Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Compliance
When in a public setting/ surrounded by others, a person will agree with them but will keep their own opinion private. Most shallow form of conformity
Example:
Laughing at a joke with your friends even though you don’t find it funny, just because everyone else is laughing. You’re fitting in but not actually agreeing with the joke.
Identification
Compliance is the lowest level of conformity. This occurs when a person changes their behavior or beliefs publicly to fit in with a group but does not truly change their internal beliefs.
example:
Listening to hip-hop with your friends because they enjoy it, but when you're at home alone, you switch back to listening to classical music. You change your behavior and beliefs temporarily based on the group’s influence.
Internationalisation
Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. Here, an individual genuinely changes their behavior and internal beliefs to align with the group. This change is permanent, and the individual does not revert back to their original beliefs.
Example:
You start going to football games with a new friend and eventually become a lifelong fan, even purchasing a season ticket. You internalize the group’s values and truly become passionate about the team.
Obedience
Changing your behaviour because of a direct order from a LEGITIMATE figure
Contrast with confromity
Occurs between social levels, not in peer groups
Results from pressure from an individual, not a group
Results in a person doing something different from the person giving the orders
Direct command, rather than unspoken pressure
People attribute their actions to obedience to authority (but deny conforming)
Conformity - Don't Admit
Peers, Normative/ informational, Social influence
Obedience - Admit
Legitimate authority, socialisation
Informational Influence
Definition:
Informational influence occurs when a person conforms because they are uncertain about the right answer or behavior, and they want to be correct. In this case, the individual looks to others for guidance in unfamiliar or difficult situations, believing the group knows best.
Key Point:
Informational influence happens when someone is unsure and genuinely believes the group has the correct answer.
Evidence:
Jenness (1932): In his experiment, participants were asked to estimate the number of beans in a jar. After making an individual estimate, they then discussed it as a group and were allowed to change their answers. The results showed that most participants changed their estimate to match the group’s average, suggesting that people conform because they genuinely believe the group has the correct answer in ambiguous situations.
Normative Influence
Definition:
Normative influence occurs when people conform not because they are unsure about the correct answer, but because they want to fit in with the group. The motivation here is a desire to be liked, accepted, or avoid ridicule from others. Even if the person knows the correct answer, they may still conform to match the group’s opinion or behavior.
Key Point:
Normative influence is about wanting to fit in and avoid social rejection, even if you know the correct answer.
Evidence:
Asch (1951): In a classic experiment, participants were asked to match the length of a line to three comparison lines. The group, consisting of confederates (actors), gave the wrong answer on 12 out of 18 trials. The true participant was always last to answer. Despite knowing the correct answer, 75% of participants conformed at least once, and the average conformity rate was 32%. When interviewed, most participants admitted that they didn’t believe their answers were correct but conformed to avoid being ridiculed by the group.
How Individual Factors Affect Conformity
1. Gender and Conformity
Explanation:
Women tend to conform more than men, often because of how they are raised. Girls are often taught to be more nurturing and to keep things harmonious, which makes them more likely to go along with what the group wants.
Men, on the other hand, are encouraged to be independent and assertive, so they are more likely to resist fitting in with the group.
Evolutionary View:
Some believe that men resist conformity because it shows strength or dominance, especially in situations like social or mating settings.
Changing Roles:
However, as society changes, women are now in more roles that were once dominated by men, which might be changing this difference in conformity.
Evidence:
Mori and Arai (2010): In a test where participants had to judge line lengths, women conformed, while men didn’t. This supports the idea that women are more likely to conform.
2. Age and Conformity
Explanation:
Teenagers are especially influenced by peer pressure. They want to be liked and accepted by their friends, so they tend to conform more.
As people get older, they become more independent and confident in their own beliefs, so they conform less.
Evidence:
Steinberg and Monahan (2007): They found that conformity is at its highest during ages 14-18 and drops as people grow older. Older people tend to resist peer pressure more easily.
3. Self-Esteem and Conformity
Explanation:
People with low self-esteem may be more likely to conform because they want to be accepted and are afraid of rejection. They want others to like them, so they follow the group.
People with high self-esteem are more confident in their own decisions and less likely to conform, though they might still follow the group if they are unsure of what’s right, which is informational influence.
Evidence:
Hill and Vonk (2015): They found that people with low self-esteem conformed more in an online task compared to people with high self-esteem, supporting the idea that low self-esteem can make people more likely to give in to social pressures.
In simple terms:
Women may follow the crowd more because of social teachings about being caring and peaceful.
Teenagers conform because they want to fit in with their friends, but as people get older, they start to care less about what others think.
People with low self-esteem are more likely to conform because they are afraid of rejection, while those with high self-esteem feel more confident and can resist the pressure to conform.
How Situational Factors Affect Conformity
1. Group Size and Conformity
Explanation:
The size of the group can have an impact on how much a person conforms, but only up to a certain point. Asch’s research found that three confederates (actors) in the group had the largest influence on conformity. Adding more people beyond that point didn’t result in much of an increase in conformity.
