Conformity

• Unanimity


  * P: Inds more likely to conform when group is unanimous (all give same ans)

  * E: 1st variation - dissenter (confederate who disagrees with other confeds) 2nd variation - confed who gave the right ans

  * In the presence of dissenter conformity drops to less than a quarter of the lvl when the majority was unanimous

  * E: Dissenter freed the pp to be more independent (even when the dissenter disagreed with thr pp)

  * L: Unaniminity = vital for influence on the majority to a large extent (NSI)
• Group Size

  
  

  | Variables Asch researched - looking further to what inc/dec conformity


  * Varied the number of confederates (1-15)

  * P: individuals more likely to conform in larger group up till a certain point

  * E: 3 confeds --> conformity rose to 31.8%, but more made little diff (so 3 or 4 is the optimal num of confeds)

  * E: High conformity if all/most are in agreement = Inc confidence in the correctness of the group, dec correctness of own ans

  * L: Suggets that most are sensitive to views of others as 1 or 2 is enough to sway some opinion
• Task Difficulty


  * P: Individuals are more likely to conform when the task is difficult

  * E: Asch made the standard line and the comparison lines more similar to each other in length - harder for geunine pp to see the difference

  * E: Conformity inc - the situation may be more ambiguous when the task becomes harder. As it unclear to the pps what ans is right they naturally look to others for guidance + assume they are right and themselves are wrong (ISI)

  * L: Suggets ISI is a major mechanism for conformity
• # Weakness - conformity - asch

  
  

  EVAL: Lacks ecological validity

  This tasked is based on people's perceptions of lines - these findings cannot be generalised to real life as it does not reflect the complexity of real life conformity. There may be many other confounding variables (affects IV + DV) and majorities exert influence irrespective of being a large group.
• # Weakness - conformity asch

  
  

  EVAL: Ethical issues

  Naive participants were decieved because they thought that the others involved with the procedure (confederates) were also genuine participants like themselves.

  * There could have been psychological harm as the participants could have been embarrassed after realising the true aims of the study
• # Strength - conformity - asch

  EVAL: Research support

  There have been other studies which support Asch's research for the effects of task difficulty. Todd Lucas et al (2006) asked pps to solve 'easy' + 'hard' math problems. Pps were given asnwers from 3 other students (confeds). The pps conformed more often when the problems were harder. Shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is 1 variable that affects conformity.
• Types of conformity


  1. internalisation

  2. Identification

  3. Complaince
• Internalisation


  Deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct (genuinely). This results in a private and a public change of opinions/behavior. The change is usually permanent as these attitudes become internalised and is part of the way the person thinks. It persists even in the absence of other group members.
• Identification


  Moderate type of conformity where we **act in the same way as the group because we value and want to be part of it**. Publicly change our opinions/behaviors to be accepted by the group EVEN if we **don't privately agree** with everything the group stands for.
• Compliance


  Supercial + temporary type of conformity - involves where we outwardly go along in with the majority view but privately disagree. We **simply 'go along with others' but in private don't change our opinions/behavior**. This change in our behavior only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us (/in the presence of).
• Explanations for conformity


  1. Normative social influence (NSI)

  2. Informational social influence (ISI)

  * The 2 process theory based one two central human needs: the need to be **right** (ISI) + the need to be **liked** (NSI)
• NSI


  An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked because we do not want to appear foolish and rejected.

  * Often leads to compliance (temporary change)

  * Emotional response rather than cognitive process

  * Most likely to occur in situations with strangers - feelings of concern + rejection. AND possibly with people you know as you value their social approval .
• ISI


  An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority as we are often uncertain if our behaviors/beliefs are right or wrong - we believe the majority is correct. e.g. answering a question in class.

