Types and Explanations for Conformity Flashcards
Conformity
A type of social influence that describes how a person changes their attitude or behaviour in response to real or imagined group pressure.
Who proposed the different types of conformity?
Kelman (1958)
What are the types of conformity?
Compliance, identification, and internalisation.
Compliance
When an individual changes their public behaviour but not their private beliefs, resulting in a short-term change.
Identification
When an individual changes their public behaviour and private beliefs, but only in the prescense of the group, resulting in a short-term change.
Internalisation
When an individual changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. They have accepted the group’s point of view as their own, resulting in a long-term change.
What are the explanations of conformity?
Normative and informational.
Normative Conformity
When we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval, and be liked.
Informational Conformity
When we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it to be correct.
Jenness (1932) - Aim
To investigate conformity to majority influence in an unambiguous situation.
Jenness (1932) - Procedure
101 psychology students were asked individually to estimate how many white beans were in a jar. Then, participants were divided into groups of three, asked to discuss, and provide a group estimate. Finally, they had another opportunity to estimate individually.
Jenness (1932) - Findings
On average, male’s estimates changed by 256 beans, and female’s changed by 382.
Jenness (1932) - Conclusion
Demonstrates how informational social influence can change people’s answers.
Sherif (1935) - Aim
To demonstrate the idea that people conform to group norms when they are put in ambiguous situations.
Sherif (1935) - Procedure
Used a lab experiment, using the autokinetic effect (when a still light appears to be moving). Participants were individually asked how far the light moved, then asked in groups of three.
Sherif (1935) - Findings
Groups tended to converge to form a common estimate
Who’s research supports normative conformity?
Asch (1951)
Asch (1951) - Aim
To examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority, could affect a person to conform.
Asch (1951) - Procedure
50 male students from America were told they were taking part in a vision test. They were placed in a room with seven confederates, seated penultemately in the line-up, and did the line judgement task. All had to state aloud which line was most like the target line, but the confederates had agreed upon an answer beforehand, 12 out of 18 trials being the incorrect answer.
Asch (1951) - Findings
The real participants conformed to the incorrect answers on 32% of the trials. 74% conformed on at least one trial; 26% never conformed. When using a control group of no confederates, the participant answered incorrectly less than 1% of the time.
Asch (1951) - Conclusion
The participants were interviewed after the experiment and most said that they did not believe the confederates’ answers, but they did not want to be ridiculed. A few said that they really believed the group’s answers were correct.
Asch (1951) - Strengths
- The experiment used a very standardised lab condition, with control of extraneous variables, distractions, number of confederates, placement of the participant in the line up, and the task itself. This increases the reliability.
- Good internal validity due to high level of control over extraneous variables.
Asch (1951) - Limitations
- Low ecological validity due to the artifical environment (lab) and task.
- Low population validity due to small sample, all male, all American, all attending the same college.
- Participants may have been affected by demand characteristics, lowering the internal validity.
- Ethical issues may include deception (participants told it was a vision test), right to withdraw (they were not briefed on any right to withdraw), informed consent (didn’t know what the study was investigating), and protection (may feel stressed or insecure).
- Low temporal validity as society is very different to 1951 - people’sn disposition/confidence has changed.
Lucas (2006) - Summary
Asked students to answer math problems that were easy or difficult. Conformity was greater with the more difficult questions, especially for those who rated their maths ability as poor. This demonstrates informational social influence.
Schultz (2008) - Summary
From 132 hotels and 794 rooms, Schultz assigned a control condition - with a hanger informing guests of the benfits of reusing towels - and an experimental condition where guests were told that 75% of guests reuse their towels each day. The experimental group reduced their need for towels by 25%, demonstrating normative influence.
McGhee and Teevan (1967) - Summary
Found that students with a high need for affiliation were more likely to conform.
How can individual differences affect normative social influence?
People who have less of a need to be liked will be less affected by group pressures - this is a limitation of normative social influence.
