Conformity

• define conformity


  conformity is a change in a person's behaviour/opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
• define deviating

  choosing to behave in a way that is not socially acceptable or that the majority of group member don't appear to favour
• what are the 3 levels of conformity

  1. compliance

  2. identification

  3. internalisation
• describe compliance


  a weak form of conformity:

  when you conform publicly but privately disagree with them
• describe identification


  temporary form of conformity:

  when an individual changes their private AND public views to fit in with a group they admire - if they change groups their views change too
• describe internalisation


  permanent change:

  the beliefs of a group are taken on and become a permanent part of that person's view, also known as 'conversion
• what is the dual process model

  explanations of why people conform:

  - normative social influence

  - informational social influence
• describe normative social influence

  - this occurs when we wish to be liked by the majority of a group, so we go along with them even if we don't agree

  - this is just following the crowd to fit in with the norm and be liked by the group
• describe informational social influence


  - this occurs because we want to be right, so look to the majority group for information as we are unsure how to behave

  - a person will conform because they genuinely believe the majority will be right
• what evidence supports ISI

  + Jeness jellybean study:

  guess number of jelly beans in a jar, write initial guess then discuss in a group, p's were then asked for individual estimates - tended to converge to a group norm = supports ISI, believed they were right

  However, Asch argued it tells little conformity because the situation was ambiguous, did they conform or agree with the majority
• what are weaknesses of explanations for conformity

  - clear individual differences:

  students in need of affiliation (associated to people) were more likely to conform, suggesting the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others, individual differences that account for how people respond

  - individual differences in ISI:

  repeated Asch's original study with engineering students in the UK, only 1 student conformed out of the 396 trials
• what was the aim of the Asch study

  To investigate if people will conform to group pressure
• what were the procedures of the Asch study (p's/task/trials)

  - 123 American male p's

  - volunteered in a study on visual perception

  - in groups with 7-9 confederates

  - task = which line (A,B,C) was the same as the stimulus line

  - 18 diff trials, in 12 trials confederates all gave same wrong answer

  - p = last or second to last
• was their a control group

  36 p's tested individually on 20 trials, to test accuracy of individual judgement
• what were the quantitative findings

  control = error rate 0.04%

  people conformed on 36.8% of all critical trials

  75% conformed at least once, 25% didn't conform at all

  5% conformed on every one of the 12 critical trials
• qualitative findings - what reasons did p's give for conforming


  Distortion of perception - p's thought their eyesight was deficient and the others could see something they couldn't (ISI)

  Distortion of action - p's wished to avoid ridicule so went along with the majority (NSI)
• what is a strength of Asch's study

  + laboratory study and a controlled observation: he could standardize procedures and keep outside influences/EV on behavior to a minimum, to specifically measure conformity
• what are the weaknesses of Asch's study

  (-) lab study: ecological validity could have been low, may not generalise

  (-) lacks mundane realism, the task was trivial, can it apply to a real situation examining conformity (jury deliberation)

  (-) demand characteristics: confederates weren't trained actors, maybe p's could tell

  (-) ethical issues:

  Failure to protect from harm - put under stress

  Deception - p's believed all people were real p's and were told it was a visual perception task

  (-) temporal validity: replication with engineering students, conformity decreased

  (-) population validity: sample was all males and all students, yet it measured conformity in all people
• what 3 factors affect conformity

  1. task difficulty

  2. group size

  3. unanimity of group
• what were the findings and conclusion from the Asch variation on task difficulty


  findings: making the task more difficult increased conformity

  conclusion: when the answer is less clear we are less confident in our own judgement so more likely to conform, showing it has an effect on conformity
• what were the findings and conclusion from the Asch variation on group size

  1 confederate: conformity = 3%

  2 confederates: 13%

  3 confederates: 32%

  Adding any more confederates made little difference to conformity

  conclusion: the size of the majority does have an increase on conformity rates but only up to a certain size
• what were the findings and conclusion from the Asch variation on unanimity

