Knowt
Conformity
Social psychology looks at how people interact and influence each other. Social influence means people change their behaviour to fit the situation or who they’re with- for example, you might act differently with a parent than with a friend
Different types of conformity:
The influence of others can cause individuals to change their behaviour- this is social influence. Conformity is when a larger or dominant group influences the behaviour of an individual or small group.
Internalisation means accepting the majority’s view as your own:
Internalisation is going along with the majority and believing in their views- you’ve accepted and internalised them so they’re now your own too
This might happen if you’re in an unfamiliar situation, where you don’t know the ‘correct’ way is to behave. In this situation, you’d look to others for information about how to behave. This type of influence is called informational social influence.
Compliance is going along with things even though you disagree with them:
Compliance is where you go along with the majority, even if you don’t share their views
You do this to appear ‘normal’- going against the majority might lead to exclusion or rejection from the group. This type of influence is called normative social influence
Identification means doing what’s expected of you to fulfil a role:
Identification is conforming to what’s expected of you to fulfil a social role
This means changing your behaviour because you want to fit a specific role in society or trying to imitate the behaviour of a role model
Sherif (1935)- Conformity and the autokinetic effect:
Method:
This was a laboratory experiment with a repeated measures design. Sherif used a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect, where a stationary spot of light, viewed in a dark room, appears to move. Participants were falsely told the experimenter would move the light. They had to estimate how far it had moved. In the first phase, individual participants made repeated estimates. They were then put into groups of 3 people each making their estimate with the others present. Finally, they were retested individually
Results:
When they were alone, participants developed their own stable estimates (personal norms), which varied widely between participants. Once the participants were in a group, the estimates tended to converge and become more alike. When the participants were then re-tested on their own, their estimates were more like the group estimates than their original guesses
Conclusion:
Participants were influenced by the estimates of other people, and a group norm developed. Estimates converged because participants used information from others to help them- they were affected by informational social influence
Evaluation:
This was a laboratory experiment, so there was strict control of the variables. This means that the results are unlikely to have been affected by a third variable, so it should be possible to establish cause and effect. It also means that the method could be replicated. The repeated measures design meant that participant variables that could have affected the results were kept constant. However, the method is flawed because the participants were being asked to judge the movement of a light that wasn't moving — this rarely happens in real life. Because it created an artificial situation, the study can be criticised for lacking ecological validity. As well as this, the sample used was quite limited — all of the participants were male, so the results can't be generalised to everyone. An ethical problem with this study was deception
the participants were told the light was moving when it wasn't
Asch (1951) Looked at the Effects of Normative Social Influence:
Asch designed an experiment to see whether people would conform to a majority’s incorrect answer in an unambiguous task (one where the answer is obvious)
Asch (1951) - Conformity on an unambiguous task:
Method:
Asch carried out a laboratory experiment with an independent group design
In groups of 8, participants judged line lengths (shown below) by saying out loud which comparison line (1, 2 or 3) matched the standard line
Each group contained only one real participant -
- the others were confederates
(who acted like real participants but were helping the experimenter)
The real participants always went last or last but one, so that they heard the others' answers before giving theirs
Each participant did 18 trials. On 12 of these (the critical trials) the Confederates all gave the same wrong answer
There was also a control group, where the participants judged the line lengths in isolation
Results:
In the control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time
In the critical trials, participants conformed to the majority (gave the same wrong answer) 37% of the time
75% conformed at least once
Afterwards, some participants said they didn't really believe their answers, but didn't want to look different
Conclusion:
The control condition showed that the task was easy to get right
However, 37% were wrong on the critical trials
They conformed to the majority due to normative social influence
Evaluation:
This was a laboratory experiment, so there was good control of the variables
This minimises the effects of extraneous variables
Strict control of the variables also means that you could easily repeat the study to see if you get the same results
However, because the participants weren't in a natural situation, the study lacks ecological validity
Whether they were right or wrong didn't really matter to the participants
They might have been less likely to conform if their answer had had real-life consequences
In terms of ethics, the participants were deceived and might have been embarrassed when they found out the true nature of the study
Asch's Participants were Influenced by Situational Factors:
Sometimes we're influenced by others and conform, but sometimes we resist these influences and behave independently
There are situational and dispositional factors that affect conformity
Situational factors are due to the social situation a person is in, whereas dispositional factors are due to the person's internal characteristics
Asch investigated situational factors:
Group Size
You might expect that the bigger the majority is, the more influential it will be
If that were the case, it would be easier to resist conforming when there were fewer people to influence you
To test this, Asch (1956) conducted his conformity experiment with different numbers of confederates as the majority
With only two confederates, the real participants conformed on only 14% of the critical trials
With three confederates, conformity rose to 32%
There was little change to conformity rates after that
- no matter how big the majority group got
So, very small majorities are easier to resist than larger ones
But influence doesn't keep increasing with the size of the majority
Unanimity / Social Support
Asch absolutely loved doing his conformity experiment, so he ran yet another version of it to test the effect of having a supporter in the group
Rather than the confederates forming a unanimous majority, one of the confederates agreed with the participant
Having a fellow dissenter (someone who disagrees with the majority) broke the unanimity of the group, which made it easier for the participant to resist the pressure to conform
the rate of conformity fell to 5.5%.
Task Difficulty:
When Asch made the task more difficult by making the lines more similar, conformity levels increased
People are more likely to conform if they're less confident that they're correct
Confidence and Expertise Might Affect Conformity:
When Asch debriefed his participants, he found a common factor of confidence in the people who hadn’t conformed
If someone felt confident in their judgements, they were more able to resist group pressure
Gender might also be a factor:
Until the mid-1970s, the dominant view was that females conform more than males
