Conformity (Majority Influence) Flashcards
What is the definition of conformity?
Form of majority influence where the attitudes 🤦🏻♀️, beliefs 🙏🏼 and behaviours 🤙🏼 of people in a particular group are adopted in response to real or imagined group pressure.
The 3️⃣ types of conformity
Shallow
- Compliance ⚽️
- Identification 👩🏼🎤
- Internalisation ❌🐄
Deep
Compliance ⚽️
Publicly conforming to others in a group to be accepted 👍🏼 or avoid 👎🏼 disapproval but privately maintaining ones own views.
Temporary change in behaviour and only lasts as long as the group pressure is present.
E.g. going along with a group of friends claiming to support a certain football ⚽️ team, because many others of your age group do and you want to be accepted 👍🏼 and not mocked by them. However Privately you may have little interest in this team or indeed football at all
Identification 👩🏼🎤
When individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of the group because they identify 🔎 with them and want to come part of it. Membership 🎭 of the group is desirable and members are seen as role models 💃🏻 so they try to be like them.
Its a stronger type of conformity than compliance and involves the public and private acceptance. It’s a temporary change and is not maintained when individuals leave the group.
E.g. in the army 💂🏼♀️you may adopt the behaviour and beliefs of fellow soldiers but In leaving the army for civilian life new behaviours and opinions will be adopted.
Internalisation ❌🐄
Is a conversion (or change) of private views to much those of the group.
The behaviour or belief of the majority is accepted by the individual and becomes part of their own belief system. Is the most permanent form of conformity and usually lasts even if the majority is no longer present.
For example, a student 👨🏼🎓 who becomes a vegetarian 🌱 is sharing a flat with animal right activists in university and may have taken views and continued to be vegetarian 🌱 for the rest of their life.
Difference between identification 👩🏼🎤 and internalisation ❌🐄
Identification :
• when individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group because they identify 🔎 with that group.
• Temporary change and is not maintained when individuals leave the group.
WHEREAS
internalisation :
• conversion of private views to match those of a group.
• Most permanent form of conformity as it usually lasts even is majority is no longer present.
Explanations for conformity
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed dual process model, arguing that there are 2 main reasons WHY people conform.
They distinguished between Informal social Influence (ISI) and Normative Social Influence (NSI).
They are based on 2 central human needs: the need to be right ✅ (ISI) and the need to be liked 😇 (NSI).
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
Desire to be liked 😇 - following the crowd 🏃🏼🚶🏻♀️🚶🏻🕺🏻
- people conform because they desire to be liked, by other members of the group, and also want to avoid being rejected 🙅🏻.
- important thing is need for acceptance and social approval from the group, which encourages agreement with the norm/central view of the group.
- associated with compliance ⚽️
- E.g. you may listen to certain type of music 🎧 whilst with friends because you feel being part of this group is desirable and you don’t want to be rejected. However when you are away you do not listen to this music. 👎🏼🎧
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
Desire to be right ✅ - accepting majority’s view point
- ISI based on desire to be right and occurs when we turn to others who we believe are correct in an attempt to gain information about how to think 💭 or act 🤷🏻♀️, or in ambiguous situations where there is no clear answer.
- this type of conformity is common when people are uncertain about their own opinions or how to behave in a novel or unclear situation and therefore much rely on others for guidance.
- associated with internalisation ❌🐄
- for example, you may not know an answer to a question ❓ in class but of most of class agrees in one answer you accept this answer because you feel they are probably right.
Evaluation of explanations of Conformity
- Evidence to support Normative Social Influence: Asch 1951 ✅
- Evidence to support Informational Social Influence: Sherif (1936) ✅
- Normative Social Influence and Informational Social Influence often work together ⛔️
- Individual differences are ignored ⛔️
Evidence To Support Normative Social Influence: Asch (1951) ✅
One study that supports Normative Social Influence is Asch’s 1951 Line experiment.
Asch 1951 found that judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions, even when the majority are obviously wrong.
Asch found 37% Conformity rate to wrong answers, with 75% Of participants conforming to at least a one wrong answer.
Some said they felt self conscious giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval.
This supports normative social influence because despite knowing that the answer was incorrect, p’s conformed to be accepted and have approval from the group - that had a desire to be liked.
Also when Asch asked p’s to write down their answers, conformity rates dropped fell to 12.5% .
