conformity Flashcards
what is social influence?
how individuals affect and are affected by others
what is conformity?
yielding to group pressure and allowing our beliefs and behaviours to be influenced by groups of people
what is conformity also known as?
majority influence
what are the types of conformity?
compliance
identification
internalisation
what is compliance?
- a person goes along with other peoples behaviours or attitudes BUT doesn’t believe them to be correct.
- they comply publicly but private opinion doesn’t change
- go along with beliefs to keep peace and gain approval
- temporary when in presence of a group
what is identification?
- individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group as membership of the group is desirable.
- both public + private as something about the group we value
- often temporary
what is internalisation?
- when individual accepts the group view and believes that view to be correct
- so conforming to other peoples beliefs publicly and privately in the genuine belief they are correct
- permanent, long-term change as they internalise the group’s norms
why people conform?
- Informative social influence
- Normative social influence
what is informative social influence?
- occurs when a person is unsure/lacks knowledge about a situation so looks to the group for guidance –> can occur when a decision needs to be made quickly
- normally more common in someone with less confidence + insecure about what is right/wrong by the group
- linked to internalisation
- results in public + private agreement with the group
what is normative social influence?
- when people need to fit in with the norms of the group + wants to be accepted (not rejected)
- they will conform for social approval
- public agreement but not likely to change private opinion
- normally occurs when someone feels their behaviour + attitudes don’t align with the group.
- linked to compliance and sometimes identification
- doesn’t account for individual differences though
ASCH experiment AIM
to see how group pressure effects group tasks with an obvious answer
ASCH experiment PROCEDURE
- 8 male students arranged around a table
- each group= one genuine participant and remaining= confederates
- participants had to identify which line is the same length as the test line
- answered out loud, confederates all told to answer same incorrect length letter
- the real ppt. was near end so he hada a chance to see what other participants answers were, but not right at end to stop him being suspicious
ASCH experiment RESULTS
- on average real participants conformed to incorrect answers 36.8% of the time
- 75% of sample conformed to majority at least once
- 25% of participants never gave an incorrect answer (conformed)= individual differences
- in control group (without confederates) less than 1% of ppts. gave incorrect answer.
ASCH experiment RESULTS
% of participants that conformed to incorrect answers on average?
36.8%
ASCH experiment RESULTS
% of people that conformed at least once?
75%
ASCH experiment RESULTS
% of people that never conformed?
25%
ASCH experiment RESULTS
% of people that gave incorrect answer in control group?
1%
ASCH experiment CONCLUSION
- even in an unambiguous (obvious) situation there’s strong group pressure to conform especially if there’s an unanimous (everyone else saying same thing) majority
eval of ASCH experiment:
PROS?
- valid as data collected in controlled lab env.
- study produced lots of applications due to simplicity of task- can explain why people conform via normative purposes or international
eval of ASCH experiment:
CONS?
- artificial task + situation= could have caused demand characteristics + task had no impact on participants real life= no reason not to conform
- limited application as only used men of similar age from USA. Women may be more conformist due to social relationships
- USA= individualistic culture so findings tell us little info on collectivist cultures (who may be more likely to conform) Bond + Smith found higher conformity in collectivist cultures
- ethical issues- deceived participants as they thought confederates were participants
what are the factors Asch said would increase/decrease the likelihood of conformity?
size of group
does the whole group agree (unanimous)
difficulty of task
what are situational variables?
- features of the environment that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressure
- size of group, unanimous, difficulty of task
explain the situational variable size of group?
bigger the group= more likely we are to conform BUT
- group size very small (less than 2)= conformity levels drop to 10%
- group size hits 3= conformity increases to 31.8%
- group size more than 12= conformity dropped
what can size of group situation be explained by?
Deinitialization- losing your individual identity and resorting to unassociated and anti-social behaviour.
explain the situational variable does the whole group agree (unanimous)?
if whole group agrees with an answer= conformity increases
if people disagree= conformity is less
what’s a dissenter (unanimous)?
someone who will disagree with the confederates and resist pressure to conform
explain the situational variable difficulty of task?
- easy task= people less likely to conform
- hard task= people more likely to conform
- informative social influence as you are uncertain on correct answer so may conform for reassurance etc,
what are the individual variables factors from Asch that increase/decrease the likelihood of conformity?
gender
mood
culture
what are individual variables?
personal characteristics that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressure
explain the individual variable gender?
woman conform more readily?
- socialised into submissive roles
- females focus on quality of relationship- more NSI
- male gender roles demand independence
- evolutionary? women more nurturing- Jenness (1932)- women conform more
explain the individual variable mood?
- conform more when in a good mood?
- happy= more likely to conform
- when moving from fearful to relaxed mood= more likely to conform
explain the individual variable culture?
- collectivist vs individualistic cultures
- collectivist= groups are of primary importance= want social harmony + to maintain relationships
- individualistic= people behave according to self-interest + personal preferences, consider independence + self-sufficiency important
what’s an nAffiliator?
someone concerned with being liked by others + feel a need for affiliation= conformity rates increase
what was another one of Asch’s discoveries?
- when answers to conformity were written down rates fell to 12.5% –> due to less group pressure? –> less NSI (supports NSI)
what is temporal validity?
- type of external validity that refers to validity of findings in relation to progression of time e.g. do Asch’s findings in conformity research apply today?
temporal validity of Asch’s findings on conformity?
