first spec point: types of conformity...explanations of conformity... variables affecting conformity...

Define social influence

• the study of the ways in which people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours are affected by other people.

• Define conformity

• A change in person’s behaviour/opinion, as a result of group pressure/imagined pressure from a person.

Compliance is a type of conformity. Define compliance.

Shallowest level of conformity.

Person changes public behaviour, but not their private beliefs.

Short-term/temporary change.

Often result of NSI, due to desire to fit in.

Example- saying you like dub-step music bc many other pple in your class like it, however privately, you can’t stand it.

Identification is a type of conformity. Define identification.

Middle level of conformity.

Person changes public behaviour AND private beliefs (NOT permanent)-

BUT only in presence of a particular group.

Short-term/temporary change, belief is not maintained having left group.

Often result of NSI, due to desire to fit in.

Example- Becoming vegetarian bc all flat mates are- however when away from flat mates, still eat meat.

Internalisation (‘true conformity’) is a type of conformity. Define Internalisation.

Deepest level of conformity.

Person changes public behaviour and private beliefs- have internalised this belief- becomes part of their belief system.

Usually a long-term/permanent change, even when group is not present.

Often results of ISI.

Example- person influenced and converts to Buddhism- new religious life will continue without presence of group.

Explain what is meant by internalisation (3M)

• Genuine change public and private views

• Belief of majority becomes part of individual’s belief system

• Belief is maintained even if majority is no longer present

• Most permanent form of conformity

• Linked to ISI

Explain what is meant by compliance. (3M)

• Change behaviour to fit in with group

• not necessarily their private belief, but just agreeing publicly

• not permanent form of conformity

• is only maintained when group is present

• e.g Asch’s study- many of the naive ppts went along with wrong answer as to not look stupid.

Informational social influence (ISI) is an explanation of conformity (why we conform). Describe ISI.

Desire to be right

Person conforms to gain knowledge or believe someone else is right.

Usually associated with internalisation.

Leads to semi-permanent change in behaviour-

adopting a new belief system.

Genuinely believing new beliefs are right or majority are experts.

Is a cognitive process

Occurs in ambiguity, or crisis situations or when a person in the group is regarded as an expert.

Example- person changes their political ideology from Conservative to Liberal- they have internalised new beliefs on a semi-permanent basis- believe voting Liberal is right for them.

Normative Social Influence (NSI) is an explanation of conformity (WHY people conform). Describe NSI.

Desire to be liked- concerned about rejection

Person conforms to be accepted- to feel that they belong to a group.

Socially rewarding to conform- avoid social rejection.

Associated with compliance AND identification.

Leads to short-term type of conformity.

Motivated by desire to fit in with majority.

Occur in situations with strangers (concerned abt rejection), or with people you know (concerned abt social approval), or in stressful situations (greater need for social support)

emotional, rather than cognitive process.

Jenness (1932) conducted a key study. What was the aim of the study?

To examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambiguous (unclear) situation, in response to group discussion.

Describe the method of Jenness’ study (1932).

Jenness used an ambiguous situation involving a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans.

Sample- 26 students

Individuals estimated how many beans the glass bottle contained.

Ppts divided into groups of three and asked to provide group estimate through discussion.

Given another opportunity to individually estimate number of beans to see if they changed their original answer.

What were the results of Jenness’ study (1932)?

Nearly all ppts changed their original answer when provided another opportunity to estimate number of beans.

On average, male ppts changed their answers by 256 beans.

On average, female ppts changed their answers by 382 beans.

Females typically conformed more.

The range of the whole group decreased by 75 percent, demonstrating the converging of opinions of ppts, after discussion.

What was the conclusion of Jenness’ study (1932)?

Results suggest that individuals changed their initial estimate due to INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE (desire to be right), as well as NSI (desire for acceptance)

They believed group estimates more likely to be correct, in comparison to their own.

Evaluate the explanation of conformity- ISI (strengths)

• Strength- Jenness (1932) study provides research support for role of ISI

  Second private estimates moved closer to group estimate compared to initial group estimate.

  Shows that internalisation will occur esp in unfamiliar, ambiguous situations.

• Strength-Lucas et al (2006) provides research support

  Students conformed more to incorrect answers to difficult maths problems, rather than easier ones

  Esp true for students that rated their maths ability as poor

  Demonstrates ISI- conform in ambiguous situation (not knowing answer), we look to other people and assume they must be right.

Evaluate the explanation of conformity- NSI (strengths)

• strength- real world application- Schultz et al (2008):

  gathered data from many hotels

  allocated randomly to rooms

  control condition- door hanger informing ppts of environmental benefits of reusing towels

  experimental condition- additional info- ‘75% of guests chose to reuse their towels each day.’

  results- ppts in experimental condition reduced their need for fresh towels by 25%, in comparison to control.

  conclusion- ppts in exp condition conformed to fit in.