As most p’s performed publicly, but not privately, suggests that they were motivated by Normative Social Influence.
Evidence to support Informational Social Influence: Sherif (1936) ✅
One study that supports informational social influence is Sherif’s 1936 study 📖.
Sherif found that when faced with an ambiguous situation (an optical illusion called the auto-kinetic effect), p’s looked to others in he group for guidance in an attempt to gain information about what to think.
Individuals tended to change their views about how far the light had moved and gave estimates which resembled those of the group.
This demonstrates informational social influence as the p’s had a desire to be right.
•Normative Social Influence and Informational Social Influence often work together ⛔️
The idea of Deutsch & Gerard’s two process’ approach is that behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI.
Truth is that, more often, both processes are involved.
For example, conformity is reduced, when there is one other dissenting participant in the Asch experiment.
This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because the dissenter provides social support) or may reduce the power of ISI (because there is an alternative source of information).
This shows that it is not always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work and casts doubt over the view of NSI and ISI as two processes operating independently in conformity.
• Individual differences are ignored ⛔️
Limitation of the ISI and NSI explanations of conformity is that they do not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way and therefore fails to account for individual differences.
For example, in terms of ISI, Asch (1955) found that students were less conformist than other p’s.
Perrin & Spencer replicated Asch’s original study with engineering students in the UK and also found less conformity.
It may be that they felt more confident in their precision of line measuring.
This suggests people who are more knowledgeable and/or more confident are less likely influenced by the apparently ‘right’ view of the majority.
Limitation because there are differences in how individuals respond to ISI and these must be taken into account in order to gain a full picture into explanations for conformity.
❕
❕
Research methods: Types Of Experiment
- Laboratory Experiment
- Field Experiment
- Natural Experiment
- Quasi Experiment
Laboratory 🔬 Experiment:
And experiment carried out in a laboratory, allowing the researcher to exert a high level of control over the independent, And to eliminate or control for confounding variables.
The IV (independent variable) is manipulated to observe the effect on the DV (dependent variable) under controlled conditions.
Strengths:
1. Control of variables - easier to control potential confounding variables in a lab than in a natural environment of the field experiment or with any other research method. If all variables are controlled successfully or eliminated, then cause and effect can be established.
- Replicability - a lab experiment that is carried out well can be easily repeated by other researches to see if they obtain similar results. If other researches do get similar results the experimenters can conclude that the results are reliable. This ability to replicate the lab experiment is advantageous compared to field or natural experiment where researches have to wait indefinitely for the same circumstances to occur again to check replicability of their results.
LImitations:
1. Artificial - due to high levels of control in the lab it can become artificial and recognisably different from real life situations. The artificiality of the lab experiment may make it difficult to generalise findings to other settings, which means it can lack ecological validity. Other research methods such as naturalistic observation and field experiments are more likely to represent real life.
- Demand Characteristics - these occur when p’s try to make sense of situation they find themselves in and act accordingly. P’s may try to help experimenter or they may set out to deliberately confound the results. Demand characteristics do not occur in field or natural experiment as the p’s is unaware they are taking part in a study.
Field Experiment
An experiment carried out in the natural environment of the individuals being studied. The experimenter has little control over the independent variable. The p’s may not not they are being studied.
Strengths:
1. Improved ecological validity - This experiment is carried out in the natural environment therefore the findings can be generalised to other real life settings. This is an advantage over the lab experiment, which lacks ecological validity because it is carried out in the artificial environment of the lab.
- Reduction of demand characteristics - the p’s may be unaware they are taking part in a research study and so the influence of demand characteristics may be minimised. This is an advantage over the lab experiment as p’s often respond to the cues in the artificial environment as they are aware they are taking part in the study.
Limitations:
1. Less control - difficult to control for confounding variables in a field experiment and as a result it may be difficult to replicate precisely. As a result it is more difficult to establish cause and effect. Whereas in lab establishing cause and effect is easier because of the high level of control over the variables.
- More time consuming - field experiments can take longer to complete as there may be a process of waiting for certain conditions to occur. This is not an issue for the lab experiment as the experimenter controls the timings of the study.
Natural Experiment
type of experiment where the IV is not directly manipulated but occurs naturally. The allocation of p’s is outside the control of researcher, e.g. when the government decide to introduce TV into Fiji and psychologists measured the effect of eating disorders in teenage girls.
