Alternative transcript:

pps went along with a clearly wrong answer because others did, pps said they knew the answer was wrong but were afraid of disapproval INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ISI: ISI does not affect everyone's behaviour in the same way INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NSI: People who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI and there are those who have a need for association with others, people with high affiliation are more likely to conform ISI AND NSI WORK TOGETHER: Idea of the two process theory is that behaviour it either of the two but in reality its most likely both processes are involved Asch's research: Line study AIM: to see if people will conform to a majority, even with an obvious answer. PROCEDURE: 123 American males took part. They were in groups of 6-8, but only one of them was a true participant- the rest were confederates (told how to act by the researcher). They had to answer out loud which line, from a choice of three, matched a 'control' line. The answer was obvious. There were 18 trials, and on 12 of them ('critical trials'), the confederates all gave the same wrong answer. The real participant gave their answer last or last-but-one. Findings: 36.8% of the answers given by the participants were conforming answers. 75% of participants conformed at least once 25% did not conform Conclusions: People will conform to a majority, even if that majority is wrong. Afterwards, participants said they conformed in order to fit in. example of NSI Acshs variations: 1. GROUP SIZE: Asch found with 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. Addition of confederates made little difference 2. UNAMITY: presence of non conforming confederate - sometimes confederate would pick the correct one or the other wrong answer. This presence reduces conformity and allowed pps to act more independently 3. TASK DIFFICULTY: made the line judging more difficult conformity increased in these conditions, suggests ISI plays a greater role once the task is harder % Conformity rates 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Size of majority (number of confederates) Evaluations: (-) ARTIFICIAL SITUATION AND TASK - pps knew they were in a study and could have given rise to demand characteristics. No reason not to conform. Didn't resemble groups that we are part of in everyday life - limitation because means findings cant be generalised to everyday situations. (-) LIMITED APPLICATION OF FINDINGS - only men took part in the experiment and also from an individualistic culture (-) ETHICAL ISSUES- pps were deceived as they thought the confederates were real pps and thought they were taking part in an eye test Zimbardo's research The stanford prison experiment: PROCEDURE zimbardo set up a mock prison in the university basement, used volunteer sampling and chose pps based on mental and physical health. Pps were randomly selected for the two roles of prisoner or guard. Out of 75 volunteers 24 men were chosen, they were paid $15 a day. To heighten realism prisoners were arrested by local police. Prisoners' daily routine was heavily regulated and guards worked in groups of 3 in 8 hour shifts and told they had complete power over the prisoners. FINDINGS: study was stopped after 6 days (supposed to be 2 weeks) due to the harsh treatments from guards and the prisoners' rebellion. Guards enforced a divide and rule tactic by putting the prisoners against each other. Guards harassed prisoners constantly and highlighted their difference in social roles. After the rebellion prisoners seemed depressed and anxious as the guards seemed more identified with their role. Zimbardo also played the role and superintendent of the prison and tried to convince some prisoners to stay on. CONCLUSION: simulation revealed the situation has influence over behaviour, they all conformed to their role Evaluation: (+) CONTROL a strength of the SPE was the control of variables = selection of pps, one way researchers tried to rule out individual differences increasing internal validity (-) LACK OF REALISM psychologists argued the pps were acting rather then genuinely conforming, however zimbardo pointed out the situation was real for the pps data showed 90% of conversations were about prison life (-) ROLE OF DISPOSITIONAL INFLUENCES: researchers accused zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour and minimise personality factors (dispositional influences) as only a third of the guards actually behaved brutally another third wanted to follow the rules and the rest actively tried helping the prisoners This suggests zimbardo's conclusion may be overstated the difference in the guards behaviours indicate they were able to tell wrong from right despite situational pressures (-) LACK OF RESEARCH SUPPORT: researchers replicated zimbardo's study and their findings were very different (prisoners took control over prison), they used social identity theory to explain this outcome (-) ETHICAL ISSUES: major ethical issues arose due to zimbardo's dual roles in the study as he gave them little right to withdraw and may have given rise to investigator effects