Conformity

Types of conformity, Variables affecting conformity, Conformity to social roles.

What are the three types of conformity, and who were they proposed by?

Kelman 1958

• Internalisation: Strongest type of conformity, making the beliefs of the group your own, public and private. Often occurs as a result of informational social influence.e.g. Being brought up in a religious household and becoming religious yourself.

• Identification: Temporary change of behaviour and beliefs in the presence of a group. e.g. Being more professional at work.

• Compliance: Weakest type of conformity, Following the groups beliefs to avoid disapproval/gain approval, public but not private. Often the result of Normative social influence.e.g. Peer pressure.

What is Compliance?

• Compliance: Weakest type of conformity, Following the groups beliefs to avoid disapproval/gain approval, public but not private. Often the result of Normative social influence.e.g. Peer pressure.

• (Type of conformity)

What is identification?

• Identification: Temporary change of behaviour and beliefs in the presence of a group. e.g. Being more professional at work.

• Type of conformity

What is internalisation?

• Internalisation: Strongest type of conformity, making the beliefs of the group your own, public and private. Often occurs as a result of informational social influence.e.g. Being brought up in a religious household and becoming religious yourself.

• (Type of conformity)

What are the explanations for conformity?

Normative social influence: Conforming to be a part of a group, the persons need to be accepted drives compliance. Person wants to avoid embarrassing situations of disagreeing with the majority. e.g. Smoking because you are surrounded by other people smoking.

Informational social influence: Conforming to be right. Looking to other for information and copying them. Usually leads to internalisation. e.g. Following the majority of people in an emergency even though you do not know if they are going in the correct direction.

What is information social influence?

Informational social influence: Conforming to be right. Looking to other for information and copying them. Usually leads to internalisation. e.g. Following the majority of people in an emergency even though you do not know if they are going in the correct direction.

(Explanation for conformity)

What is normative social influence?

Normative social influence: Conforming to be a part of a group, the persons need to be accepted drives compliance. Person wants to avoid embarrassing situations of disagreeing with the majority. e.g. Smoking because you are surrounded by other people smoking.

(Explanation for conformity)

Who investigated how social influence operates in ambiguous situations?

(Supporting research for information social influence)

Type of experiment - Sample - Procedure - Phases (2) - findings - Conclusions

Sherif 1935 - auto-kinetic effect.

• Lab based experiment, repeated measures design.

• Male university students

• Participants were put in a dark room and shown a small stationary light that appeared to move due to the auto-kinetic effect, Participants were asked to estimate how far they thought the light moved.

• 2 phases:

  • Individual phase; Estimates varied widely from one another.

  • Group phase; (groups of 3), Group members’ estimates converged to a common group norm. Each individual conformed to the group’s consensus, even though there was no correct answer (ambiguous).

• Supports Informational social influence as participants looked to each other for guidance in uncertain situations. Shows that ISI plays a role in conformity.

Evaluate Normative social influence - Strength

Supporting research

Supporting research:

Point - NSI is supported by research - Asch (1951)

Evidence - People conformed to an obviously wrong majority to avoid disapproval/to fit in. - They were questioned on why they conformed and admitted they did so to avoid standing out.

Explain - Supports → conforming to social norms due to NSI, rather than a genuine belief in the groups answser.

Link - Experiment provides empirical evidence that people conform due to the desire for social acceptance, reinforcing the validity of NSI.

Evaluate Normative social influence - Strength

Real life application

Point - Normative social influence can be used to reinforce positive behaviour.

Evidence - Governments and organisations use NSI in campaigns to encourage healthy behaviours e.g. recycling 9/10 people recycle. or brands saying ‘90% of people agree that…’

Explain - When people believe that most other people are doing a behaviour they are more likely to conform to the norm. Shows understanding NSI can be applied to real life situations

Link - Therefore, NSI is not just a theoretical concept but has a practical value in shaping behaviour.

Evaluate Normative social influence - Limitations

Individual differences

Point - Not everyone is equally affected by NSI - doesn’t completely explain conformity

Evidence - Some people are naturally less concerned with social approval - less likely to conform - strong confidence in their own judgement less like to be influenced.

Explain - NSI doesn’t apply universally - some people are more resistant to social pressures.

Link - Limited explanation, doesn’t account for personality differences or resistance to social influence

Evaluate Normative social influence - Limitation

NSI and ISI can work together

Difficult to distinguish NSI and ISI:

• Point - NSI and Informational Social Influence (ISI) often work together - difficult to distinguish between them

• Evidence - In Asch’s experiment - dissenting confederate reduced conformity. This could have been due to NSI (reducing the fear of rejection) or ISI (providing an alternative source of information).