• strength- Asch’s (1951) and (1955) studies into conformity provides support for NSI

  Asch (1951)- ppts responses in post-experimental interviews showed compliance- to fit in and avoid disapproval from rest of group.

  Asch (1955) (later variation)- write down answers on paper, rather than say aloud- pressure to publicly conform removed- conformity rates fell to 12.5%.

Evaluate the explanation of conformity- NSI ( against)

• Limitation- McGhee and Teevan (1967)- Individual differences may play a role

  found that students high in need of affiliation more likely to conform

  shows that desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others

  less concerned with being liked- less affected by NSI- (called nAffiliators)

  more concerned with being liked- more affected by NSI

Evaluate both the explanations of conformity using weaknesses/against.

• Perrin and Spencer’s (1980) study provide evidence against…

• Individual differences may play a role:

  Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted Asch-style experiment

  using engineering students solely.

  result- only one conforming response out of 396 trials.

  Individual difference- engineering experience—>more confident in ability to judge line length—>less pressure to conform

• or lack of temporal validity/ HISTORICAL BIAS causing difference in outcome of study

  research conducted in different era, 30 years apart, rapid social changes and norms have emerged.

• conclusion- process of NSI or ISI not affecting everyone same way due to individual differences or due to time era.

What was Asch’s (1951) research based on?

• Sherif’s (1935)- ambiguous (no clear answer) autokinetic experiment.

Asch (1951) conducted a key study. What was the aim of the study?

To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous (clear) situation.

Describe the method of Asch’s study (1951).

Sample- 123 American male undergrad students from US college.

Ppts were deceived- believed they were taking part in a vision test and that others were real ppts.

One real (naive) ppt placed in room with 6-8 confederates, who agreed their answers in advance.

Real ppt always seated second from last.

Line judgement task:

Each person had to say aloud which comparison line A/B/C, was most like the standard line in length.

Correct answer always obvious (unambiguous)

Each ppt completed 18 trials

Confederates gave same incorrect answer on 12 trials- CRITICAL TRIALS

Observe whether real ppt would conform to majority view even when answer was clearly incorrect.

Control group- one real ppt completed same exp without any confederates.

What were the results of Asch’s study (1951)?

Real ppts conformed to incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials.

75% of ppts conformed to at least once.

26% of ppts never conformed.

control group- less than 1% gave the incorrect answer.

What was the conclusion of Asch’s study (1951)?

Based on interviews post-event, most ppts said they knew their answers were incorrect, but went along with the group in order to fit in.

Confirms ppts conformed to avoid rejection, due to NSI.

What is the ‘Asch Effect’?

The extent to which ppts conform even when the situation is unambiguous.

What explanation of conformity is used to explain Asch’s research?

• NSI-conformed avoid rejection

• Not ISI, as the answer is blatantly clear (unamibguous)

Extended/advanced conclusion continued…What are the three reasons that ppts conformed?

1. Distortion of perception- came to see lines in same way as majority- didn’t trust their own eyes

2. Distortion of judgement- doubtful of own judgement

3. Distortion of action- continued to think different privately, but changing public answer

What explanation AND type of conformity explains 1. Distortion of perception and 2. Distortion of judgement ?

ISI- identification

What explanation AND type of conformity explains distortion of action?

NSI- compliance

What are the 3 variables of the study that Asch manipulated?

1. Group size

2. Unanimity

3. Task difficulty

What are the findings on group size varying in Asch’s study?

• 3 confederates—>optimum conformity- conformity to wrong answer rose to 31.8%

• Addition of further confederates—>little difference- conformity stays the same (ppt may get suspicious)

• no need for majority of more than 3.

What are the brief aims, procedure and findings on unanimity being varied in Asch’s study?

• Asch wanted to know if presence of another, non-conforming person would affect naive ppt’s conformity (social support)

• Introduced new confederate who diagreed with others- sometimes gave right/wrong answer.

• Presence of new confederate—>reduced conformity

• 25% conformity rate (compared to standard 32%)

• naive ppt behaves more independently

social support—>unanimity goes down

Elaborate on results of varying task difficulty in Asch’s research.

• made stimulus/standard line and comparison lines more similar in length- increased difficulty

• Situation is ambiguous (similar to Sherif’s)

• conformity increased

• ISI play greater role when task becomes harder- look to others for guidance and assume they are right and we are wrong.

The task is more difficult. Will conformity increase, decrease or stay the same? (baseline is 32% conformity in Asch’s original study)

Increase

(ISI- want to be right- less trust for yourself)

The task is on a topic with which the ppt is very familiar. What will happen to conformity?

Decrease

There is another non-conformist in the group who gives the right answer. What will happen to conformity?

Decrease

There is only one confederate. What will happen to conformity?

Decrease.

(coulde argue there is no majority influence, as there is only 2 people).