  - adding a correct confederate: conformity was 5.5% of the time

  - adding a confederate that disagreed with majority but still gave an incorrect line: conformity was 9%

  conclusion: breaking the unanimity of the group can reduce conformity, because the group's power is seen to reduce with dissenter - even if they don't agree with real participant
• what is a social role

  each social situation has a norm - an expected way for an individual to act, so it's the part we play as an individual
• what were the aims of the study

  To investigate how people would conform to the social roles of prisoner and guard in a simulation

  To test the dispositional vs situational explanation of brutality seen in prisons.
• what were the procedures of the mock prison

  mock prison: basement of Stanford Uni, 3 prisoners per cell

  - Prisoners = stayed in the prison 24 hours a day and followed a strict schedule of work assignments, rest, toilet and food breaks

  - Guards worked in 8 hour shifts, full uniform

  - cells: prison bars

  - solitary confinement: punishment, small completely dark room
• what were the procedures for the prisoners

  - Male p's volunteered to take part in a 1-2 week study, they'd be paid $15 a day.

  - the 24 students that were the most physically and mentally stable were selected: 12 to be guards

  12 to be prisoners

  - prisoners were arrested by the real police

  - dehumanisation was increased by prisoners wearing numbers and a nylon stocking cap (to simulate shaved heads).
• what were the procedures for the guards

  - Guards: khaki uniforms and sunglasses (to avoid eye contact) and were given handcuffs and truncheons

  - told to "maintain the reasonable degree of order within the prison necessary for effective functioning"

  - No physical violence to be used

  - Zimbardo = prison superintendent
• what were the findings about the guard role participants

  - quickly began to humiliate & punish the prisoners, became increasingly aggressive

  - big differences in how the guards acted - with "bad" and "good" guards

  - some volunteered to work extra shifts
• what were the findings about the prisoner role participants

  - initially prisoners rioted but this was dealt with by the guards

  - many prisoners began to show signs of mental & emotional distress - 1 had to be released after 36 hours, 3 more were released over the next couple days

  - they showed deindividuation by referring to themselves as numbers
• what were the overall findings of the study

  - the study was stopped after 5 days due to the harm it was having on prisoners and the increasingly aggressive guard behaviour

  - in later interviews both prisoners and guards were surprised by their uncharacteristic behaviour
• which hypothesis was supported by the findings

  the study supports the situational hypothesis, because the environment of the prison led to the uncharacteristic behaviour of the "normal/stable" p's.
• what type of conformity was shown


  identification
• what conclusions can be made about individual conformity

  -Individuals will conform readily to the roles given to them: even when the roles override their moral beliefs about their behaviour

  -Individual personality differences are important as there were differences in the guard behaviour. E.g not all of them were brutal - some were fair, some didn't exert much control.
• what is a strength of this experiment

  + control of variables: p's were randomly assigned roles, so p variables were spread between
• is there temporal validity of the study

  - lacks temporal validity: TV version in 2002, all p's were aware of being filmed: 9 prisoners and 6 guards chosen

  - the prisoners took over the prison and the guards were unwilling to impose authority, suggesting the findings may not apply today, maybe authority is seen differently 30 years later, HOWEVER there were a lot of differences to the original
• are there any ethical issues

  - highly unethical: protection from harm, prisoners suffered verbal abuse/humiliation, guards = guilty/responsible

  right to withdraw: rumour spread they were unable to leave and that it was a real prison

  deception: 'real' arrests

  HOWEVER, counterargument: all prisoners had the right to withdraw (4 did) and they had all consented to take part, even with a warning of the conditions. Also extensive debriefings were held and Zimbardo listened to advice from other psychologists to stop early
• what is a weakness of the study

  - little long term impacts on real prisoners, conditions are even worse today BUT helps to understand the brutality of Abu Ghraib
• what evidence supports ISI

  + Jeness jellybean study: guess number of jelly beans in a jar, write initial guess then discuss in a group, p's were then asked for individual estimates - tended to converge to a group norm = supports ISI, believed they were right

  However, Asch argued it tells little conformity because the situation was ambiguous, did they conform or agree with the majority
• What is a weakness with internal validity in this study

  aim of study was obvious, so its likely DC occurred and p's were role playing/giving the researchers what they wanted

  HOWEVER, there is lots of evidence that they became so immersed in the experiment that it can't have only been DC