Conformity (SOCIAL INFLUENCE 1/3) Flashcards
conformity
when an individual yields their behaviour or beliefs to fit in with those of the group, due to the influence of group pressure and majority position of a larger group
brought about by desire to fit in or be liked (normative), a desire to be correct (informational) or to conform to a social role (identification)
types of conformity criteria
why does it occur?
public / private
temporary / permanent
compliance (KELMAN’S TYPES)
group acceptance
when an individual accepts influence because they hope to achieve a favourable reaction from another person or group
adopt the induced behaviour because they expect to gain specific rewards or approvals and avoid specific punishment or disapproval
conforming to the majority publicly, despite not agreeing privately
temporary behaviour change
stems from fear of rejection
identification (KELMAN’S TYPES)
group membership
when an individual accepts influence because they want to establish a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or group
conform to expectations of a social role
no change in private opinion - temporary
want to be part of the group
internalisation (KELMAN’S TYPES)
genuine acceptance of group norms
when an individual accepts influence because the content of induced behaviour - the ideas and actions of which is imposed - is intrinsically rewarding
adopt the induced behaviour because it is consistent with their value system
public and private conformity
deepest level of conformity - beliefs become individuals’ own
permanent change
most likely to occur when majority have greater knowledge than the majority (can’t challenge them)
normative social influence (EXPLANATIONS OF CONFORMITY)
yielding to group pressure because a person wants to fit in with the group and fears rejection and wants to be liked
linked to compliance - publicly accepts majority’s views but privately rejects them
informational social influence (EXPLANATIONS OF CONFORMITY)
occurs when a person lacks knowledge or is ambiguous in a situation and looks to the group for guidance and socially compares their behaviour to the group
linked to internalisation - accepts views of a group and adopts them
from a want to be right
Jenness (1932) aims
to investigate the effect of conformity on psychology students when given a simple task
Jenness (1932) procedure
asked to individually estimate how many white beans there were in a jar
in the second condition, in groups of 3 and provided a group estimate and individually asked to see if they changed their original answer
Jenness (1932) conclusions
participants changed their estimates after conferring with others
females were more influenced - average change was larger
explained by ISI (the task was intentionally ambiguous) and so look to the group for guidance - changed own answers as they believed that the group estimate was more likely to be right
Sherif (1935) aims
to investigate if people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous situation
Sherif (1935) procedure
autokinetic effect - light in a dark room appears to move when still
asked to individually estimate how far the light moves
or in groups of 3 asked to make a group estimate
manipulated so 2 people in the group had similar estimates and 1 whose was very different
each had to say how far they thought it moved
Sherif (1935) results
compared estimates and in groups they converged on a common estimate
person with a different estimate would often conform to other 2 views
Sherif (1935) conclusions
in an ambiguous situation, people will look to others for guidance
adopt the group norm
ISI
Asch (1951) aims
to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform in an unambiguous situation
Asch (1951) procedures
lab setting, volunteer sample of male American uni students
participants told it was a study into visual perception
groups of 8 = 1 real participant + 7 confederates
asked to select which line was the closest in length to the target line
went around room one-by-one to give answer
confederates deliberately picked the wrong answer to see if the participant would conform
18 trials, 12 critical trials where confederates gave the wrong answer and a control condition with no confederates
Asch (1951) results
32% of participants conformed with the clearly incorrect majority during critical trials
75% of participants conformed at least once
25% of participants never conformed
in control group, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer, with no pressure to conform
Asch (1951) conclusions
most did not agree with conforming answers but had gone along with the group because of a fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar - NSI - want to fit in
when comparison lines were more similar, it was harder to judge the correct answer and conformity increased - ISI - look to others for confirmation
Asch (1951) evaluation - validity
low mundane realism
lab setting, unnatural task of judging line lengths
conformity in rea life is more important, concerning political, religious, social views, not a fair reflection of true conformity
low temporal validity
cultural and social change means that less value is placed on conformity today - people are more individualistic thinkers than in 1950s America
provides more of measure of political feeling at the time
low internal validity
may have guessed the use of confederates by picking up on cues
would invalidate results
true conformity was not demonstrated, behaving as they thought was expected of them
Asch (1951) evaluation - ethics
poor ethics
