Social influence- conformity Flashcards
What is conformity
‘A change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a group.
This change is in response to either real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms / expectations) group pressure.’
What is compliance
This type of conformity involves simply ‘going along with others’ in public, but privately not changing personal opinions and/or behaviour.
Compliance results in only a superficial change and often temporary. It also means that a particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops.
What is identification
Sometimes we conform to the opinions / behaviours of a group because there is something about that group we value. We identify with the group, so we want to be a part of it. This identification may mean we publicly change our opinions/behaviour to be accepted by the group, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for.
This conformity will last as long as you’re a member of the group.
What is internalisation
Internalisation occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results in private as well as a public change of opinion / behaviour.
This change is usually permanent because attitudes have been internalised, i.e., become part of the way the person thinks. The change in opinions/behaviour persists even in the absence of other group members.
What two main responses were given when Asch asked why the pts conformed
They knew they were giving the wrong answers but did not want to stand out.
Some pps truly doubted their own judgement so agreed with the majority.
What variables affect conformity
The difficulty of the task
The size of the majority
Unanimity
What is ISI
Informative social influence
- Conforming based on cognitive factors
- Leads in internalisation
What is NSI
Normative social influence
- Conforming based on emotional factors
- Leads to compliance
What are ISI and NSI explanations for
Conformity
Evaluation, evidence for NSI
- Asch
Asch found evidence for NSI. Participants would change their answers to an obvious line task so they did not feel like ‘the odd one out’.
Evaluation, evidence for ISI
- Jenness
Jenness (1932) found that when offered a supposedly better way to count beans in a jar, almost all participants opted to change their estimates.
The fact this theory has research support gives the theory some credibility.
Evaluation, dispositional factors NSI and ISi
Informational social influence (ISI) and NSI do not consider any dispositional factors in its assessment of why we conform.
For example, it only considers situational and psychological factors, neglecting to take any human factors into account.
Therefore, it could be argued to be low in explanatory power. It is known that some people conform more than others (e.g. in Asch’s study), yet this explanation fails to explain why, given that all individuals were in the same situation. As a result, there must be other factors and processes that determine conformity.
Therefore, this explanation should only be regarded as part of the reason why we conform, but not the whole reason.
Evaluation, better alternatives, NSI and ISI
The other thing to consider is ‘are there any better explanations for conformity?’
One such explanations could be an external locus of control. It may well be that some individuals have an external locus of control, whereby they feel like things are generally out of their control, hence they feel they have to go with the crowd and they have no power to resist the social influence.
Evaluation, beta bias NSI and ISI
Does not state sex differences even though they are likely
What was Asch’s aim
To examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority affects individual conformity.
Who were Asch’s sample
123 pts in groups of 7-9 on a round table
What did the pts do in Asch’s study
Standard line & 3 comparison lines.
Ppt had to call out in turn which line A,B or C was the same length as the standard one.
What was the procedure in Asch’s study
A “real” ppt was seated in a row among confederates.
The ppt was seated 6th in a row of 7 people.
The goal of the study was to examine perceptual judgments & the participants were instructed to pick which of 3 lines “matched” a standard line.
The true ppt could see that one of the lines was obviously a match, the others obviously wrong.
In 12 out of the 18 studies (the critical studies) the confederates were told to give the WRONG answer.
In 6 trials they gave the wrong answer of a longer line.
In 6- a wrong short line was identified.
The real ppt was seated second to last so listened to the same wrong answer over and over before giving theirs.
What were the results from Asch’s study
Overall conformity rate was 37%.
Large individual differences.
5% of ppt conformed on every critical trial. These were seen as most conformist.
about 25% remained completely independent.
about 75% conformed at least once!
They gave the correct answer on ALL 12 critical trials despite group pressure.
In __ out of the __ studies (the critical studies) the confederates were told to give the WRONG answer.
In _ trials they gave the wrong answer of a longer line.
In _- a wrong short line was identified.
The real ppt was seated second to last so listened to the same wrong answer over and over before giving theirs.
12
18
6
6
Evaluation, methodological issues Asch
Situation is highly controlled in terms of number of people present & the use of confederates.
Researcher can manipulate it & so can establish cause & effect.
Asch’s study lacks validity as people are among strangers in real-life conformity usually takes place in groups where you have long lasting ties….friends etc.
Thus lack of validity
What were Asch’s results
On the 12 critical trials, there was a 32% conformity rate to wrong answers
75% of participants conformed to at least one answer (only 25% remained completely independent)
5% conformed to every possible answer of the 12 trials.
On the __ critical trials, there was a __% conformity rate to wrong answers
__% of participants conformed to at least one answer (only __% remained completely independent)
_% conformed to every possible answer of the __ trials.
- Asch
12
32
75
25
5
12
What were Asch’s 3 variations
- Difficulty of tasks
- Size of majority
A group size of 3 led to conformity, but adding further confederates made little difference to whether or not the participants conformed. - Unanimity
Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. The presence of a dissenting confederate led to reduced conformity This suggests that the influence of the majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous.
What did Lucas find
Lucas, 2006 found that participants conformed more to an incorrect answer when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the maths problem was easy, they ‘knew their own mind’, but when the problem was hard, the situation became ambiguous.
What did Bond find
Bond (2005) showed that It is argued that normative influence is likely to be stronger when participants make public responses and are face-to-face with the majority, whereas informational influence is likely to be stronger when participants make private responses and communicate with the majority indirectly.’
