1.1 Conformity

AQA psychology

Conformity

When someone changes their behaviour to fit in with the group

Reasons for conformity:

Fear of rejection

Group pressure

Compliance

Shallowest type of conformity

Publicly conforming and behaving like the group on the outside but privately disagreeing

Example: Someone wearing smart clothes at a job because everyone else does but that style isn’t part of their usual attire

Identification

Deeper type of conformity

Temporarily adopting the behaviour of someone or a group because they value them and want to be included however when away from the group in private they may still not fully agree

Example: Someone dressing like a group of people at college because they admire them and want to be part of the group

Internalisation

Deepest level of conformity

When somebody accepts and agrees with the group publicly and privately.

Example: Someone lives with a vegetarian at college and decides to become vegetarian as they agree with their viewpoint.

Informative Social Influence

Takes place when an individual is unsure and lacks knowledge about a situation so looks at a group for guidance. Likely to take place when someone is unsure what is deemed right and wrong.

Example: On the first day of a new job an individual follows the group at lunchtime as their assumption is that the group knows where the canteen is.

Normative Social Influence

Takes place when an individual wishes to be accepted by a group. Likely to happen when someone feels that their behaviour doesn’t align with a group and this causes them some anxiety which results in them publicly conforming.

Example: Agreeing with the group that the new Star Wars film is rubbish while secretly having enjoyed it

Evaluation of explanations for conformity

Strengths- NSI has good application to global historic events (he behaviour of normal German people involved in the Holocaust)

Weaknesses- Its often difficult to differentiate between NSI and ISI.

Both explanations can’t explain why some people refuse or resist to conformity.

Asch’s Study 1951 aim:

Asch wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an answer was obvious.

Asch’s Study 1951 procedure:

1. Tested in groups of 6-8

2. Each group was presented with 3 lines and a comparison line

3. Participants had to say aloud which line matched the comparison line

4. In each group there was only one real participant and the rest were confederates

5. The real participant was seated 2nd to last and was unaware everyone else was confederates

6. The fake participants all gave the same incorrect answer- they were told to give the wrong answer on 12 out of the 18 trials.

Asch’s Study 1951 findings:

On average the genuine participants conformed 36.8% of the time

75% of participants conformed on at least on of the trials

25% of the participants didn’t conform at all

Asch’s Study 1951 evaluation:

Limitations

-Task didn’t impact the participants’ real life and so no reason not to conform

-Findings to not generalise to real world situations

-Asch’s participants were all men from the USA therefore unrepresentative of the general population

Support

-Research has been supported by other studies

-The roles of Individual factors can have an effect on the rates of conformity

Variables investigated by Asch

Group size- Asch discovered that conformity increases with group size but only up to a point. With 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but more than that made little difference and eventually levelled off.

Unanimity- Would the presence of a non-conforming person affect conformity? He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates ( one time being the right answer and one time being a different wrong answer) The rate decreased to less than a quarter.

Task difficulty- Asch discovered that the frame of conformity increases with the difficulty of the task. He did this by making the difference between the lines more discrete.

Zimbardo et al Stanford Prison Experiment 1973 aim:

Zimbardo wanted to investigate how readily people would conform to the assigned social roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life. He set up a mock prison in the basement of psychology department in a university.

Zimbardo et al Stanford Prison Experiment 1973 procedure:

1. 21 male volunteers were randomly selected through advertisement ( tested as emotionally stable)

2. The students were randomly assigned to be either a guard or a prisoner who were both encouraged to conform to their social role.

3. The prisoners were given a loose smock, a cap and were identified by a number. The guards had their own uniform, a wooden bat and handcuffs.

4. The prisoners were further encouraged to identify to their roles by several procedures.

Zimbardo et al Stanford Prison Experiment 1973 findings:

The guards took up their role with enthusiasm treating prisoners harshly and created as many opportunities as possible to enforce rules

The prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed and some prisoners had to leave the experiment due to psychological disturbance.

The guards became increasingly aggressive and some of them enjoying the power they had over the prisoners. The experiment had to end after 6 days instead of the planned 14 days.

Zimbardo et al Stanford Prison Experiment 1973 conclusion:

Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive.

Zimbardo et al Stanford Prison Experiment 1973 evaluation:

-A limitation of the study was the it lacked realism. It is argued that the participants were merely acting. Participants were basing their performances of stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to act. One guards claimed he based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘cool hand look’. Thus telling us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

-Another limitation is that Zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour. For example only a third of the guards actually behaved In a brutal manner. Most guards were able to resist situational pressures, suggesting Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social role.