Social influence

Conformity definition

A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people

Conformity Types

Compliance -going along with others in public

Internalisation - genuinely accept view of the group

Identification - we conform because we value the group and want to be a part of it

explanations for conformity

ISI - informative - based on desire to be right

NSI - normative - based on desire to be accepted and liked

Evaluation of conformity explanations

+NSI research support Linkenbach and Perkins US study → adolescnets exposed to normative message that majoity of peers their age didnt smoke, they were less likely to smoke

+NSI research support →Shultz et al found hotel guests exposed to nomative message that 75% of guests reused their towel, reduced need for daily fresh towels by 25%

+support for ISI - Lucas et al - greater conformity to incorrect maths answers when questions were more difficult

-limitation of ISI - individual differences - Asch found that students were less conforming at 28% compared to 37% of other ppts

-limitation NSI - individual differences - McGhee and Teevan 1967 found people who care more about being liked are more likely to be influenced by NSI

Asch 1951

123 male undergrad students told it was a vision test

ppts gave wrong answers in 12 out of 18 of the critical tasks

naïve ppts wrong 36.8% of the time

75% conformed at least once 25% never conformed

study with no confeds= wrong only 1% of time

variation in asch study

difficulty of task - line lengths more similar, conformity increased due to ISI

group size - little conformity with 1/2 confeds but with 3 conformity rose to 31.8% with more confeds than that little difference

unanimity - presence of another non conforming person would reduct confirmity

Asch ao3

-ecological validity

—ethical issues

-Cultural bias

-research in the UK shows only 1 instance of conformity, however with youth offenders with their prohibation officers as confeds similar levels of conformity

+lab study -

Zimbardo study

• Aim: To investigate whether the brutality reported among American prison guards was due to their personalities (dispositional factors) or the prison environment (situational factors).

• Procedure:

  • Sample: 24 "emotionally stable" male student volunteers, screened for psychological health and randomly assigned to be either a prisoner or a guard.

  • Setting: A mock prison in the basement of Stanford University.

  • Deindividuation: To lose their personal identity, prisoners were "arrested" at home, blindfolded, strip-searched, and issued ID numbers instead of names. Guards wore khaki uniforms, mirrored sunglasses (to avoid eye contact), and carried batons.

  • Roles: Guards were told they had complete power over prisoners but were forbidden from physical violence.

• Findings:

  • The guards and prisoners conformed to their roles with surprising speed. Guards became increasingly brutal and sadistic, forcing prisoners to clean toilets with bare hands and conducting night-time headcounts.

  • Prisoners initially rebelled (Day 2) but soon became subdued, depressed, and anxious.

  • The experiment was terminated after only 6 days (instead of the planned 14) due to the severe psychological distress of the prisoners and the intervention of Christina Maslach.

• Conclusion: People conform strongly to social roles provided by a situation, even if those roles go against their moral principles.

Zimbardo ao3

-ethics —>right to withdraw, protection from harm

-population validity — all university

-volunteer sampling

-lack of realism