told it was a study of visual perception, unaware of confederates
decieved, not consented to a study on social pressure
however deception was necessary to avoid demand characteristics and gain valid results
poor ethics
deliberately placed in a situation where they would naturally disagree with others
subject to high levels of stress and arousal, uncomfortable choice whether to conform to others’ opinions
Asch (1951) evaluation - sample
low population validity
all male American students of same age - androcentric
not easily generalised / do not represent other demographics, population bias, not valid to other populations
Asch (1951) evaluation - reliability
high reliability
lab setting and controlled conditions, standardised procedure - always 12 critical trials where confederates gave identical wrong answers
high levels of control minimises impact of environment and allows for replication across different cultures and contexts
Asch (1951) evaluation - application
practical application e.g. jury decision making processes
demonstrates how individuals conformed to social pressure, even though they claimed they knew the answer they gave was wrong
shows how conforming to the majority to be part of the group and avoid ridicule or being thought peculiar
research could be used to advise juries to avoid social pressure by declaring opinions privately to avoid influence from majority
variables affecting conformity
Asch wanted to see how certain factors affected conformity, do he conducted other variations
group size
unanimity
task difficulty
situational vs dispositional factors
group size (Asch’s variation)
increase number of confederates present
rate of conformity increases as size of the group increases
point where further increase does not lead to an increase in conformity - plateaus and slows down (may suspect true nature of experiment)
unanimity (Asch’s variation)
agreement between all people within group
changed unanimity of confederates to see affect on conformity
conformity reduced if group’s unanimous position is broken even if the answer provided by the support is incorrect
casts doubt on majority’s decision and is harder to judge if the group are right, giving people the independence to act freely
one confederate gave correct answer throughout - rate of conformity dropped to 5%
one confederate gave a different incorrect answer throughout - rate of conformity dropped to 9%
task difficulty (Asch’s variation)
difference between the lines were significantly smaller, so the task is more difficult
conformity increases with ambiguity and difficulty - ISI increases, where participants seek guidance from others and want to be right
Asch’s research explanations of conformity strengths
research support for ISI
conformity increased when the task became more difficult as participants looked to others for guidnace
supports ISI as it shows that people conform when situations are ambiguous
research support for NSI
clearly wrong answer but participants conformed to the majority to avoid ridicule or being thought peculiar
supports NSI as it shows that people conform to be liked and be part of the group
Asch’s research explanations of conformity weaknesses
may not represent conformity in the real world
judging line lengths, how many times they conformed to majority’s clearly incorrect answer
lacks mundane realism and ecological validity, not generalisable to real life - important in jury decisions, which has a more important decision to make (more likely dispute when concerning personal beliefs)
limits credibility of explanation if research support is invalid
explanations overlook dispositional factors
some people with internal locus of control are less likely to conform as they are less likely to seek approval
don’t consider role of individual differences
types not distinct
overlap - look to others for info because we do not want to be different - cannot view them as entirely different explanations
criticise that they provide separate explanations
Zimbardo (1971) - Stanford Prison Experiment
investigated conformity to social roles
Zimbardo aims
to investigate if people conform to social roles of a prison environment (prisoner/guard)
to investigate whether the brutal, aggressive nature of US prisons is due to dispositional or situational factors
Zimbardo predicted that the situational factors were more influential than dispositional factors
Zimbardo procedures
created a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford University Psychology department
randomly allocated each participant to either prisoner or guard
was designed to last for 2 weeks
paid $15 a day
volunteer sampling - 24 male college students saw an advertisement in a newspaper
participants tested to suitability - given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, history of crime or drug abuse - the 24 chosen were the most mentally and physically stable and least involved with antisocial behaviour
Zimbardo took role of lead researcher and prison superintendent
how Zimbardo made the mock prison environment as realistic as possible
prisoners were mock arrested at home, treated like a criminal and taken to a local police station and were stripped, deloused, had personal possessions removed
given prison clothes - smock with number on, no underwear, cap to cover hair, locked chain on ankle
guards wore identical khaki uniforms, a whistle and baton, sunglasses to make eye contact impossible
Zimbardo results
prisoners conformed - followed guards’ orders, talked about prison issues together, told on each other to the guards, referred to each other as their numbers
