conformity

• define types of conformity

  compliance: publicly agree, privately disagree. associated with normative SI

  internalisation: publicly agree, privately agree. associated with informational SI

  identification: temporarily changing beliefs and behaviours whilst with a certain group but changing back to original after leaving the environment.
• define explanations for conformity - Normative

  publicly agreeing, privately disagreeing. conforming to join the majority either to make people like you or because you don't want to be the odd one out.
• define explanations for conformity - Informational

  changing your beliefs and behaviour because you believe others to be correct. happens when:

  1. you believe others to be experts
  2. the answer isn't clear
  3. there is a crisis and have to make a fast decision
• the aim of Asch's study (CONFORMITY)

  to what extent will people conform to a majority even when the answer is clearly wrong.
• outline Asch's baseline study (CONFORMITY)

  • 123 male American participants
  • groups of 6 - 8. real participant always seated last or penultimate.
  • in 12 trials, confederates gave the wrong answer
  • in 8 trials, confederates gave the right answer (more realistic)
• results of Asch's baseline study (CONFORMITY)

  • on average, pps agreed with confederates 36.8 % of the time
  • 25 % of pps never conformed
• variables investigated by Asch - Aim of the studies (CONFORMITY)

  to investigate variables that may increase or decrease conformity
• variables investigates by Asch - GROUP SIZE

  • varied group sizes from 2 - 16 (including PP)
  • found that conformity increased but to a certain point.
  • 3 confederates = conformity rose to 31.8
  • more than 3 = little difference
  • This suggests that most people are sensitive to the view of others = one or two confederates are enough to sway opinion.
• variables investigated by Asch - UNANIMITY

  • introduced presence of non-conforming confederate.
  • found that conformity decreased to less than 25 % of what it was when majority was unanimous.
  • This suggests that influence of majority depends largely on being unanimous.
• variables investigated by Asch - TASK DIFFICULTY

  • made task harder (made stimulus line and comparison line more similar)
  • found that conformity increased because the answer was unclear.
  • This suggests that's its natural to look to others for guidance and to believe they're right (informational SI)
• evaluate Asch's study (LIMITATIONS)

  • PPs knew they were being studied = demand characteristics and no reason to conform because there's no consequences.
  • artificial stimuli = low ecological validity because it didn't resemble real life so can't generalise to real situations.
  • PPs were American men = women may be more likely to conform because more concerned with social acceptance.
  • can't generalise to different cultures = study conducted in America, where the society is individualistic. so when the study is replicated on collectivist cultures, conformity increased.
• evaluate Asch's study (STRENGTH)

  • research that supports task difficulty is a variable affecting conformity: Lucas et Al. = PPs answered easy and hard maths questions and given wrong answers. Found that PPs conformed when task was harder.
  • HOWEVER, the study suggests conformity is more complex than Asch suggested: e.g. People with high confidence in maths skills = conformed less. Suggests that individual differences can influence conformity.
• Aim of the Stanford Prison experiment

  • conducted by Zimbardo
  • To investigate how people conform when given social roles
• define social roles

  the part you play as a member of society.
• define social norms

  unwritten rules on how to behave
• Outline Zimbardo's prison experiment

  • 21 male college students in America out of 75 volunteers
  • randomly allocated roles
  • lab experiment: fake prison but made realistic
  • meant to last 14 days, but ended at 6.
• outline roles in Zimbardo's prison experiment

  • prisoners: arrested in own homes and referred to as only their numbers.
  • guards: given sticks and sunglasses (to avoid eye contact)
  • Zimbardo: observed behaviours and played superintender
• results of Zimbardo's prison experiment - GUARDS BEHAVIOUR

  • harassed prisoners
  • completely in control
  • as prisoners became more submissive, guards became more aggressive.
• results of Zimbardo's prison experiment - PRISONERS BEHAVIOUR

  • dehumanised and became submissive
  • depended on guards
  • took rules very seriously = sided with guards when other prisoners didn't conform to rules
  • one PP left after 36hrs (4 others followed)
• conclusion of Zimbardo's prison experiment

  all PPs conformed to the roles they were given
• evaluate Zimbardo's prison experiment (STRENGTHS)

  • good external and ecological validity = study was made as realistic as possible
  • qualitative data collection method = interviews, questionnaires, observations so can be detailed.
• evaluate Zimbardo's prison experiment (LIMITATIONS PT 1)

  • PPs and Zimbardo became too engrossed in their roles = lacked control and didn't remain a neutral observer. Therefore influenced direction of experiment and the results were biased.
  • may have lacked internal validity = behaviours could be due to PPs individual personality not the environment.
• evaluate Zimbardo's prison experiment (LIMITATIONS PT 2)

  • difficult to replicate because it was unethical:

  1. lacked full informed consent. But couldn't be given because Zimbardo himself didn't know what would happen.
  2. PPs not protected from psychological or physical harm.