Evidence:
Asch (1955) repeated his experiment by changing the number of confederates in the group. The results were:
One confederate = Almost no conformity.
Two confederates = 12.8% conformity.
Three confederates = 33.3% conformity.
Adding more confederates (up to seven) had a slight increase in conformity but not much beyond that.
This suggests that while group size matters, its effect on conformity is strongest up to a group of three, after which the impact plateaus.
2. Group Unanimity and Conformity
Explanation:
Conformity is more likely when the group is unanimous (all members agree on the same opinion). If there is any dissent, conformity rates drop significantly. When there is disagreement within the group, the pressure to conform lessens because there is no longer complete group agreement.
Evidence:
Asch (1956) introduced a dissenting confederate to break the group's unanimity. When a participant had an ally who disagreed with the majority, conformity dropped by 80%.
Asch’s (1956) variation showed that when a single confederate gave a different incorrect answer, conformity dropped to just 9%.
Allen and Levine (1968) replicated a similar setup where the dissenting confederate wore thick-rimmed glasses (suggesting visual impairment). Conformity decreased from 97% to 64% when a single dissenting voice was introduced.
These results show that group unanimity plays a crucial role in driving conformity. A single dissenting voice can significantly reduce the pressure to conform.
3. Task Difficulty and Conformity
Explanation:
Conformity tends to increase when the task is more difficult or ambiguous. In such cases, individuals are uncertain about the correct answer and look to others for guidance, which is an example of informational social influence. They conform because they believe the group holds the correct answer.
Evidence:
In Asch’s original 1951 experiment, the task was easy and the correct answer was clear, resulting in moderate conformity.
In a variation where Asch made the task more difficult by reducing the difference in line lengths, conformity increased. Although exact percentages weren’t given, the trend was clear: the harder the task, the more likely participants were to rely on the group’s answer and conform.
This shows that when the correct answer is unclear, people are more likely to conform to the opinions of others due to the uncertainty created by task difficulty.
Summary of Situational Factors:
Group Size:
The effect of group size on conformity peaks with around three confederates. Additional members beyond that have less impact.
Group Unanimity:
Conformity increases when the group is unanimous. However, when there is even a single dissenting opinion, conformity drops significantly.
Task Difficulty:
More difficult tasks lead to higher conformity as people look to others for guidance, particularly when they are unsure of the correct answer.
These situational factors highlight how the social context (group dynamics) and the nature of the task influence the likelihood of conformity. When people are uncertain or surrounded by a unanimous group, they are more likely to conform.
How Cultural Factors Affect Conformity
Cultural context plays a significant role in influencing the extent to which individuals conform. Asch’s experiments, which were conducted in the USA during the 1950s, provided foundational knowledge on conformity, but it's essential to understand that cultural differences affect conformity levels. Cultures can be broadly categorized as collectivist or individualist, and these cultural frameworks shape conformity in distinct ways.
1. Collectivist vs. Individualist Cultures
Collectivist Cultures:
These cultures place a strong emphasis on the group over the individual. People in collectivist cultures are taught to prioritize the well-being of their family, community, and society. Because of this emphasis on group harmony and interconnectedness, individuals in these cultures are more likely to conform in order to maintain group cohesion and avoid social conflict.
Examples: Countries in Asia, South America, and some African cultures are typically considered collectivist.
Individualist Cultures:
In contrast, individualist cultures value independence, personal freedom, and self-expression. People in these cultures are more likely to prioritize their own needs and goals over those of the group. This can lead to lower levels of conformity, as individuals are encouraged to assert their own opinions and resist group pressures.
Examples: The UK, the USA, and many Western European countries are often categorized as individualist cultures.
2. Evidence of Cultural Differences in Conformity
Smith and Bond (1993):
In a review of conformity studies conducted around the world, Smith and Bond found significant cultural differences in conformity levels. They discovered that Belgium (an individualist culture) had some of the lowest levels of conformity, while Fiji (a collectivist culture) showed the highest levels of conformity. This supports the idea that collectivist cultures encourage conformity more strongly than individualist cultures.
Kim and Markus (1999):
Kim and Markus investigated the differences in conformity between American (individualist) and Asian (collectivist) participants in a simple decision-making task. Participants were asked to choose a pen from a box where the majority of pens were one color and a minority were another color.
American participants tended to choose the minority color of pen, likely reflecting their desire to assert individuality.
Asian participants, on the other hand, chose the majority color of pen, reflecting the value placed on group harmony and fitting in with the larger social group.
What is Perceived Legitimate Authority?
Perceived legitimate authority means that people are more likely to follow orders from someone they believe is in a position of power.
When someone appears to be in charge (like a teacher, doctor, or police officer), others may feel it's right to obey because they believe this person has the "right" to give orders.
Why Does It Work?
People believe that those in authority have the right to tell them what to do.
