Topic 1 - conformity ( Asch and Zimbardo)

conformity

giving into social or group pressure - going along with an activity by friends or when you change beliefs or attitude to fit in with the environment around you.

types of conformity - compliance

compliance - individuals publicly go along with the majority view but privately disagree with it

linked to wanting to be accepted

temporary type of conformity

most shallow type of conformity is usually short-term and likely the result of normative social influence

types of conformity - identification

• individuals adopt the behaviours of the group because we value the group and membership

• don’t necessarily agree with everything the group says

• moderate type of conformity that lasts as long as groups membership

• only lasts the time we spent as a member of the group eg - army

types of conformity - internalisation

• Individuals take on the expressed view publicly and privately as they accept it as correct

• deepest level of conformity and leads to far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour

• usually due to informational social influence - believing people to be right - long-term conformity

• linked to informational social influence

explanations of conformity

• Normative social influence - stems from the desire to avoid punishment (going along with the rules in class even though they disagree with them) and gain rewards (behaving a certain way for people to like you) - NSI conducted for emotional reasons - linked to compliance - smoke when with friends to fit in - stop when not around

• informational social influence - happens when people change their behaviour to be correct - in situations where we are unsure of the correct response, we often look to others who are better informed and more knowledgeable and use their leads as a guide for our own behaviours - agreeing with someone else’s answer in class who you see as more intelligent - ISI done for cognitive reasons - linked to isi - person may change their beliefs because they have been truly convinced by a friends arguments about something - permanent so will be private and public changes

research support for ISI - Jenness

• Jennes - found that when offered a supposedly better way to count beans in a jar , almost all participants opted to change their estimates

evaluations for normative social influence

• Strengths: supported by Asch’s research - participants conformed to a majority to avoid disapproval even when the answer was wrong

• real-world application - used in campaigns (recycling or saving energy) - people conform when told others are doing it - practical applications

• weakness: Individual differences - some people are more affected by NSI than others, showing it doesn’t apply equally to everyone - some people want to relate to others and be included in the group - nsi more in others, making them conform

• hard to separate from ISI - in many situations, both NSI and ISI may be involved, making it difficult to determine which one is influencing behaviour - they may want to fit in and they may think others are right - seen in Asch’s study - participants conformed to avoid standing out (NSI) some reported doubting their judgement (ISI) - unclear which influence was stronger - they often produce the same outcomes - both go along with the group - difficult to know the true cause of conformity

• cultural bias - NSI may be stronger in collectivist cultures (China) than in individualistic cultures (UK or USA), so may not be universally applicable - group harmony is highly valued in collectivist cultures - these cultures also have stronger social norms - tend to have clear expectations for behaviour and social norms - people feel more pressure to follow norms to avoid shame or disapproval the group.

evaluations for informational social influence

Strengths: social learning is encouraged - in collectivist cultures, there’s more emphasis on learning from others, not just being independent - people more likely to look to others in ambiguous or new situations - also maintains authority and tradition - collectivist cultures big emphasis on respecting elders, teachers or experts - people more willing to accept others views as correct especially if they’re seen as more knowledgeable

Research support - Jenness - shows people conform when unsure and believe the group is more likely to be right

research support - Asch study - although NSI played a role, ISI also occurred - some participants said they doubted their perception, especially when the task was more difficult - sis stronger when things are more ambiguous

research support for ISI - Lucas et al - ppts conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems were harder , especially if they related themselves as weak with maths - supports isi when people unceratin they look to others - ppts did conform due to the need t be right adding credibility to the explanation

limitations of ISI - its hard to tell them apart isi and nsi - both may happen at same time with same outcome - overlap weakens isi as a separate explanation

Individual differences - some people may be more confident or knowledgeable so they’re less likely to conform through isi - suggests isi doesn’t affect everyone equally.

doesn’t take into account dispositional (personality) factors - isi assumes people conform because they want to be right esp in uncertain situations - ignores ind diff such as confidence, knowledge about something.

Key study Asch line study

aim - to examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority affects individual conformity

sample - 50 ppts from a list of 123 male students - task of visual perception in groups of 7-9 around a table - standard line and 3 comparison lines - people had to call out in turns which lines ABC were the same length as the standard line

procedure - a real participant was seated in a row among confederates - ppt seated 6th in a row of 7 people

• The the goal of study was to examine perceptual judgements and pts instructed to pick which 3 of the lines matched a standard line

• in 12 out of 18 of the studies the confederates told to give the wrong answer

• in 6 they gave wrong answer of a longer line

• real ppts seated second to last to hear the incorrect answer being given many times before giving their answer

results : overall conformity rate - 32 %

5 % of the participants conformed on every trial - most conformist

26 % remained completely independent - gave correct answer on all 12 trials despite peer pressure

conclusions - some people thought their perceptions may have been inaccurate and doubted their eyes - this is isi

most knew rest of group was wrong but didn’t was to stand out - NSI

can be used to support both ISI and NSI

evaluations for Asch’s line study

• strengths:

• High reliability: The study used standardised procedures (e.g. same confederate responses, same line judgment task), which means it can be easily replicated with consistent results.

