Conformity

Social influence

process in which an individuals attitudes, beliefs or behaviour are modified by the presence or action of others

Types of social influence

1. Conformity

2. Obedience

3. Minority influence

Conformity

yielding to group pressure to change our behaviour

types of conformity

normative social influence: desire to fit in

Informational social influence: desire to be correct

majority influence

when one action is favoured by majority of the group, or considered to be socially acceptable

types of conformity

internalisation: leads to permanent change in behaviour, in public and private

Compliance: temporary change in behaviour, in public not in private

Deutsch and Gerard

• proposed dual-process model

• NSI - compliance

• ISI - internalisation

Advantages for conformity

• social order and harmony

• Efficiency

• Adherence to moral standards

• Sense of belonging

Disadvantages for conformity

• suppressed individuality

Solomon Asch aim

what extent people will conform to opinion of others, even in a situation when the answer is clear

Solomon Asch conditions

• 123 American male undergraduates

• Laboratory experiment

• Were told it was a vision test

Solomon Asch procedure

1. Participants were shown two large white cards at a time

2. On one card there was a ‘standard line’ and on the other card were three ‘comparison lines’

3. Participants were asked which of the three lines matched the standard

4. One naive participant were put into a room with 6-8 confederates, naive participant was always sat last or 2nd to last

5. At start all participants gave correct answers

6. After a few round confederates unanimously provided incorrect answers

7. 18 trials in total, confederates gave wrong answer on 12 trials

Solomon Asch results

• naive participants agreed with confederates 36.8% of time

• 25% of participants did not conform on any trials

3 reasons participants said they conformed

distortion of perception - believed their perception was wrong and conformed

Distortion of judgement - doubted accuracy of their judgements and conformed

Distortion of action - to avoid disapproval from other group members

group size

• he varied number of confederates between 1-15

2 confederates - 13.6% conformity

3 confederates - 31.8% conformity

• above 3 confederate made little difference

Unanimity

• wanted to know if presence of another non-conforming person would affect naive persons conformity

• If one truthful confederate gave the correct answer

• Conformity dropped to 5.5%

• If one confederate gave completely different answer

• Conformity dropped to 9%

Task difficulty

• conformity increased when the task was more difficult

Strengths of Asch Solomons study

1. Laboratory experiment, controlled, high internal validity

2. Real world application

Weaknesses of Asch Solomons study

1. May have been demand characteristics

2. Task was artificial, lacked mundane realism

3. Lack temporal validity, conducted in 1950s

4. Ethical issues, deception

5. Lack population validity, ethnocentric and androcentric

Obedience

the result of social influence where somebody acts in response form a direct order from an authority figure

situational vs dispositional explanations

situational: looks at external reasons for behaviour (environment)

Dispositional: looks at internal reasons (personality characteristics)

Agency theory

autonomous state: behaving voluntarily and aware of consequences of actions

Agentic state: seeing themselves as agents of others and not responsible for their actions