They trust that the authority figure knows what is best, and they feel it’s their role to follow instructions.
Example: Milgram's Experiment (1963)
In Milgram’s experiment, participants were told to give electric shocks to a person (a fake participant) who answered questions wrong.
The person giving instructions (the authority figure) wore a lab coat. This made the participants think he was an expert and had the right to tell them what to do.
Result: Even though the shocks were hurting the person, participants continued because they trusted the authority figure’s orders.
Evidence: Hofling’s Experiment (1966)
Hofling’s experiment took place in a hospital. Nurses received a phone call from a doctor they didn’t know.
The doctor asked them to give a higher dose of medicine than the label said was safe.
Even though the nurses knew this was risky, 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed because they saw the doctor as an authority figure and trusted his orders.
Socialisation and Obedience
What is Socialisation?
Socialisation is the lifelong process where we learn the rules, norms, and expectations of society.
This happens through parents, school, culture, and experiences.
How Does Socialisation Lead to Obedience?
Learning from Parents
As children, we watch our parents obey rules (e.g., following laws, listening to authority figures).
This teaches us that obeying authority is the "correct" thing to do.
School Rules
In school, we are expected to follow instructions from teachers.
We are rewarded for good behaviour (e.g., praise, good grades) and punished for disobedience.
Authority Becomes Normal
Since we are used to obeying from a young age, we automatically continue this pattern as adults.
This makes us more likely to obey figures like police officers, doctors, or bosses at work.
Why Does This Matter?
Socialisation makes obedience feel natural—we don’t even question it most of the time.
This explains why people in experiments (like Milgram’s study) obey orders from authority figures, even when those orders seem wrong.
Autonomous and Agentic Levels of Behaviour
What is Agency Theory?
Developed by Milgram to explain why people obey authority figures.
Suggests that people can be in two psychological states in a social situation:
Autonomous State
Agentic State
Autonomous State
✅ Definition: A person is in control of their own behaviour and decisions.
✅ Key Features:
They act based on personal morals and beliefs.
They feel responsible for their actions.
This is the normal state that people are in.
Example: If you refuse to follow an unfair rule at work because you believe it’s wrong, you are acting autonomously.
Agentic State
✅ Definition: A person follows orders from an authority figure, believing they are just an ‘agent’ carrying out instructions.
✅ Key Features:
They shift responsibility to the authority figure.
They feel less guilty about their actions.
This state occurs in stressful or pressured situations.
Example: A soldier following orders to harm others, believing their commander is responsible for the consequences.
Agentic Shift
🔄 What is it? Moving from the autonomous state (acting independently) to the agentic state (following orders).
🔑 Two Conditions Needed for an Agentic Shift:
The authority figure is seen as legitimate and qualified to give orders.
The person obeying believes the authority figure takes responsibility for the consequences.
Evidence from Milgram’s Study
🔬 Participants wanted to stop, but when the experimenter said, "I take responsibility," they continued.
🔬 If participants were reminded that they were responsible, almost none continued.
🔬 This shows that people obey more easily when they believe responsibility is taken away.
Breaking Down Situational Factors: Uniform, Proximity, Location
Milgram identified three key situational factors that influence obedience:
📍 Location – Where the order is given.
👤 Proximity – How close the authority figure or victim is.
🎽 Uniform – What the authority figure is wearing.
1⃣ Location
✅ Explanation:
If the setting appears credible and authoritative, obedience is higher.
If the location seems unimportant, people are less likely to obey.
📝 Example: People take a courtroom more seriously than a coffee shop.
📊 Evidence – Milgram’s Study:
At Yale University, 65% of participants obeyed fully (450V shock).
In a run-down building, obedience dropped to 47.5%.
✅ Conclusion: Authority feels weaker in an unprofessional setting.
2⃣ Proximity
✅ Explanation:
Authority figure’s proximity: The closer they are, the more likely people obey.
Victim’s proximity: The closer they are, the less likely people obey.
📊 Evidence – Milgram’s Study:
Experimenter in the room → High obedience.
Experimenter gives orders over the phone → Obedience dropped to 21%.
✅ Conclusion: Distance weakens authority.
Victim in another room → High obedience.
Victim in the same room → Obedience dropped to 40%.
Participant forced to hold victim’s hand on shock plate → Obedience dropped to 30%.
✅ Conclusion: Seeing the victim suffer makes it harder to obey.
3⃣ Uniform
✅ Explanation:
Uniforms increase perceived authority.
If someone dresses professionally, people trust and obey them more.
📊 Evidence – Milgram’s Study:
When an experimenter wore a lab coat, 65% obeyed fully.
When a normal person (no uniform) gave orders, obedience dropped to 20%.
📊 Evidence – Bickman (1974):
In New York, three actors dressed as:
👮 Security Guard → 76% obedience
🥛 Milkman → 47% obedience
👕 Civilian (ordinary clothes) → 30% obedience
✅ Conclusion: People obey uniforms associated with authority (e.g., police).