  * We accept it because we want to be correct as well

  * May lead to internalisation
• EVAL: Research support for NSI

  One strength is that there is evidence that supports it as an explanation of conformity. For example when Asch interviewed his pps some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer + afraid of disapproval. When pps wrote their answers down, conformity dropped to 12.5% - because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure. Showing us that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them
• EVAL: Research support of ISI

  Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by **Todd Lucas et al (2006)** - found that pps conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when math problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easier, pps 'knew their own minds' but when it increased in difficulty the situation became ambiguous. Pps didn't want to be wrong and so they relied on ans given. Shows ISI is a valid explanation - results are what ISI would predict.
• EVAL: Counter to NSI + ISI

  A limitation is that it is unclear whether NSI/ISI is at work in research studies or in real life. For example, Asch found conformity is reduced when there is a **dissenter, they may reduce the power** of ISI (they provide an alternative source of social information) + NSI (provide social support). Therefore it is hard to separate them - they probably **operate together in most real-world conformity situations** (complementary not mutually exclusive mechanisms)
• EVAL: Individual differences in NSI

  A limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some are concerned with being liked by others - called nAffiliators in which they have a strong need for 'affiliation (want to relate to other people). **Paul McGhee + Richard Teevan (1967)** found that students who were nAfilliators were more likely to conform. Shows us that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.
• social roles


  The 'parts' people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behavior in each role - e.g. caring, obedient, industrious.
• Stanford prison experiment - aim

  To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles in a simulated environment, and specifically, to investigate why ‘good people do bad things’.
• Stanford prison experiement - conclusions

  * Guards behavior became increasingly brutal + aggressive - some enjoyed their power

  * Zimbardo ended the sutdy after six days instead of intended 14

  * He was advised by other psychologists that this was unethical (eval)

  * Social roles have a strong influence on individuals' behavior (prisoner - submissive/guard -brutal)

  *
• Stanford prison experiment

  EVAL: Control

  One strength of this experiment was that they had control over key variables. E.g. the selection of participants - by selecting emotionally-stable pps and randomly assigning them to roles it would rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If the pps behaved differently it would be to do with the role itself.

  * So this degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study - more confidence in drawing conclusions about the influences of roles
• Stanford prison experiment

  EVAL: Lack of realism

  One limitation would be that it did not have the realism of a true prison. **Ali Banuazizi and Siamak Mocahedi (1975**) argued that the pps were merely **play-acting** rather than genuinely conforming to their role. These 'performances' are based on the stereotypes the pps knew - e.g. one guard said he based his role on a brutal character from the movie** Cool Hand Luke**. Could also explain prisoner behavior.

  * Suggests the findings of this experiment tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
• # Strength?

  Stanford prison experiment

  EVAL: Counter to lack of realism

  Mark McDermott (2019) - argued that pps did behave as if the prison was real. e.g. 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life. Discussed how it was impossible to leave the experiment before there 'sentences' were over. 'Prisoner 416' - explained how he believed the prison was a real one but ran by psychologists rather than the government.

  * Suggests the experiment did replicate the social roles of prisoners + guards in real life - gives the study a high degree of internal validity
• EVAL: exaggerates the power of roles

  Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behavior (Fromm 1973). e.g. only one-third of guards actually behaved brutally, another third tried to apply rules fairly. The rest tried to help + support the prisoners (sympathised, offered cigs + reinstated privileges). Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.

  * Suggests Zimbardo overtstated his view + minimised the inlfuence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)
• EVAL: Ethical issues - Stanford prison experiment

  • Caused psychological harm to some participants - soon became distressed
  • Zimbardo was too involved in the study - played the role as superintendent
• Variables which affect conformity - inc/dec conformity

  • Unanimity
  • Group size
  • Task difficulty
• How did Asch investigate the variables that affect conformity in his study?

  • Group size - Asch varied the number of confederates/stooges
  • Task difficulty - Asch made the right answer less obvious by having lines of similar length
  • Unanimity - Asch sometimes arranged for a confederate to give a different answer to the majority/same answer as the real participant