Factors Affecting Conformity Flashcards
Age (individual)
Some age differences have been found in conformity. A review of studies reported that conformity levels remain static between the ages of 10 and 14, after which, the ability to dissent rises steadily up to age 18. Thereafter, it remains steady through early adulthood. (Steinberg and Monaha, 2007)
Gender (individual)
There are a number of studies that have shown a difference in conforming behaviour between women and men.
Mori & Arai (2010) found that women were more likely to conform, as did Eagly & Carli (1981) in a meta-analysis of 148 conformity studies. They suggest that women are more easily persuadable and more conforming than men in situations where they are being observed. However, in situations where they are not being observed, they are less likely to conform than men.
Alice Eagly (1987) suggested that this was because women take more of a submissive role in society. Women are encouraged by society to take roles that are more communal and to be more agreeable, while men are encouraged to be thinkers that are more independent.
However, society has changed significantly in its expectation of women since 1987, and this data may quite simply be outdated.
Sistrunk & McDavid (1971) also argued that many studies showed greater conformity among women because the examples used were more fitted to male stereotypes (sports, cars etc.) than female stereotypes. They argued that these are areas where many women feel less comfortable, and so were more likely to conform.
Personality (individual)
Certain personality characteristics link to conformity levels.
Burger (1992) showed that people who value control are less likely to
conform: participants who rated as high in their personal desire for control Click to add text
conformed less in an Asch type experiment where they had to rate the funniness of cartoons.
However, in the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo et al (1973) did not support the idea that social behaviour comes from personality. They concluded that behaviour is mainly influenced by social context.
Cognition (individual)
There are differences in cognitive processes from one individual to another in a conformity situation – everyone interprets the situation differently. This was noted by Asch (1955) who stated that some participants genuinely doubted their own judgement, while others knew that they were right but followed the crowd in an attempt to avoid disapproval.
Hornsey et al (2003) found that if someone had a strongly held conviction about an issue, they are less likely to conform. They studied 205 Australian university students who had reported being in favour of same-sex marriage and showed them faked graphs supposedly of other students’ views that seemed to show that the majority disagreed with them.
In terms of how they would act privately, those with weak beliefs conformed, while those with stronger beliefs did not. In terms of public behaviour, the difference was even greater – those with strong beliefs in favour of the topic showed counter- conformity, meaning they became even more in favour of same-sex marriage than before, in defiance of the supposed majority who were against them.
Task difficulty (situational)
In Asch’s original experiment, we saw that conformity occurred 32% of the
time in the critical trials.
One of the variations that he investigated was what happened if he increased the difficulty of the task. In this condition, the difference between the line lengths was much smaller, so it was harder to tell which the correct answer was.
He found that this led to a significant increase in conformity, suggesting that people may have been internalising, and actually believing that line that everyone else said was the correct answer, rather than merely complying.
Group size (situational)
Another of Asch’s variations involved adjusting the size of the majority. He found that when there was a small majority (just one or two individuals), then conformity decreased to almost zero.
When the majority was three, conformity Click to add text
jumped to around 30%. This suggests that the size of the majority is important, although the likelihood of conformity did not increase much once the majority size moved past five, suggesting that there is a limit to the impact of the size of the majority.
Unanimity of the Majority (situational)
In the original Asch study, all the confederates agreed on one incorrect answer.
Asch adjusted his study so that one confederate gave the correct answer throughout.
With this one small change, he found that conformity rates dropped from 32% to just 5.5%.
When one confederate gave a different wrong answer, the conformity rate also dropped to just over 9%.
It would appear that consensus view is crucial, and that if the majority is not unanimous, a person feels less pressure to conform.
Secrecy of response (situational)
Asch is studying public compliance in this variation.
Asch has true participant come in late and tells them that because they’re late – they have to write their answer down instead of saying it aloud.
Does this affect conformity?
Yes – writing answer in secret shows huge decrease in conformity.
Similarities of group (situational)
Experiments on conformity tend to use strangers, but away from the laboratory, we are most likely to come into contact with, and be influenced by, people that we have something in common with, such as friends or colleagues.
If we have something in common with the group, will we be more
likely to conform?
Abrams et al (1990) found that if participants feel that they share characteristics with the majority, they are more subject to normative influence in an Asch-type situation.
Cultural factors
One problem with interpreting the classic research by Jenness and Asch is that they studied young Americans in the mid-20th century and findings can’t necessarily be generalised beyond that cultural context – a culture that has been described as highly conformist (Perrin and Spencer, 1981).
Follow up studies have not always replicated the findings, perhaps because of varying cultural attitudes about the value of necessity of maintaining group harmony.
Normative social influence
Normative social influence is when a person is not in doubt but is influenced by social norms. The pressure comes from the group, based on a need and like to be accepted by it.
Informational social influence
Informational social influence is exerted by the majority on the minority in order to get them to change not only their behaviour, but also their attitudes. It is designed to convince the minority that the majority is genuinely right, and to produce internalisation, rather than compliance.