• Practical applications: Findings have been applied in real life, such as in legal settings — jurors are now warned about the effects of conformity during briefings to reduce pressure from other jury members when reaching a verdict.

• High internal validity: Asch conducted a well-controlled lab experiment with 18 trials, allowing for clear measurement of how group pressure influenced conformity while minimising the impact of extraneous variables.

weakness:

• Low external validity: Asch’s study was a lab experiment using an artificial task (judging line lengths), which does not reflect real-life situations where conformity occurs, making it difficult to generalise to everyday settings.

• Lacks temporal validity and may not generalise to modern society: The study was conducted in the 1950s during the “Red Scare,” a time when people were more likely to conform due to fear of standing out and being labelled a communist. Modern-day replications, such as Perrin and Spencer (1980), have found much lower levels of conformity in similar tasks, suggesting that people today may behave differently, and the findings cannot be fully generalised to today’s society.

• Lacks representativeness: The study only included 123 male American college students, which means it excluded women entirely. This is a problem because men and women may respond differently to social pressure and conformity. Women might be more or less likely to conform depending on the situation, so without including female participants, the study’s findings cannot be confidently applied to the whole population. This limits how well the results generalise to different genders and reduces the overall representativeness of the sample.

variables affecting conformity

• group size - an individual is more likely to conform in a larger group because normative pressure increases - Asch altered the number of confederates in his study to see how this affected conformity - the bigger the majority group, the more people conformed, but only up to a certain point - 1 confederate - low conformity, 2-3 confederates - conformity rose to about 32 % - ao3 consideration - may depend on task difficulty or cultural context

• unanimity - conformity drops when the group is not unanimous - Asch study - if one confederate disagreed with the majority conformity dropped about 80% - the presence of other allies reduces normative pressure and increases confidence in individuals own answer but this is the opposite if there are more confederates with the same answer - lowers ppts confidence in their own due to group pressure - ao3 - shows importance of social support

• task difficulty - more difficult tasks increase conformity. Asch made the lines (ABC) more similar in length - participants conformed more when they were less sure of the answer as it was harder to judge - based on informational social influence people look to others for guidance when uncertain or ambiguous - ao3 consideration - may interact with individual differences - confidence etc.

• answer in private- when participants were allowed to answer in private, so the rest of the group does not know their response - conformity decreases - due to fewer pressures and normative influence is not as powerful as there is no fear of rejection.

Zimbardo - simulated prison observation

• aim - to investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing simulation of prison life

• sample - the basement of Stanford University converted into a mock prison - 75 ppts who answered the ad were given a diagnostic interview and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, drug or crime abuse - 24 at the end who were seen as mentally and physically stable

• procedure: ppts randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment

• Prisoners were arrested at their own homes without warning and taken to the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed, and booked.

• when they arrived at prison they were stripped naked, deloused and had all possessions taken away and were given prison clothes and bedding - issued a uniform and referred to by number only.

• all guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki with whistles around necks , sunglasses to make eye contact with prisoners impossible

• 3 guards worked shifts of 8 hours each day and were instructed to do what ever they had to do in order to maintain law and order in the prison no physical violence was permitted.

• Zimbardo observed the behaviour of the prisoners and guards as a prison warden

• findings: both guards and prisoners were settling into their roles. Guards started harassing some prisoners within hours, behaving brutally and in a sadistic manner other guards had also joined in

• prisoners started adopting prison-like behaviours as well as they talked about prison issues and life a great deal of time, and told tales about each other to the guards and they started taking prison rules very seriously

• as prisoners became submissive the guards became more aggressive as they demanded more obedience from the prisoners

• conclusions - prison environment was the main factor for students conforming to their roles - deindividuation for guards explained behaviour - uniform and how other guards acted. Each officer lost sense of agency and responsibility due to the power and authority they had over the prisoners - they acted in a way they may have never acted in before

• results: Only 10 percent of the time, prisoners’ conversations were about outside of prison and 90 percent was about prison life convos.

evaluations for zimbardo’s experiment

• weaknesses - demand characteristics - guards later claimed they were acting because the prisoners and guards were playing a role the same factors may not influence their behaviour in real life so the study’s findings cannot be generalised to real life.

• lacks ecological validity as prison settings was artificial so cant be applied to real life situations - needs to be in a real prison

• Lacks population validity - only USA males students cant be applied to female prisons or those from other parts of the world ( America is an individualistic culture so people are less conforming compared to Asian countries which are more collectivist meaning people conform more)

• psychological harm was done to prisoners - humiliation and distress - one prisoner let out after 36 hours due to uncontrollable burst of screaming, crying, and anger

• lack of fully informed consent - ethical concerns - no consent to being arrested - caused psychological harm

strengths - now recognition of ethical guidelines, studies now gain ethical approval before they are conducted to avoid any psychological harm or distress to participants - ensure better protection of participants in future research

• high levels of internal validity - high levels of control - Zimbardo selected emotionally stable participants through psychological screening and randomly assigned them to roles of prisoners or guards - control over variables means the observed behaviour was due to situational factors, not individual differences - people conform to social roles under certain conditions.