conformity☑️

types and explanations of conformity, conformity (asch' research) and conformity to social roles

types of conformity

a change in behaviour or opinion due to real or imagined pressure from a person or group

-kelman (1958) ways in which a person conforms to majority opinion

• internalisation

• identification

• compliance

internalisation

deep + permanent; genuine acceptance of group norms, resulting in a private and public change of opinions and behaviour. persists in the absence of group members; attitudes become internalised (a part of the way someone thinks).

example: converting religion

identification

-moderate change in public behaviour, in presence of the group only

example: being more professional at work

compliance

-a superficial, temporary conformity where we outwardly go along with majority view, while privately disagreeing. this particular behaviour or opinion stops with group pressure.

explanations for conformity

-two-process theory: deustch and gerard (1955) argue two main reasons for conformity:

• informational social influence (ISI)

• normative social influence (NSI)

informational social influence (ISI)

-conforming due to belief that someone or a majority group holds more knowledge than you so is more likely to be right; driven by the desire to be right. usually leads to internalisation as its a cognitive process involving thinking.

-likely to occur in ambiguous or new situations, and in crisis’ where decisions must be made quickly

normative social influence (NSI)

-an emotional process where we temporarily change our opinions or behaviour; explanation for compliance. (when an individual conforms due to belief that they will be ostracised or percieved negatively if they don’t)

-likely in situations with strangers where we may fear rejection, around friends to uphold their social approval, and in stressful situations where there is a greater need for social support

evaluation for explanations of conformity

research support

(NSI) - asch’ p’s said they felt self-conscious giving the right answer due to fear of disapproval. when p’s wrote their answers, conformity fell to 12.5% due to lack of normative group pressure, proving some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected by the group.

(ISI) - lucas et al p’s conformed more to incorrect answers when given harder math questions (situation became more ambiguous). p’s didnt want to be wrong, so relied on alternative answers. results prove ISI validity as it reflects what ISI would predict, supporting ISI as an explanation for conformity.

evaluation for explanations for conformity

limitations

often unclear whether NSI or ISI are at work. eg in asch’ research, the dissenter reduces power of NSI (provides social support) and power of ISI (provides alternative source of social information), therefore hard to seperate the two theories and suggests they operate together in most real world conformity situations.

individual differences - NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case - nAffiliators (with a strong need for relation to others) are more likely to conform, (mcghee and teevan 1967), showing NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others and individual differences cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.

asch’ research

(baseline) aim, procedure and findings

asch (1951) measured extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in unambiguous situations

123 american p’s seperately tested along 5-7 confederates. 3 comparison lines to match to a seperate line. naive p sat penultimate or last, after confederates who were instructed to give the same, wrong answer.

baseline findings: genuine ps conformed 36.8%, 25% of ps didnt conform at all

asch’ research

variables investigated by asch

-asch extended his baseline study to investigate variables that may lead to an increase or decrease in conformity.

1. group size

2. unanimity

3. task difficulty

group size

varied confederate number from 1-15; found conformity increased with group size only up to a point. 3 confederates rose conformity to 31.8% but after that, rates levelled off. suggests opinion is easily swayed by even just 1 or 2 people

unanimity

introducing a confederate to disagree with the others, (either by saying the right answer, or a different wrong answer) genuine p conformed less and conformity rate decreased to >1/4. presence of dissenter allowed p to behave more independently, suggesting majority influence depends to a large extent on unanimity.

task difficulty

he increased difficulty of the line judging task by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar in length. found conformity increased; could be due to ambiguity (ISI)

asch research

evaluation: strengths

-research support: todd lucas et al (2006)

counterpoint: lucas et al.’s study showed conformity is more complex than asch suggested as ps with higher confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks, showing individual-level factor can influence conformity

asch research

evaluation: limitations

-demand characteristics as ps knew they were in a study, and task was trivial/ meaningless so there was no reason not to conform.

-susan fiske (2014) ‘aschs’ groups weren’t very groupy’ (didn’t resemble everyday groups) so not generalisable to scenarios where consequences of conformity are important (low ecological validity)

-ps only american men. other research suggests women can be more conformist due to more care about social relationships and acceptance (neto 1995). similar studies in collectivist cultures (care more about the social group than themselves) show much higher conformity rates (bond and smith 1996) - showing asch’ findings tell little about conformity in women and other cultures.

-deceipt

conformity to social roles - philip zimbardos research (1970)

stanford prison experiment (SPE)

aim and procedure

zimbardo (1970) why prison guards acted brutally during riots; sadistic personalities or their social role as a prison guard?

mock prison set up in stanford prison’s psychology department’s basement. 21 male student volunteers (deemed emotionally stable) randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. the roles were encouraged to conform to through uniform and behavioral instructions.

conformity to social roles - philip zimbardos research (1970)

stanford prison experiment (SPE)

encouragement to conform for roles for uniform and behavioural instructions

uniform: prisoners wore loose smock and hair cap, identified by numbers. guards had uniform to reflect their social role, with a wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades. for de-individuation (loss of personal identity) so more susceptible to conform to their social role

behavioral instructions: eg rather than leaving study early, prisoners could apply for parole. guards encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they have complete control over prisoners

philip zimbardo’s SPE

findings

-guards took up their role with enthusiasm, treating prisoners harshly; within 2 days, prisoners rebelled by shouting/swearing at guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers

-guards harassed prisoners constantly to remind them of the powerlessness (frequent headcounts, creating opportunities to enforce rules and administer punishment (the hole))

-post-rebellion, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious - one was released early due to signs of psychological disturbance

-guards identified more closely with their role, with their behaviors becoming increasingly brutal and aggressive - some appearing to enjoy the power and inflicting pain on the prisoners. as a result, zimbardo was forced to end the study after 6 days rather than the intended 14.

philip zimbardo’s SPE

conclusions

social roles appear to have a strong influence on an individual’s behavior; prisoners became submissive where guards became brutal. roles taken on very easily - found themselves behaving as though they were in a real prison rather than a psychological study

conformity to social roles - SPE

evaluation

-control over key variables - selection of ps (emotionally stable individuals randomly allocated to roles - allowed individual personality differences to be ruled out as an explanation to the findings. increased internal validity, so confident about drawing conclusions about the behaviour being due to the role

mcdermott (2019) ps behaved as prison was real to them. 90% of conversations about prison life - suggesting SPE did replicate the real social roles of prisoners and guards; high internal validity.

conformity to social roles - SPE

evaluation: limitations

-lack of realism: banuazizi and movahedi (1975) ps were play-acting, not genuinely conforming to a role; performances based on stereotypes (one guard based his role on a ‘cool hand luke’ character), could be used an explanation for the riots (thats what they thought real prisoners did) - suggests SPE findings show little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons. {counterpoint}

-zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour (fromm 1973). only 1/3 guards actually behaved in a brutal manner, 1/3 applied rules fairly and the rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners by sympathising, offering cigarettes and reinstating privileges (most were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role), suggesting zimbardo overstated his view and minimised the influence of dispositional factors.

conformity to social roles

comparisons to SPE - abu gharib

-abu gharib 2003-4: US army military police personnel committed serious human rights violations against iraqi prisoners at abu gharib prison; torture, physical + sexual abuse, routine humiliation, some were murdered. zimbardo noticed remarkable similarities between behaviour of the personnel at abu gharib and the guards in the SPE