• Explain - This suggests that the Two-Process Model (NSI and ISI as separate processes) may be too simplistic, as both forms of social influence often occur at the same time.

• Link - Therefore, NSI alone cannot fully explain conformity, as it often interacts with ISI in real-world scenarios.

Evaluate Informational social influence - Strength

Supporting research

Point - ISI is supported by Sherif’s (1935) auto kinetic effect study.

Evidence - Sherif found that when participants were in an ambiguous situation, they conformed to the group’s estimate → relied on others for guidance.

Explain - people conform due to a desire to be correct when faced with uncertainty, supporting the idea of ISI.

Link: Sherif’s study provides strong empirical evidence for the concept of ISI, demonstrating that individuals look to others for accurate information in unclear situations.

Evaluate Informational social influence - Strength

Real life application

Point - Can explain real world phenomena when people conform in ambiguous or unfamiliar situations.

Evidence - People in an unfamiliar situation → foreign country - look to others for guidance and follow the majority.

Explain - ISI is relevant in real world contexts as people rely on others in uncertain situations.

Link - ISI has practical applications in explaining how people navigate uncertainty in everyday life.

Evaluate informational social influence - Limitation

Individual differences

Point:

- Not everyone is equally influenced by ISI, making it a limited explanation.

- Evidence:

- Some individuals have greater confidence in their own judgment and are less likely to conform. For example, people with more experience in a situation are less likely to look to others for guidance.

- Explain:

- This suggests that ISI cannot explain conformity universally, as individual differences in confidence and knowledge affect whether people rely on others in ambiguous situations.

- Link:

- Therefore, ISI does not fully account for individual variability in susceptibility to social influence.

Evaluate informational social influence - Limitation

NSI and ISI can work together

Difficult to distinguish NSI and ISI:

• Point - NSI and Informational Social Influence (ISI) often work together - difficult to distinguish between them

• Evidence - In Asch’s experiment - dissenting confederate reduced conformity. This could have been due to NSI (reducing the fear of rejection) or ISI (providing an alternative source of information).

• Explain - This suggests that the Two-Process Model (NSI and ISI as separate processes) may be too simplistic, as both forms of social influence often occur at the same time.

• Link - Therefore, NSI alone cannot fully explain conformity, as it often interacts with ISI in real-world scenarios.

Evaluate Sherif (1935) Study - Strength

High internal validity

Point - high internal validity due to the controlled experimental conditions.

Evidence - controlled environment → eliminating external influences.

Explain - results of the study can be attributed to social influence (ISI), rather than other factors, ensuring that the findings are valid and reflect the influence of group norms.

Link - Therefore, Sherif’s study provides a reliable demonstration of how individuals conform in ambiguous situations when they seek information from others.

Evaluate Sherif (1935) Study - Strength

Real life application

Point - Sherif’s study has real-life applications in understanding how people conform in uncertain or unfamiliar situations.

Evidence - The study shows that when people are unsure of what to do, they rely on others for guidance, a principle that can be seen in real-world situations such as following crowd behaviour during emergencies or conforming to social norms in unfamiliar environments.

Explain - This highlights the relevance of ISI in everyday life, as people look to others for direction when they lack knowledge or certainty.

Link - Therefore, Sherif’s study has practical value in understanding conformity in ambiguous situations and the role of group influence in shaping individual behaviour.

Evaluate Sherif (1935) Study - Limitation

Lack of ecological validity

Point - Sherif’s study lacks ecological validity due to its artificial nature.

Evidence - The task participants were given (estimating the movement of a stationary light) does not reflect a common real-life situation, making it less representative of how people conform in natural settings

Explain - This suggests that the findings may not accurately reflect how people behave in more complex, real-world situations where the stakes and social contexts are different.

Link - Therefore, while the study demonstrates ISI, the findings may not fully apply to everyday social conformity in natural environments.

Evaluate Sherif (1935) Study - Limitation

Small sample size

Point - Sherif’s study used a small sample, which limits the ability to generalise the findings.

Evidence - The study involved only a small group of participants (male university students), which means the results may not be representative of a wider population.

Explain - This raises questions about whether the findings would hold true for people from different backgrounds, genders, or cultural contexts.

Link - Therefore, the study’s ability to generalise to the broader population is limited, reducing its external validity.