- Asch’s research= in ‘McCarthy era’ in US
- Perrin + Spencer replicated in 1930s + only saw 1/396 trials in examples of conformity (0.25%)
BUT
they used maths, chem. + engineering students…. SO conformity may have been lower due to IQ, background/time period?
who is Lucas et al (2006)?
- his research supported informational social influence (unlike Asch’s who supported normative social influence)
- he showed that conformity was lower when students were asked on easier maths question than hard
- he asked ppts. to solve maths questions, conformity was higher on harder questions= proves Asch on saying task difficulty affects conformity
BUT
smarter maths kids= conformed less= individual factors influence conformity as well
ZIMBARDO AIMS
to investigate how readily people would conform to the assigned social roles of guard + prisoner in role- playing exercise that stimulated prison life
- zimbardo wanted to know whether prison guards behaved brutally due to personality factors or situational factors
–> to know the power of situation vs personality disposition
ZIMBARDO where did the experiment take place
1973 in a basement of Stanford university converted to a mock prison
ZIMBARDO how were people chosen to participate
- advertisements were put out for students to play role of prisoner + guard for 2 weeks
- 75 applicants + 24 were selected
- they were tested + said to be emotionally stable before so became participants
- interviews + personality tests –> no drugs, alcohol, mental + personality disorders etc
ZIMBARDO how were participants assigned?
- randomly assigned to role of prisoner or guard
- prisoners + guards were asked to conform to social roles through instructions + uniform they had to wear
ZIMBARDO how much were participants paid?
- $15 per day for 1-2 weeks
ZIMBARDO how did the experiment start?
- prisoners arrested, fingerprinted, processed= experiment felt real
- they were stripped, given numbered uniforms to promote deinviduation
- guards wore khaki uniforms, sunglasses, whistles= maintain their authroity
- guards worked in shifts + were instructed to keep order without using physical violence
was Zimbardo in his experiment?
- he was a superintendent
- he observed study as a researcher + prison warden
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS- initial role adoption
- both guards + prisoners quickly settled into roles, guards asserted authority almost immediately
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS- harassment + punishment
guards began harassing prisoners using tactics like push-ups + insults. they imposed petty orders + physical punishments
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS- prisoner rebellion
- second day prisoners attempted to rebel by removing uniforms + barricading themselves in the cell –> guards used fire extinguisher to suppress revolt
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS- special privileges
- some prisoners given privileges e.g. better food, personal care
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS changing dynamics
- as prisoners became more dependent on guards, guards became more aggressive, demanding obedience + using prisoners to inform on each other (prisoners snitched, became more obedient etc)
- guards used ‘divide and rule’ tactic- completed headcounts at night etc, push ups, deprived of food
- submissive prisoners= guards were more aggressive + take on social role easily
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS prisoner breakdown
pisoners #8612 suffered a breakdown, leading to release after emotional distress
- parents visited so guards hid reality but tensions rose
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS catholic priest visit
- revealed prisoners emotional suffering
- prisoner #816 broke down and was deeply affected by label ‘bad prisoner’
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS experiment termination
- experiment ended after 6 days (was meant to last 2 weeks) after woman colleague was horrified with what she saw, emotional breakdowns + excessive guard aggression + Zimbardo too immersed in his role as superintendent
ZIMBARDO FINDINGS prisoner 416
- left after 36 hours cause he was locked in closet + not allowed out= he began suffering with psychosis
had there been riots in america?
yes- many prison riots b4 experiment
ZIMBARDO conclusion
- social roles have strong influence on individuals behaviour
- power may corrupt those who wield it
- institutions may brutalise ppl and lead to deinviduation
- prison exerts psychological damage to those who work + are incarnated there
- personality disposition changed the way guards chose to act –> tough but fair guards, good guards + guards that enjoyed power and used it –> ppl ultimately willing to fulfil whatever role they’re given
what did zimbardo say about de-inviduation?
- explains behaviour of guards
- occurs when individuals lose sense of identity + personal responsibility by becoming overly immersed in group norms
- guards felt actions were part of group dynamic rather than personal decisions –> their uniforms could also have contributed to loss of personal identity
ZIMBARDO uniforms of prisoners + guards
prisoners:
- loose smock, cap to cover hair, number assigned, blindfolded to go to toilet, sandals, chains on legs
guards:
- khaki uniform, wooden club, handcuffs, mirror shades
–> lead to de-inividuation
zimbardo de-humanisation?
degrading people by lessening of human qualities
zimbardo evaluation- PROS
- random assignment= increased control over internal validity, removed bias
- study meant US prisons changed to protect prisoners etc
- environment= carefully thought out= validity –> high mundane realism
- had a debrief
- application to real life can be seen (Iraq war of Abu Ghraib)
- controlled variables- chose emotionally stable individuals
zimbardo evaluation- CONS
- lack of realism –> could argue ppl. acted to stereotypes of how they thought they should behave e.g. cool hand luke (explains riots) - demand characteristics
BUT
90% of convos = about prison life
prisoner 416 said he believed it was a real prison - only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally= Zimbardo overstated his view
- individual differences + personality determine extent to which someone conforms
- not all guards behaved same
- all guards were white male Americans
- ethical issues = no informed consent, long-term psychological harm, no right to withdraw
- low ecological validity (prison was only a set up in a uni, duration was shorter, all college students (not diverse backgrounds in a typical prison)