Strengths:
1. Reduction of demand characteristics - Reduction of demand characteristics - the p’s may be unaware they are taking part in a research study and so the influence of demand characteristics may be minimised. This is an advantage over the lab experiment as p’s often respond to the cues in the artificial environment as they are aware they are taking part in the study.
- Lack of Direct Intervention - the experimenter does not intervene directly in the research situation, which means there is more opportunity to gain an insight into real life behaviour. This is an advantage when compared to the lab experiment where behaviour is more likely to be artificial.
Limitations:
1. Loss of control - since IV is not directly controlled by investigator; the degree of control is less than either a lab or field experiment. This reduces the likelihood of cause and effect being established because of the many confounding variables.
- Replication impossible - naturally occurring situation that the researcher wishes to study may occur only rarely, therefore replication will be almost impossible. This means it will be difficult to check the external validity of the findings where as in the lab experiment replication is possible because of the control of variables.
Quasi Experiment
experiment that has an IV that is based on an existing difference between people. No one ha manipulated this difference it simply exists e.g. gender differences or psychological disorder.
Quasi experiments often resemble lab and field experiments, quasi meaning ‘almost’.
The experimenter does not directly manipulate the IV - means resemblance between natural and quasi experiments however they differ in that quasi experiments are typically carefully planned whereas natural experiments are not.
Strengths -
1. Replicability - Quasi experiments are often carefully planned and carried out under controlled conditions which means that they can be replicated.
- Quasi experiments are useful to make comparisons between types of people where it is impossible or impractical to manipulate variables.
Limitations:
1. Confounding variables - quasi experiments cannot randomly allocate p’s to conditions therefore there may be confounding variables which means we cannot establish casualty.
- Demand characteristics - quasi experiments are often carried out in a lab therefore there may be demand characteristics.
❕
❕
Research into Conformity
Normative Social Influence: Asch (1951) The Line Experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYIh4MkcfJA
Aim: To investigate the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong answers.
Procedure:
123 Male US undergraduates took part in a laboratory experiment in which they were told was a study of visual perception.
They were set up in a situation in which 7 people sat looking at a display.
They were given the task of saying out loud which one of the three lines A, B or C was the same length as a given stimulus line. The correct answer was always obvious.
All participants, except for 1, were confederates. The genuine/naïve participant was always the last but one to answer. Each participant completed 18 trials. 12 of these were critical trials which means the confederates all gave the wrong answer.
Asch conducted 18 trials. 12 out of these were critical trials (were the confederates all agreed to give the wrong answer).
Findings: In a control group where individuals were tested individually, 3 mistakes out of 720 trials were made, showing how obvious correct answers were.
The naive p’s conformed (gave a wrong answer) 37% of the time on the 12 critical trials.
75% of p’s conformed to at least 1 wrong answer.
25% of p’s never gave wrong answer.
5% of p’s conformed to all 12 wrong answers.
Conclusion:
The judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions, even when the majority are obviously wrong.
As most participants performed publically, but not privately, it suggests that they were motivated by Normative Social Influence.
This study shows a strong tendency to conform to group pressures in a situation even when the answer is clear.
However, roughly 63% of these trails the p’s stuck to their original judgements despite being faced with an overwhelming majority expressing a totally different view.
Therefore Asch’s study also demonstrated a tendency for p’s to stick to what they believed to be correct and show independent behaviour.
Asch’s Situational Variables Affecting Conformity
Asch carried out a number of variations of his original study to find out which variables had the most significant effects on the level of conformity shown by participants.
This research has identified several situational variables, that is, qualities of an environment that influence levels of conformity in individuals.
Asch’s research is often referred to as a laboratory experiment because there were a number of independent variables that he investigated. These included:
- Task Difficulty
- Group Size
- Unanimity
- Task Difficulty
Conformity increases when task difficulty increases, as the right answer becomes less obvious, therefore confidence in our own judgment tends to drop. This means that individuals will look to others more for guidance as to what the correct response is, suggesting that ISI is the dominant force.
Procedure: Asch increased task difficulty by making the comparison lines similar, so the correct answer was less obvious.
Findings & Conclusions:
He found participants were more likely to conform to the wrong answer.
It can be concluded that ISI plays a greater role when the task because more difficult because the situation is more ambiguous so we are more likely to look to other people for guidance and assume they are right about what the correct response is.
