Conformity

Conformity definition AO1

A type of social influence where we chose to go along with the majority influence privately or publicly

Compliance AO1

• Weakest level of conformity

• Going along with the group for their approval

• Publicly agree but privately disagree

• Change is temporary & not maintained when the group is left

• NSI

Identification AO1

• Moderate level of conformity

• Conforming to group because membership of that group is desirable & they value it

• Some private acceptance & public

• Usually temporary & not maintained when the group is left

Internalisation AO1

• Deepest level of conformity

• Making beliefs/behaviours of group your own because you believe it’s correct

• Private & public acceptance

• Permanent & maintained when the group is left

• ISI

ISI AO1

• Driven by the need to be right

• Involves people looking to others for guidance when they’re unsure

• Occurs in situations where we don’t have knowledge or expertise to make our own decision

• Usually involves internalisation (private change because we believe majority are right)

• Eg Sherif study

NSI AO1

• Driven by the need to be liked & gain social approval

• Usually involves compliance (public but not private change to fit in with group)

• Eg Asch study

ISI strength AO3

• P - research to support

• E - Lucas et al asked students to answer easy & difficult maths questions. Conformity to an obviously incorrect maths answer was greater when the question was more difficult.

• T - shows that individuals are more likely to turn to others when they lack the information to make their own decisions i.e. in an ambiguous situation.

NSI strength AO3

• P - research to support

• E - Asch asked participants to chose which comparison line was the same length as reference line & found they went along with obviously incorrect majority answer because they felt self-conscious. He repeated study & asked participants to write their answer privately - conformity dropped to 12.5%

• T - supports NSI that people conform for social approval

ISI & NSI weaknesses AO3

• P - individual differences

• E - personality may affect conformity. For example, people concerned with social approval may naturally conform more. Confidence in ability can also impact the effects of ISI as if people are more confident they’re less likely to look to others for guidance. Younger people may conform more due to ISI because they lack experience or certainty in their judgments where as older adults with more life experience may rely less on others, so ISI’s influence may decline with age.

• T - Both NSI and ISI are influenced by individual differences meaning neither explanation can fully account for why some people conform and others don’t in the same situation.

• P - ISI & NSI work together in most cases

• E - In asch study difficult to know if conformity was due to NSI or ISI. ISI as self doubted themselves & think they’re seeing something they don’t see or NSI as want to fit in & be liked. In variation he found conformity reduced when a dissenter was added - dissenter may reduce NSI as they provide social approval or reduce ISI as provides another source of info

• T - not always possible to be sure if NSI or ISI is at work & creates doubt that they’re 2 independent processes. Concepts lack clarity & need clarifying more

Asch study aim AO1

To investigate whether people would conform to majority in unambiguous situation where majority gave a clearly incorrect answer

Asch study method AO1

• Lab experiment

• 123 American males asked to take part in a study on ‘visual discrimination’

• Each participant put into a group of 6 (1 naïve & 5 confederates) & asked to chose which 1 of 3 comparison lines was the same length as the reference line

• Participant had to read their answer out loud & answer 2nd to last

• On most trials the confederates would unanimously give incorrect answer to see is participant would conform to majority

Asch study results AO1

• 75% conformed at least once

Asch study conclusion AO1

People conform to the majority even in situations where the majority give a clearly incorrect answer as groups exert pressure

Asch study strengths AO3

• P - lab experiment

• E - Asch could carefully manipulate the IV (confederates’ answers) and measure the DV (participant conformity). High control over extraneous variables so gives the researcher more confident results are due to conformity - help establish cause & effect relationship. Standardised procedures eg same stimuli used & same ratio of ppts to confederates in each group allows for replicability

• T - results are reliable & cause & affect relationship can be established

  HOWEVER The task was trivial and not something people usually face in real life so makes it questionable whether the results generalize to real-world situations of conformity (eg peer pressure). Participants might have guessed the true aim or simply gone along with the group because they thought that’s what the experimenter wanted, increasing conformity. Reduces IV

Asch study limitations AO3

• P - sample bias

• E - cultural bias as all participants were American, from an individualist culture. Smith & Bond’s cross-cultural meta-analysis found conformity rates are higher in collectivist cultures where group harmony is valued more than individual independence. Also, beta bias as Asch only studied male participants. Later research suggested women might show higher conformity, possibly due to greater social sensitivity, so if they were to do experiment conformity rates may be higher. He instead assumes the same will apply to females - beta bias

• T - lacks generalisability to the wider population, especially to females & different cultures beyond western, individualist cultures

• P - ethical issues

• E - deception as deceived participants into thinking it was a visual test & they didn’t know the other people in the room were confederates working with the experimenter. Because the true aim was hidden, participants agreed to take part under false pretences so lack of fully informed consent. Some ppts experienced embarrassment & stress.