Who investigated conformity and majority influence?

(Supporting research for Normative social influence)

Participants - Aim - Procedure - Findings

Asch (1856):

• 123 Male American undergraduates (5 confederates and 1 true participant)

• To investigate conformity and majority influence

• Participants and confederates were given 4 lines (1 standard, 3 comparison) asked to state which line was the same as the standard line. Real participants answered last or second last.

• Confederates would give the same wrong answer 12 out of 18 trials. Asch observed how often the participants would give the same incorrect answer.

• Control: No confederates 1% of answers incorrect → removed eyesight/perception as an extraneous variable, Increasing validity.

• 36.8% conformed

• 25% Never conformed

What variables affect conformity and who proposed the idea?

Asch (1956) - Conducted variations of his original study and found that Group size, unanimity of the majority and task difficulty affect conformity.

How does group size affect conformity?

When group size is

1-2 people → Low conformity

3-4 people → Significant increase

4+ people → Levels off (no major increase)

3-4 people conformity increases the most.

According to Asch.

How does task difficulty affect conformity?

Harder task = high conformity, people are less sure about their own answer and so they doubt themselves and look to others for guidance.

How does the unanimity of the majority affect confomity?

When one confederate disagrees with the majority, conformity dropped from 32% to 5%.

One dissenting ally reduces NSI giving participants confidence to resist pressure.

Evaluate Asch’s study - Strengths

Internal validity

Point - has a high internal validity due to the strict control over extraneous variables.

Evidence - carefully controlled with the timing of assessments and the task being standardised. Additionally, participants completed the tasks beforehand without confederates to ensure that they actually knew the correct answer.

Explain - removes likelihood of a lack of knowledge influencing the results, allowing for a clear cause and effect relationship between the presence of the majority and the participants conformity.

Link - The high internal validity strengthens the study's conclusions, suggesting that the observed conformity was directly due to the influence of the group.

Evaluate Asch’s study - Strengths

Lab experiment

Point - Asch's use of a lab experiment improves the reliability of the studies findings.

Evidence - conducted in a controlled lab environment, meaning that extraneous variables were kept to a minimum, allowing the experiment to be easily replicated.

Explain - Replication is essential for reliability, as it allows us to test for consistent results. Asch's lab experiment design allows us to ensure that results are consistent amongst a wide range of people.

Link - Therefore, the studies reliability is strengthened because of its controlled design and allows for consistent results across multiple replications.

Evaluate Asch’s study - Strengths

Supports NSI

Point - Asch's study supports the concept of normative social influence.

Evidence - Many participants in the study reported that they conformed to the majorities incorrect answer because they wanted to fit in and avoid disapproval, even though they privately disagreed.

Explain - This highlights that people conform not necessarily because they are uncertain, but because they are motivated by a desire for social acceptance, which is the essence of normative social influence.

Link - Asch's findings provide strong evidence for normative social influence, showing how social pressures can influence individual behaviour in group settings.

Evaluate Asch’s study - Strengths

Deception - debriefing

Point - While Asch's study involved ethical concerns such as deception, the benefits from the study outweigh the costs.

Evidence - Participants were deceived about the true purpose of the experiment but they were thoroughly debriefed afterwards.

Explain - Although the study did not gain informed consent beforehand, the debriefing afterwards helped mitigate some of these concerns. The findings of the study were valuable in advancing our understanding of conformity.

Link - This suggests that while ethical concerns should be considered, the cost-benefit analysis of Asch's study supports its overall contribution to psychology, as the knowledge gained outweighs the ethical issues.

Evaluate Asch’s study - Limitation

Lacks ecological validity

Point - Lacks ecological validity

Evidence - Artificial tasks - doesn’t replicate complexity of real life,

Explain - more confounding variables are present in real life, studies may not be generalisable to a more complex situation, where one may conform for a reason other than to avoid disapproval

Link - Doesn’t fully capture social dynamics of real world situations limiting everyday application.

Evaluate Asch’s study - Limitation

Lacks population validity

Point - Asch's study lacks population validity due to sampling issues

Evidence - All the participants in Asch's study were male undergraduates, meaning the findings are limited to this particular group. These results cannot be easily generalisable to other populations such as women.

Explain - This introduces gender bias, because the study assumes that the behaviour of men can be applied to women, and it ignores the potential influence of cultural differences.

Link - As a result, the findings of the study may not be applicable to broader, more diverse populations, limiting the generalisability of the conclusions.