guards conformed - harassed and intimidated prisoners, made them to push-ups, clean toilets with bare hands, solitary confinement
Zimbardo took his role as prison warden too seriously
study ended after 5 days as Christina Maslach highlighted how he broke ethical guidelines and guards were becoming sadistic and prisoners distressed
Zimbardo conclusions
supports situational factors as prison environment was important factor in creating guards’ brutal behaviour (none of the participants showed sadistic tendencies before the study)
explanations of guards’ behaviour
DEINDIVIDUATION - became so immersed in norms of the group that they lost sense of identity and personal responsibility
lost sense of identity from uniform
GROUP NORM - did not feel that what happened was because of them individually
explanations of prisoners’ behaviour
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS - leading to submission - learned that they could not affect what happened to them
Zimbardo evaluation weaknesses
low generalisability
androcentric - all American, male, same age, university students, limited sample size
results not easily generalised to other populations - does not mean that women / other nationalities / different ages will also conform - low population validity
low reliability
Reicher and Haslam (2006) replicated Zimbardo’ study with 15 British men and found that the guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority, while the prisoners identified as a group and challenged authority - led to a power shift and complete collapse of the prison
low temporal validity
unreliable results - participants did not conform
low internal validity
not a true measure of conformity as not all guards wanted to conform, but Zimbardo told them how to behave
high investigator effects, demand characteristics and Hawthorne effect - knew they were being watched and did what he told them to help the study
participants influenced to conform - not accurate reflection of conformity
Zimbardo evaluation strengths
high applicability
found that situational factors were more influential than dispositional factors - findings can be applied to how soldiers acted in Abu Ghraib
people are still accountable for their actions - can’t solely blame on the environment
findings are still relevant today - high temporal validity
high ecological validity
made the prison appear as real as possible - dressed like prisoners, mock arrest
90% of conversations were related to the prison - started to believe they truly were prisoners
ratio of guards to prisoners was too high - unrealistic
since it was realistic to a real prison, can be generalised to a real prison
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics protection from harm strengths
recieved approval from Office of Naval Research, the Stanford Psychology Department and the University Committee of Human Experimentation - each of whom did not foresee any extreme, adverse reactions from participants in such a short amount of time
no ethics committee existed at the time
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics protection from harm weaknesses
prisoners experienced humiliation, distress, screaming, adverse reactions, mental and physical breakdowns
all of this exceeds the normal risks experienced on a day-to-day basis
some guards reported feeling guilty and anxious about having to be aggressive and abrasive towards prisoners
later audio reveals that such behaviour was encouraged by the researchers
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics informed consent strengths
used a volunteer sample
participants were taking part of their own volition
knew they would either be a prisoner or a guard in a prison study
knew the study was overt and they were being observed
Zimbardo invited families of prisoners to visit - all consented to taking part
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics informed consent weaknesses
despite gaining consent, Zimbardo introduced activities that participants were unaware of - didn’t know they would be arrested at home
study became unpredictable - had to take down the prison and move due to rumours of a possible break-in which participants did not consent to
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics deception strengths
argued that acts of deception (arresting prisoners at their home) were necessary to elicit natural behaviour
dealt with by thorough debrief where participants were told the aims, expected and actual findings and were checked up on weekly, monthly and yearly intervals
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics deception weaknesses
decieved from lack of informed consent about being arrested at their homes
gave participants a contract for them to sign which included an ethics section and how they would not be decieved - was breached in the study
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics right to withdraw strengths
5 participants asked to leave the study and Zimbardo allowed them to - right was met in the end
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics right to withdraw weaknesses
prisoner 8612 requested to leave and Zimbardo asked him to be a snitch, instead of allowing him to withdraw straight away
right was made difficult
Zimbardo evaluation of ethics debrief strengths
held extensive debriefed and met with prisoners, guards and all together to share experiences
conducted individual debriefs
sent questionnaires to each participant every week, then every month, then every year to check in
concluded that there were no long-term effects