• T - broke ethical guidelines which limits the willingness of researchers to replicate study

• HOWEVER The use of deception was essential to create a realistic situation of group pressure — if participants had known the true aim, they would almost certainly have changed their behaviour, leading to demand characteristics and invalid results. The psychological stress embarrassment or self-doubt) was relatively mild and temporary, with no lasting harm reported & ppts were fully debriefed afterwards

What factors affect conformity? AO1

• Group size

• Task difficulty

• Breaking the unanimity

Factors affecting conformity - group size AO1

• Conformity increases in larger groups

• 2 confederates = 13% conformity

• 3 confederates = 30% conformity

• Majority must be at least 3 to exert influence (optimal size), large groups not needed in all instances

• Larger group exerts more pressure as person would stand out more

Factors affecting conformity - task difficulty AO1

• Conformity increases as task difficulty increases

• Asch altered comparison lines so they were more similar in length & conformity increased

• When task is difficult & we’re unsure we look to others for guidance so ISI when situation is ambiguous & person doesn’t have the knowledge to make an informed decision

Factors affecting conformity - unanimity AO1

• Conformity increases when the group is unanimous

• When Asch added a confederate who gave correct answer, conformity fell to 5.5%

• Unanimity may cause participant to feel less confident in their answer & more confident with majority answer

• NSI as they want to fit in & not stand out

Zimbardo aim AO1

• To investigate the extent to which people would conform to roles of prisoner & guard in a prison stimulation

Zimbardo method AO1

• Set up mock prison at Stanford university (Hanley et al)

• Participants 21 male american students who were emotionally stable via volunteer sampling

• Randomly assigned to roles of guards & prisons

• Prisoners arrested in their homes, issued a uniform & only called by their number

• Guards wore uniform & had equipment eg wooden clubs, handcuffs & were given complete control over prisoners

Zimbardo results AO1

• Scheduled to run for 14 days but stopped on day 6 due to psychological harm occurring

• Guards became aggressive & sadistic & harassed prisoners, stating they enjoyed the power

• Prisoners became anxious & submissive. 2 were released on day 4 due to psychological disturbance

Zimbardo conclusions AO1

Findings revealed the power of situation to influence behaviour as guards & prisoners conformed to their social roles

Zimbardo strengths AO3

• P - high control over variables

• E - Participants were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners, controlling for individual personality differences. This meant that behaviours by guards & prisoners were more likely due to the situational role, not pre-existing traits. Standardised environment a uniforms, ID numbers, and prison routines were consistent for all participants, reducing extraneous variables that might influence behaviour.

• T - high internal validity & high control over variables allowed researchers to isolate the impact of social roles and situational pressures on behaviour

Zimbardo limitations AO3

• P - low in ecological validity

• E - although prison setting was realistic, it was still a stimulation & ppts knew this as volunteered to take part. Mohavedi argued participants were play acting & reacting to demand characteristics than genuinely conforming. Could’ve been acting based on stereotypes eg one of guards claimed he acted like a brutal character from film ‘Cool Hand Luke’. The study lasted only 6 days, compared to months or years in real prisons but real-life prison dynamics develop over long periods, including boredom, routine, and long-term adaptation, which the SPE could not fully replicate so some social behaviours may not have fully emerged in such a short time.

• T - lacked realism of true prison so may not generalise to real life

• HOWEVER (counter-point)

• P - participants did behave as if the prison was real

• E - Quantitative data showed 90% of participants conversations were about prison life eg ‘they couldn’t leave before sentence was over’

• T - perhaps did replicate true prison & social roles so increases internal validity, findings are applicable

• P - ethical issues

• E - right to withdraw - zimbardo acted as superintendent & researcher. When a prisoner asked to leave, he responded as a superintendent worried about the prison, rather than a researcher with ethical responsibility. Deception: Participants were not fully informed of the intensity of the psychological stress they would experience so entered study on false pretention - lack of fully informed consent. Psychological Harm: Prisoners experienced extreme stress, anxiety & emotional breakdowns

• T - These ethical violations would not meet modern guidelines (APA/BPS), and they limit the study’s acceptability and replicability today. Could be argued that the harm done weights the benefits of study

• HOWEVER follow-ups indicated most participants recovered without lasting damage so could be argued that reactions were situational, temporary, and part of the study’s naturalistic design—demonstrating real human reactions to power dynamics. Benefits could outweigh risks as revealed how ordinary people could commit cruel acts, which has practical implications for prisons, the military, and understanding authority.