Conformity

• Types of conformity - Internalisation


  Genuinely accept the group norms, there is a private and public change in behaviour which is more likely to be permanent and persist away from the group.
• Types of conformity - Identification


  Conforming because we value something about the group we may change our views to be a part of the group publicly but privately we don't agree with everything the group stands for.
• Types of conformity - Compliance

  'Going along with the group' in public but privately not changing our views. This results in a superficial change which only lasts under group pressure.
• Explanations for conformity - ISI

  Informational Social Influence (ISI) - concerns who has better information. Individuals follow the group because they want to be right. Most likely to occur in novel situations or where someone appears to be an 'expert'. COGNITIVE PROCESS!
• Research for ISI


  Lucas et al (2006) - asked students to answer maths problems and there was a greater level of conformity when the problem was difficult than when it was easy. This was most obvious with those who rated themselves as poor at maths. Supports ISI as it demonstrates that people conform when they don't know the answer.
• Explanations for conformity - NSI

  Normative social influence - concerns the norms of a social group which regulate the behaviour of those in the group. People don't want to appear foolish and prefer to gain social acceptance than rejection. Most likely occur in situations with strangers and fear rejection or with friends when we want social approval. EMOTIONAL PROCESS!
• Research for NSI

  Asch (1951)
• Evaluations for NSI


  Research by McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who care more about being liked (nAffilliators) were more likely to conform than those who were less concerned. This suggests there are individual differences in NSI.
• Evaluations for both

  Deutsh and Gerrard's two process model suggests you conform due to either NSI and ISI. Research suggests that both processes are often involved. Asch's (1951) study showed a dissenting confederate may reduce conformity because they produce social support (NSI) or because they provide an alternative source of info (ISI).
• Asch (1951)
• Asch (1951) - Evaluations
• Jenness (1932) - ISI


  Aimed to investigate how humans conform based on the behaviour of others. He studied 101 psychology students in an ambiguous situation - asked to estimate how many jelly beans in a glass bottle. After they were divided into groups of 3 and asked to discuss and have a group estimate. Then they were given another opportunity to estimate the beans. Males changes by 256, Females changed by 382. Nearly all ppts changed their answers
• Jenness (1932) - Evaluations

  Was one of the first to study this therefore it was highly influential and it supported Asch's study.

  The sample lacks generalisability - all psychology students therefore may have known why they were being studied.

  Lack ecological validity - Sheriff (1935).
• Asch's Variations: Group Size

  Found at 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but the addition of further confederates mad little difference. This suggests that a small majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted but at the end of the scale a large majority is not required.
• Asch's Variations: Unanimity


  He wanted to know if the presence of another non-conforming person would affect the naïve ppts conformity. the presence of a dissenting confederate meant that conformity was reduced by a 1/4 from what it was when the majority was unanimous. the dissenter allowed the naïve person to act more independently which suggests that the influence of the majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous.
• Asch's Variations: Task Difficulty


  Asch made the task harder by making the comparison lines closer in length to the standard line.

  conformity increased under these conditions.

  this suggests that ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder - when the ppt is not sure of the right answer, they look to the others for guidance.
• Asch's Variations: Evaluations


  It is likely the aim would have been clear so ppts may have has DM therefore validity of the results are reduced.

  Findings only apply to certain situations as ppts had to say it out loud to a group of strangers - may have wanted to impress so the conformity rates were likely higher. Williams + Sogon (1984) - found higher conformity rates when the majority of the group were friends.
• Asch's Variations: Evaluations


  There are limited applications because the results are androcentric a beta bias has occured as Asch generalised to women. Neto (1995) - women tend to be more conformist.

  + The sample was selected from individualistic cultures in collectivist cultures (China) higher conformity rates were found. This suggests culture norms in collectivist cultures affects conformity rates. Therefore findings lack generalisability cross-culturally.
• Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment: Aim


  Aimed to investigate whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisions was due to sadistic personalities or to do with the environment. He predicted the situation made people act that way rather than their personalities.
• Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment: Procedure

  - Mock prison set up in the basement of Stanford University

  - volunteer sample (75 respondees given diagnostic interviews + personality tests to rule out those with psychological problems, past crime and drug use)

  - 21 stable male students (24 but 2 reserves and 1 dropped out)

  - Each randomly assigned guard or prisoner (10 p and 11 g)

  - arrested at home, taken to local police stations + 'booked'

  - when they arrived at prison they were stripped naked + deloused + given prisoner clothes and bedding

  - they were referred to only by their number

  - all guards were dressed the same + 3 worked 8 hour shifts rest on call told to do whatever they felt necessary.
• Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment: Findings

  - both guards + prisoners took up their roles

  Asserting authority- 2:30 prisoners were awoken by blasting whistles for a count (familiarise them with their numbers)

  Physical punishment- insults and petty orders (dehumanise them) e.g. push ups

  Asserting independence- 2nd day prisoners rebelled the guards retaliated with fire extinguishers to force them away then they entered stripped them + took their beds

  Special privileges- those who were least involved

  Prisoner #8612 - emotional disturbance, rage, crying left 36h in it was meant to last 2 weeks but ended on day 6.
• Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment: Conclusions

  - people will readily conform to social roles

  - 'prison' environment was an important factor in the behaviour this supports the situational explanation for conformity

  - deindividualization

  - learned helplessness
• Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment: Evaluations

  - Control over variables which increases internal validity so can make better conclusions. Reicher + Haslam results disagreed.

  - Alternative theory, ppts were acting based on stereotypical views, one guard based himself off of 'cool hand luke' - disputed by zimbardo, 90% of prisoner convo were about prison life. prisoners thought it was real - high iv.

  - Bias sample that lacked generalisability

  - Real world applications

  - Fromm (1973) claimed he may have exaggerated

  - ETHICS!
• Reicher + Haslam's BBC Prison Study


  Aimed to investigate how and why humans commit atrocities.

  - screened over 300 and 15 were chosen 5 as guards

  - prisoners were told others had certain characteristics

  - setup resembled a prison p had basics g had own quarters

  - guards were able to make rules but couldn't be physical

  data collection

  - cameras + mics, daily questionnaires, saliva swabs

  variables

  -permeability one p could be promoted if they had g like qualities, no one else could be promoted, told there was no differences between prisoners and guards (legitimacy)

  - trade uunionists were added
• Reicher + Haslam's BBC Prison Study

  - Didn't work as a team once aware off potential promotion (no group identification or resistance)

  - Once aware there was no actual differences p worked together they began to resist and g didn't work as a group

  - when trade unionists joined p's began challenging the guards, broke into their quarters and made their own rules -g's allowed

  - group identification relied on an internalisation of group roles

  - shared social identities = organisation + group powers
• Reicher + Haslam's BBC Prison Study: Evaluations

  - Ppts when through extensive screening before + were monitored closely

  - Standardised procedure allows for replication/increased reliability

  - Ppts knew the study was for research purposes - dm lacks ev

  - Androcentric sample + volunteer sample - beta bias if generalised to women as well