Dual Process Model Of Conformity Research

Colon, Michael Allan C.

11181389

Applied Social Psychology

FINAL PAPER

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY Before anything else, I would like to discuss the data’s reliability and validity. Data used for this investigation is the various recordings of the group and its transcriptions. Personally, the most evident thing that may have affected or altered the result of the data is the Hawthorne Effect. Since the members of the group knew that their meetings were recorded by a group of Grad students, they may have placed their best foot forward and acted somehow different to possibly impress their audience. Another point is the way the recordings have been transcribed, though minor, some words or sentences might have been interpreted differently.

First

Deutsch & Gerard identified the Dual Process Model of Conformity (1955) - the two psychological needs that lead humans to conform:

1. Our need to be right (Informational social influence) and;

2. Our need to be liked (Normative social influence) *

Research in social psychology focused primarily on two main types of conformity namely Information conformity (informational social influence) and Normative conformity (normative social influence) (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2005).

Information conformity * Information social influence happens when a person turns to the members of the group to obtain information. The person is most likely to make use of this in 3 situations: When a situation is unclear, the person becomes uncertain what to do. That person is more likely to depend on another person for the answer. During a crisis when immediate action is needed. Looking up to other members can ease fears, but take note that these people are not always right. People must be careful as experts or professionals can make errors too.

Normative Conformity

Normative social influence occurs when one conforms to be liked or accepted by the members of the

Girl2: Sige. 12k ‘to. Sakto!

THEORY

RISKY SHIFT PHENOMENON

Risk takers are perceived as group leaders. Those who are initially more inclined to take risks also tend to be more dominant and influential in the group discussion; hence, the risky shift can be accounted for in terms of the influence of risky leaders. Marquis (1962) and Collins and Guetzkow (1964) have argued that this is the most likely explanation of the phenomenon

In two previous studies of individual and group decision making, Wallach, Kogan, and Bern (1962, 1964) found that group decisions reached through discussion and consensus tended to be more risky than decisions made by the group members as individuals. Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) proposed that greater risks are chosen due to a diffusion of responsibility, where emotional bonds decrease anxieties and risk is perceived as shared.

EXPLANATION

The Risky Shift phenomenon Comparing this to the first scenario, the most obvious interpretation or theory to explain this is the Risky Shift phenomenon. One member started the suggestion to have the organization borrow the money from her class. Even though there was no clarity on when they will get their own money from the bank they still proceeded probably out of desperation as well. Since all members agreed to this, it was assumed that no one person will be pinpointed if ever it fails, they will all share the