Who investigated how readily people would conform in a simulated environment?

Participants - Procedure - Findings

Zimbardo (1971)

Aim:

• Investigate how individuals conform to social roles.

Participants:

• 24 American male undergraduates.

Procedure:

• The basement of Stanford prison was converted into a simulated prison, participants were paid to take part in the study, and randomly issued the role of guard or prisoner, they wore uniforms (guards - handcuffs, sunglasses). Prisoners were arrested from their homes. Prisoners were only referred to as their number. The guards were allowed to control behaviour - violence was not permitted.

Findings:

• Identification occurred quickly - participants adopted roles. Prisoners who wanted to get out asked for parole as they actually believed they’d been arrested.

• They also internalised their social roles as they became increasingly obedient (prisoners) and aggressive (guards) overtime.

Intended to end in 2 weeks but ended in 6 days due to ethical concerns.

Who conducted the experiment that challenged Zimbardos findings?

Participants - Findings/conclusion

BBC prison study - Haslam and Reicher (2002)

15 participants - 5 guards, 10 prisoners.

Found that prisoners did not passively accept their roles; developed a strong group identity and challenged guards authority. They eventually overthrew the system, leading to a more egalitarian system. Suggested that people do not automatically conform to roles - group identity and leadership determine behaviour.

Evaluate Zimbardos research in Conformity to social roles - Strength

Real - life application

Point - Led to changes in prison structure and management.

Evidence - Study highlights the negative impacts of assigning strict social roles, and the psychological harm that can be endured when prisoners are under harsh authority. Leading to the separation of young offenders and adults.

Explain - Young offenders are put into more rehabilitative and less harsh environments because they are more psychologically vulnerable, impressionable, and they need protection from abuse. Avoids them from looking up to other inmates and seeing them as role models.

Link - Experiment led to improvements in prisons reducing the potential for abuse and harmful behavioural outcomes in modern institutions.

Evaluate Zimbardos research in Conformity to social roles - Strength

Ecological validity

High ecological validity - designed to reflect real world conditions.

Evidence - Realistic prison setting - replicate real life - more applicableto real life setting.

Explain - High mundane realism - more likely to apply to real life situations e.g. how people behave in positions of power and subordination.

Link - Strengthens the relevance of its findings making it more useful in understanding institutional behaviour and improving real world systems.

Evaluate Zimbardos research in Conformity to social roles - Strength

Debriefing

Point - Debriefing process adds important ethical consideration

Evidence - After the study participants were fully debriefed → study involved deception and lack of informed concens.

Explain - Allowed participants to address any potential distress or misunderstanding.

Link - Helped make the study more ethically acceptable.

Evaluate Zimbardos research in Conformity to social roles - Limitations

Demand characteristics

Point - lacks ecological validity due to demand characteristics

Evidence - Were aware they were in a study and may have changed behaviour to please experimenter. (e.g being more aggressive (guard) or submissive (prisoner)) One guard admitted to basing their behaviour on the stereotypical portrayal of guards rather then genuinely adopting the role.

Explain - Fabricated behaviour, not a true reflection, acted according to expectations.

Link - May not be applicable.

Evaluate Zimbardos research in Conformity to social roles - Limitation

Population validity

Point - Lacks population validity

Evidence - Only male american students.

Explain - cant be generalised to other cultures, genders. Not representative of a wider population. Women may be more conformist that males. Results may be culture/age/gender bound.

Link - Study cannot be generalised to the wider population, limiting population validity.

Evaluate Zimbardos research in Conformity to social roles - Limitation

Ethical concerns

Psychological harm and deception

Evidence - Caused distress in participants - anxiety, crying. 1 Participant had to be removed on the first day due to uncontrollable crying and screaming. Two others also released due to emotional disturbance.

Explain - Violates ethical standards

Link - Wellbeing was comprimised.

A - Deception was addressed in debriefing and follow up interviews found no long lasting psychological harm.

Evaluate Zimbardos research in Conformity to social roles - Limitation

Other research

Point - May be oversimplified, Haslam and Reicher found that social identity influences behaviour more than role assignments.

Evidence - BBC experiment - prisoners developed solidarity and resisted guards, Unlike Zimbardos experiment were guards became quickly aggressive.

Explain - Conformity to roles is not automatic as group identity can determine whether people accept or challenge authority.

Link - Stanford prison experiment may have overemphasised the power of roles, neglecting the role of group dynamics in shaping behaviour.