Milgrim aim

to see how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person

Milgrim conditions

• controlled observation

• Laboratory at Yale University

• 40 male participants aged 20-50 from New Haven area

• Were told study was on how punishment impacts learning

• Experimenter wore a laboratory coat

Milgrim procedure

1. Drew lots to see who would be ‘teacher’ and who would be ‘learner’, participant was always teacher

2. Watched learner get strapped into a chair with electrodes attached to their arm in an adjoining room

3. Teacher delivered shocks by pressing switches on shock generator

4. Each time learner made a mistake, electric shock become stronger

Milgrim procedure pt2

1. Shocks started at 15 volts and rose by 15 until 450

2. At 150 volts, learner shouted to be released

3. At 300 volts, learner screamed and refused to carry on

4. At 315 volts, learner made no response

After Milgrims procedure

• participant was fully debriefed

• Data gathered through observations made from a one way mirror

• Most sessions were recorded, photographs were taken

Milgrims results

• 100% went to 300 volts

• 5 participants stopped at 300 volts

• 65% went to 450 volts

• 14 participants were disobedient and walked out

Milgrims location

Yale university - 65%

Run-down office - 47.5%

milgrims proximity

original study - 65%

Teacher and learner same room - 40%

Touch-proximity - 30%

Instructions over phone - 20.5%

milgrims uniform

experimenter in laboratory coat - 65%

Everyday clothes - 20%

strengths of Milgrims study

1. Lab experiment: high internal validity (75% said they believed the shocks were real), replicable

2. Real world application

Limitations of Milgrims study

1. Orne and Holland claimed participants may have been ‘play-acting’ and did not believe the set up

• demand characteristics

2. Ethical issues: deception

legitimacy of authority

• societies are structured in hierarchical way

• Legitimate social power held by an authority figure

• Legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority eg. Uniform

Authoritarian personality

• Adorno argue was more likely to obey people in authority

• Dismissive of inferiors

• Black and white thinking is common

• Highly conventional attitudes to sex, race and gender

• measured using F-scale

Adorno

• studied 200 middle class Americans

• Developed F-scale

Strengths of F-scale

1. Research support: Elm and Mlgrim found highly obedient participants scored higher on F-scale

2. Measurable data

3. Insight into personality factors

Limitations of F-scale

1. Methodological bias: acquiescence bias, participants agree to all statements

2. Political bias: measures right-wing authoritarianism, not left-wing authoritarianism

3. Correlation not causation

4. Subjectivity

Bickman et al

• field experiment in NYC

• 3 confederates dressed in different outfits

  • Jacket and tie

  • Milkman’s outfit

  • Security guard’s uniform

• Stood in the street and asked members of public to complete tasks

• Twice as likely to obey if they were in a security guard uniform

Hofling et al

• research took place in 22 US hospitals

• Fake drug named ‘Astroten’ was placed in medicine cabinet

• Nurse in each hospital received a phone call from an unknown doctor to administer twice maximum dosage stated on Astroten label

• 21 out of 22 of nurses/participants prepared to give the medication

Rank and Jacobson

• argued nurses would normally either have knowledge about a drug or would have time to seek advice

• replicated procedure using more realistic circumstances

Rank and Jacobson procedure

• doctor required nurse to use common drug Valium at three times reccomended dose

• Gave name of a real doctor

• Were able to speak to other nurses before they proceeded

Rank and Jacobson results

only 2/18 nurses prepared the medication

Social support

when people feel empowered by standing up against authority together

Real world application for social support

• Susan Albrecht

• Teen fresh start is an eight week programme to help pregnant teens aged 14-19, resisting peer pressure to smoke

• Social support provided by older mentor

• People paired with buddy less likely to smoke

Limitations of social support

• situational explanation can not be only explanation for social resistance

• Some people disobey to conform without social support

Dispositional factor for resistance to social influence

locus of control

internal locus of control

• having great control over their behaviour

• More likely to take responsibility for how they behaviour

• Make better leaders

External locus of control

• perceive themselves as being result of luck

• Believe your life and circumstances come to you

Which LoC would be less likely to conform

• internal locus of control

• Take accountability

• Feel more certain in their choices

Research for LoC

Holland: replicated Milgrims study, people who had high internal LoC more likely to disobey then those with high external LoC

Oliner & Oliner: interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WWII, those who resisted order more likely to have high internal LoC

Minority influence

when a small group persuades others to adopt their beliefs or attitudes against majority influence

conversion

majority look at minority’s message and are gradually won over by it

behaviour features to help minority group

1. Flexibility

2. Consistent

3. Commitment

Flexibility research

Nemeth and Brilmayer

• conducted a study where mock jury was asked to consider compensation given to a person injured in a ski accident

• Each group had a confederate who was told to argue for more extreme figure

• Three participants suggested their own ideas

Nemeth and Brilmayer conditions

condition 1: confederate did not budge from his original position

Condition 2: confederate was more flexible and adjusted his figure sightly towards group mean

• majority opinion shifted when minority confederate was more flexible

Consistency

Consistent minority disrupts established norms and creates uncertainty

Consistency types

diachronic consistency - consistency over time

Synchronic consistency - consistency between members

consistency research

Moscovici et al

• tested 172 female participants on colour perception

• Participants were shown 36 blue slides of varying shades in groups of 6

• 4 participants and 2 confederates

• asked to state the colour of each slide out loud

Moscovici et al conditions

consistent group: two confederates always said green

Inconsistent group: 2/3rd of time two confederates said green

Control group: no confederate

Moscovici et al results

Consistent group: 8.5% participants were influenced

Inconsistent group: 1.25% participants influenced

Control: 0.25% said green

Limitations of Moscovici research

1. Lack population validity: ethnocentric and androcentric

2. Limits generalisability

3. Research studies have shown women are more likely to conform

4. Moscovici did not gain fully informed consent for deceiving participants

Snowball effect

• using commitment, consistency and flexibility to make people think about their own views

• can lead to conversion over time