired with them. The shocks ranged from 15 to 450 volts with 15-volt differences. Participants were told to move up the switch for each subsequent wrong answer. The experimenter was beside the participants to encourage them to continue the experiment despite the cries and other reactions of learners. “Learners” also asked their teachers to stop the experiment by the time they reached 150 volts. Results showed that majority of the participants (almost 70%), regardless of gender, continued to apply the electrical shocks beyond 150 volts. The conclusion is that people are still vulnerable to obeying people with authority. The strength of the study is that it resolves some of the ethical issues of Milgram’s study, while its weaknesses is that it cannot be fully compared with Milgram’s study because of methodological and situational differences. Table 1: Conformity Studies Aim To determine if people will remain obedient to authority despite ethical dilemmas Procedure All participants were initially informed that the experiment was to test the impact of punishment on learning. The researchers hired actors who would as confederates. The same procedures applied as in Miligram’s experiment, where the study was rigged, so that all participants would act as “teachers,” while confederates served as learners. Participants were given $50 and told it was theirs to keep whether they completed the study or not. The participants applied electric shocks for every wrong answer of the learners paired with them. The shocks ranged from 15 to 450 volts with 15-volt differences. Participants were told to move up the switch for each subsequent wrong answer. The experimenter was beside the participants to encourage them to continue the experiment despite the cries and reactions of learners. Results Results showed that majority of the participants, almost 70% and regardless of gender, continued to apply the electrical shocks even after they saw their learners asking to be released from the experiment and even when they were unconscious already. Conclusion The conclusion is that people are still vulnerable to obeying people with authority, despite modern times. Evaluation of the Study The strength of the study is that it resolves some of the ethical issues of Milgram’s study, while its weaknesses is that it cannot be fully compared with the earlier study because of methodological and situational differences. Conformity Studies In 1951, Asch wanted to examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could result to conformity for others. 50 male students from Swarthmore College in the USA took part in a “vision test.” The test involved a line judgment task. Asch placed an unknowing participant in a room with seven confederates. The confederates had agreed in advance what their responses would be without the knowledge of the real participant (McLeod, 2008). During the experiment, each person in the room had to say aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was most similar to the target line. The answer was constantly apparent. The real participant was always made to sit at the end of the row and gave his answer last. There were 18 trials in total and the confederates gave the wrong answers for 12 trials. There was also a control group where there were no confederates. Findings showed that around one third (32%) of the participants conformed to the clearly-wrong majority (McLeod, 2008). In the control group, less than 1% of participants gave the incorrect answer (McLeod, 2008). Apparently, many people feel the pressure to conform because they want to fit in, or because they think that the group is better informed (McLeod, 2008). The strength of the study is that it designed the set-up in a way that it can validly gather the maximum effect of conformity, while its weakness is that it has a biased sample of male college students, which reduces its external validity. Table 2: Conformity Studies Aim To determine if people will remain obedient to authority despite ethical dilemmas Procedure All participants were initially informed that the experiment was to test the impact of punishment on learning. The researchers hired actors who would as confederates. The same procedures applied as in Miligram’s experiment, where the study was rigged, so that all participants would act as “teachers,” while confederates served as learners. Participants were given $50 and told it was theirs to keep whether they completed the study or not. The participants applied electric shocks for every wrong answer of the learners paired with them. The shocks ranged from 15 to 450 volts with 15-volt differences. Participants were told to move up the switch for each subsequent wrong answer. The experimenter was beside the participants to encourage them to continue the experiment despite the cries and reactions of learners. Results Results showed that majority of the participants, almost 70%, continued to apply the electrical shocks even after they saw their learners asking to be released from the experiment and even when they were unconscious already. Conclusion The conclusion is that people are still vulnerable to obeying people with authority, despite modern times. Evaluation of the Study The strength of the study is that resolves some of the ethical issues of Milgram’s study, while its weaknesses is that it cannot be fully compared with Milgram’s study because of methodological and situational differences. Word Count: 548 for the essay except the tables TAQ 3 Ethical Issue Definition Infringement Adaptations Bibliography Edwards, J.D. and Archambault, D. 1989. The homefield advantage. In: Goldstein, J.H. ed. Sports, games, and play: social and psychological viewpoints. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 333-370. Zimbardo, P. 2007. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House. McLeod, S. 2008. Asch Experiment. . [Online]. [Accessed 5 July 2014]. Available from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html Milgrams Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009. 2009. [Online]. YouTube. [Accessed 5 July 2014]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk&list=PLFD259C6C16CA23C3 Read More