The task is easier. What will happen to conformity?

Stay the same.

(Asch’s original study- easy, unambiguous answers- 32% conformity)

There are more people in the group, all giving wrong answer. What will happen to conformity?

stay the same.

optimum conformity- majority of three people, increasing group size and confederates giving wrong answer—> ppt may get suspicious)

The confederates are more expert than the ppt on the task. What will happen to conformity?

Increase

Instead of 7 confederates, there are 4. What will happen to conformity?

stay the same

The participant does the task alone, seeing other responses on a screen. What will happen to conformity?

decrease

(group pressure removed)

There is another non-conformist in group who gives different wrong answer. What will happen to conformity?

Decrease

(unanimity broken)

What is the first developed evaluation on Asch’s (1951) study?

A child of its time:

1. 1950s, MCCARTHYISM was rife (persecution and snitching of communists)— very conformist time in America

   society has changed- possible people are less conformist today.

2. Perrin and Spencer (1980)- repeated Asch’s study with engineering students in UK.

   only one student conformed out of 396 trials. 0.2% conformity rate

   engineering students- more confident about measuring lines- less conformist.

LIMITATION- Asch effect not consistent across situations, as well as across time—>not a fundamental feature of human behaviour- lacks TEMPORAL VALIDITY.

What is the second developed evaluation for Asch’s (1951) study?

Artificial situation and task

1. Ppts knew they were in a research study—>demand characteristics

2. task of identifying lines- trivial- no reason to not conform (unimportant, doesn’t matter if wrong answer is said)

3. Didn’t resemble groups that we are part of in real life: Fiske (2014)- ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’—>

   Limitation- findings do not generalise to everyday situations- lacks ecological validity

What is the third developed evaluation of Asch’s (1951) study?

Limited application of findings

1. Only men tested by Asch

   Other research suggest women might be more conformist- more concerned about social relationships and being accepted than men are- Neto (1995)

2. Asch’s sample- from US- individualist culture: concerned about themselves rather than social group

   collectivist cultures (social group more important than individual) e.g China— research study—> conformity rates higher

   Bond and Smith (1996)- cultures more orineted to group needs

Asch’s findings may only apply to American men- doesn’t take into account GENDER and CULTURAL differences.

Briefly Asch’s study (1951) for reasons AGAINST.

123 male students from colleges in America- BIASED SAMPLE+lacks POPULATION VALIDITY

Line judgement task- low ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY+lack of MUNDANE REALISM

Research took place at time where arguably conformity was higher- criticised for being ‘A CHILD OF ITS TIME’ +lacks HISTORICAL VALIDITY

(Perrin and Spencer- 1980- replicated Asch’s study using maths and engineering students during a later time- lower levels of conformity).

Deceived ppts- taking part in vision test, not a conformity test- ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE- ethical guideline DECEPTION broken

(argue deception required to achieve VALID results and prevent DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS)

Many ppts reported feeling stressed when disagreeing with majority- ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE- ethical guideline PROTECTION FROM HARM broken

(argue Asch overcame issue by interviewing all ppts following exp).

What are 4 pieces of research that investigate further factors affecting conformity

1. Furman and Duke (1988)

2. Eagly and Carli (1981)

3. Perrin and Spencer (1980)

4. Smith and Bond (1998)

Talk about Furman and Duke’s (1988) study. Which factor had an effect on conformity?

• factor: confidence and knowledge affecting conformity (decreased)

• sample- students majoring in music and students in a different subject

• Students asked to listen to 2 versions of a piece of music- state their preference- individually and among confederates

Music majors were not influenced to change their already stated preferences

Publicly stated preferences of non-music majors- significantly affected by preferences of confederates.

Talk about Eagly and Carli’s (1981) study. Which 2 factors had an effect on conformity?

• factors: gender and public/private situations

• procedure- meta-analysis

• findings- women more likely to conform than men- VERY SMALL DIFFERENCE

• group-pressure situations in public- conformity difference between men and women appears most

• in private- conformity difference between men and women disappears

women more likely to comply with group opinion rather than internalise it- COMPLIANCE

Talk about Perrin and Spencer’s (1980) study. Which two factors had an effect on conformity?

• factors: cultural change and confidence in ability

  1. Asch effect- ‘child of its time’: replication of Asch’s study with engineering, maths and chem students

  Only 1 observer out of 396 trials joined erroneous (wrong) majority—→ cultural change (MCCARTHYISM WAS RIFE)

  2. Nature of sample- more confident in performing task, due to nature of their studies.

Talk about Smith and Bond (1998)’s study. What factor had an effect on conformity?

• factor: culture

• procedure- meta-analysis of studies from range of countries

• conformity rate in collectivist countries- 37%

• conformity rate in individiualist countries- 25%

collectivist cultures- members value collective goals of group e.g Fiji

individualist cultures- emphasis on personal achievement and independence e.g Belgium