What did Moscovici find
the minority groups can influence the majority as long as the minority show CONSISTENCY in their behaviour.
What was Zimbardo’s study into
Identification
In Asch’s study what was the error rate when participants were tested alone
less than 1%
How many variations did Asch use and what were they
3
- Difficulty of the task
- Size of the majority
- Unanimity
How did Asch make the task harder and how did it effect conformity
By making the lines harder to distinguish, the true pts will find it harder to come up with a definite answer.
harder task= more likely to be wrong
Easier task= trust owns ability
How did Asch change the size of the majority and what were the results
Increased the number of confederates from 1-15 to see if the number of people made more of a difference.
In a very small group, conformity rose to 32%, most people are sensitive to the views of others so needed little influence.
In a large scale group, very little difference in conformity.
1 participant : 1 confederate = 3%
1 participant : 2 confederate = 13%
1 participant : 3 confederate = 32%
1 participant : 1 confederate = _%
1 participant : 2 confederate = __%
1 participant : 3 confederate = __%
3
13
32
How did Asch change the unamity of the group and what were the results
Introduced a confederate who acted as a dissenter within the group. The real pp conformed less when the dissenter was there
Variation one: confederate asked to give correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%
Variation two: confederate asked to give a different incorrect answer, conformity dropped to 9%
Variation one: confederate asked to give correct answer, conformity dropped to _%
Variation two: confederate asked to give a different incorrect answer, conformity dropped to _%
5
9
Evaluation, generalisability
Asch
- lacks temporal validity as done in 1950s
- Androcentric (beta bias)
- Done as Swarthmore college in Pennsylvania, ethnocentric
Where was Asch’s study conducted
Swarthmore college in Pennsylvania
Evaluation, reliability
Asch
High in reliability, standardised procedures:
- At table with 7 confederates
- participants heard confederates give wrong answer on 12 out of 1 trails.
Evaluation, validity
Asch
High in validity which is good and bad
Asch had lots of control so can establish cause and effect
BUT
Conducted in an artificial environment so lacks ecological validity and mundane realism
Evaluation, ethics
Asch
Male pts were decieved meaning did not gain full informed consent thus may not be credible in psych as breached ethical guidelines
What was Zimbardos aim
To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guards and prisoners in a role-playing simulation of a prison environment.
To test whether prison violence was down to the sadistic nature of the personalities within the prison or if the situation and environment caused prison brutality
Zimbardos procedure:
__ male university students responded to a newspaper advert that offered $__ a day to take part in an experiment. __ students were picked (the most mentally and physically stable – __ guards and __ prisoners). They were ________ allocated to the roles. Zimbardo played the role of the prison superintendent.
Prisoners were __________ , deloused, fingerprinted and stripped. Prisoners were given uniforms that were bleak, whilst guards were given a superior uniform with __________, truncheons and handcuffs, etc.
_ prisoners were placed _ to a cell and the study was planned to run for _ weeks, but was eventually cut short.
75
15
21
10
11
randomly
dehumanised
sunglasses
9
3
2
How early was the 1st prisoner released
36 hours
When was Zimbardos study stopped
6 days
What were Zimbardo’s results
Both groups settled quickly into their roles. An early prisoner revolution was crushed and the guards consolidated their power by increasingly severe punishments.
The prisoners failed to seriously question the guard’s motives and delegation of tasks, suggesting they were conforming to their given social roles.
One prisoner had to be withdrawn after 36 hours due to uncontrollable fits of rage and crying. 3 more had similar symptoms in the days afterwards and were released.
The study was stopped after only 6 days, and only after Zimbardo was shown the extent of the damage by a visiting psychologist.
Both roles later expressed surprise at how they acted in the situation.
What did Zimbardo conclude
The situational explanation appears to have been supported here, as the group were considered mentally stable beforehand, suggesting that the situational had been the main driver behind the behaviour.
People readily conform to social roles, regardless of the morality of the situation.
Evaluation, ethics
- Zimbardo
Major ethical violations
- Lack of informed consent (prisoners being arrested outside house)
Protection from harm
- One prisoner had to be released early, many underwent psychological stress
Evaluation, reliability
- Zimbardo
Standardised procedures: 21 participants, prisoners arrested outside house, all prisoners wore smock etc etc
Evaluation, generalisability
- Zimbardo
Temporal validity- done in 1973 so conformity to social role may have been because of the time
Androcentric- all males, can’t generalise to females without beta bias
When was Zimbardos study conducted
1973
what % of prisoners conversations were on the prison
90
Evaluation, validity
Zimbardo
High internal validity as there actually was mundane realism i.e arrested outside house
But
low ecological validity as artificial environment e.g lacks many unpleasant prison things like racism and beatings and rape
Evaluation, practical applications
Zimbardo
P: In addition, there are Practical Applications of the Zimbardo study. The
findings from the study can be used to explain the importance of the situation
causing behaviour.
E: For example, deindividuation of the prisoners by using a number to address them
rather than their names, may have contributed to their lack of control over their role.
E: Some psychologists suggest that prison life is made harder due to the people in
the prison, however Zimbardo’s study has shown that the situation has the potential
for people to act in aggressive ways in a prison-like environment.
L: This shows that the Zimbardo study is very useful in adding to the
understanding of behaviour in a prison environment, and the findings from
conformity to social roles can be applied to prisoners and guards in real life
prisons.
