Psychology: Social Influence - Conformity

just conformity

what is conformity?

tendency to adopt behaviours/attitudes/values from a member of the reference group

compliance

• conforms publicly but continues to disagree privately

• to gain approval

• behaviour stops once group pressure stops

• not a permanent change in beliefs

identification

• conforming because we value the reference group

• to identify, we’ll want to be apart of it so we adopt behaviours

• public change of beliefs to fit in

internalisation

• group’s views are genuinely accepted - make it as your own

• public and private change

• permanent change

jenness experiment 1932

• aim was to investigate whether individual judgements of the amount in the jar were influenced by group discussion

• filled glass bottle with 811 beans - ppts then individually estimated how many

• then put in groups of 3 where they discussed their estimates

• ppts then given another opportunity to individually estimate

• found that nearly 100% of them changed their original answer

• women conformed more than men due to social desirability

NSI (deutch and gerard 1995)

• need to be LIKED

• an emotional process

• conforming to fit in/gain approval

• to avoid rejection/looking foolish

• leads to compliance

occurs during: new situations/need for social support and approval

ISI (deutch and gerard 1995)

• need to be RIGHT

• cognitive process

• leads to internalisation

occurs during: ambiguous/new situations (unsure of what to do - look for guidance from majority as they’re correct), expert present, quick decision making, crisis

STRENGTHS of ISI and NSI

• jenness’ research support ISI> nearly 100% conformed when guessing bc they were unsure, therefore theory has validity

• asch’s research support NSI> 74% conformed to majority at least once, 36.8% in general, dropped to 12.5% in private.

  ppts reported feeling pressured/self-conscious when gave different answer

WEAKNESSES of ISI and NSI

• individual differences: McGhee and Teevan found some people were less affected by NSI - underlies conformity, we can’t use theories to explain everyone's behaviour

• assumes ISI and NSI occur separately but they’re likely to happen at the same time: Asch interviews found some were due to NSI and some ISI, therefore difficult to separate in real life situations - both happens simultaneously

asch’s research 1951

procedure

• ppt were deceived that they’re having eye tests

• ppt were 123 american male undergrads

• two cards - 1 standard line and 3 other comparison lines, ppt asked which matched/line had same length as the standard

• individually tested with group of 6-8 confederates

• confederates were instructed to give wrong answers in 12/18 trials

asch’s research 1951

results

• clinical trials (12 wrong answer trials) = ppt gave wrong answer 36.8% of the time

• conformed more than 1/3 of the time

• 25% ppts didn't conform at all in the 12

• 75% conformed at least once

asch’s research 1951

conclusions

• asch effect: people conform even when the situation is unambiguous

• most conformed due to NSI

• some conformed due to ISI

what are asch’s variations?

• group size

• unanimity of majority

• task difficulty

asch’s variations - group size

varied the size of confederates

• 2 - 12.8% conformity

• 3 - 32% conformity

• 15 - 29% conformity

size matters up to an optimal point

asch’s variations - unanimity of majority

• had one or more confederates give the correct answers throughout

• conformity dropped to 5%

• breaking consensus of group influences conformity.

• idea of having an ally.

asch’s variations - task difficulty

• made lengths closer together, more ambiguous so conformity increased

• lucas et al (2006) - easy/hard math problems

STRENGTHS of asch’s study

• lucas et al research suppports task difficulty variation affects conformity - found students conformed when problems were harder

WEAKNESSES of asch’s study

• lucas et al (counterpoint) found conformity is more complex - ppt that were confident with their maths abilities conformed less, shows individual differences can influence conformity

• asch's research is an artificial task/situation - research suffer from demand characteristics + according to Fiske said that asch's groups didn’t resemble groups that we experience in everyday life, means the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important

• ppt were american men - other research suggests women may be more conformist, because concerned about social relationships/being accepted (Neto 1995) + USA’s individualist culture: similar studies conducted in collectivist cultures have found conformity rates are higher (Bond and Smith 1996) > means asch's findings tell us little about conformity in women/ppl from some cultures

• child of its time,

  (Spencer 1980) repeated study with but with UK students - found only 1 conformed in total of 396 trials + 1950's america was more conformist and society has changed. conformity is not consistent across different situations/times so not a fundamental behaviour, means study lacks temporal validity

zimbardo’s study 1971

controlled observation

procedure

• done in stanford university + fake prison set up

• advertised the study

  (volunteered sample)

• they were arrested at their homes by real officers - stripped, deloused, blinded

• ppt were given random roles

• ran for two weeks

zimbardo’s study 1971

results

• they immediately identified with their social roles: prisoners rebelled and guards became more abusive - they dehumanised prisoners; used insulting names, forced exercises, cleaning toilets at night

• 5 prisoners released early due to adverse reactions

• experiment ended after 6 days as conditions recognised as inhumane

zimbardo’s study 1971

conclusion

• ppts quickly conformed to their social roles even if it went against their beliefs

• situational factors responsible for the outcomes - the situation a person is in can dictate their behaviour

STRENGTHS of zimbardo’s study

• controlled study - control over key variables > e.g, selection of ppt, most mentally stable ppt were chosen and roles were randomly assigned - a way in which individual differences is eliminated, therefore increased internal validity, makes it easier to draw conclusions

• real life applications: initially there were some reforms to how prisoners are treated, means his research has a positive influence

WEAKNESSES of zimbardo’s study

• lacks realism - Movahedi: claims that the ppt were just play-acting than genuinely conforming to the role. performances were based on stereotypes, e.g. one guard said he copied a behaviour from a character in a movie, suggests that Zimbardo's study tells little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

• Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles - only 1/3 of the guards were harsh. another third applied the rules fairly, the rest of them helped and supported the prisoners, shows most guards were able to resist the pressure of conforming to a social role. suggests that Zimbardo minimised effects of dispositional factors in conforming to social roles

• ethical issues - debriefed after but ppt experienced psychological harm + discouraged withdrawing from the experiment > potentially harming psychology’s reputation