Conformity

• Asch devised a procedure to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is certain (unambiguous)
• Standard and comparison lines:

  123 American men tested, each in a group with other apparent pps. Each pp saw 2 large white cards on each trial. The line X on the LH card is the standard line. The lines A B C are the three comparison lines - one of the comparison lines is always clearly the same length as X, the other two are substantially different. On each trial, each pp had to say out loud which of the comparison lines was the same as standard line
• Physical arrangement of pps in the study:

  pps tested in groups of 6-8

  only one was a genuine (naive pp) always seated last or second last in the group

  others were all confederates - all gave the same (incorrect) scripted answer each time
• Artificial stimuli and task:

  one limitation of Asch's research is that the task and situation were artificial

  PPs knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with what was expected (demand characteristics)

  Task of identifying lines was relatively trivial - therefore really no reason not to conform

  Fiske - Asch's 'groups were not very groupy' - did not resemble groups we experience in everyday life

  Means that the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important
• Research support for NSI

  One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.

  e.g. when Asch interviewed his PPs, some said the conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.

  When PPs wrote their answers down conformity fell to 12.5% - because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.

  Shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them (NSI)
• Strength of the SPE

  • Zimbardo had control over key variables
  • Selection of PPs - emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner
  • Ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation for the findings
• Guards and prisoners behaved very differently


  Their behaviour must have been due to the role itself
• Control over variables


  • Increased the internal validity of the study
  • Can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles over conformity
• Asch's PPs

  • American men
  • Women may be more conformist (concerned about social relationships and being accepted)
  • US is an individualist culture (people more concerned about themselves than social group)
• Collectivist cultures (China)


  Conformity rates are higher
• Asch's findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures
• Strength of Asch's research

  • Support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty
• Other studies


  • Lucas et al study
• Lucas et al study

  1. Ask PPs to solve 'easy' and 'hard' maths problems

  2. PPs given answers from three other (not actually real) PPs

  3. PPs conformed more often (agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder
• Task difficulty


  Affects conformity
• Lucas et al's study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested
• PPs with high confidence in their maths abilities


  Conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence
• An individual-level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables (e.g. task difficulty)
• Asch did not research the roles of individual factors
• Ethical issues:

  Asch's research increased our knowledge of why people conform, which may help avoid mindless destructive conformity. The naïve PPs were deceived because they thought the other people involved in the procedure (the confederates) were also genuine PPs like themselves. However, it is worth bearing in mind that this ethical cost should be weighed up against the benefits gained from the study
• Research support for ISI:

  Research evidence to support ISI from the study by Lucas et al. Found that PPs conformed more when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the PPs 'knew their own minds; but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous (unclear). PPs did not want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given. This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict
• Counterpoint: However, it is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or in real life). For example, Asch found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenter PP. The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they provide social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social information) Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations
• Individual differences in NSI:

  One limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity in every. Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others. Such people are called nAffiliators - they have a strong need for affiliation (want to relate to other people). McGhee and Teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. This shows 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
• Is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?

  The counterpoint suggests the distinction is not useful because it is impossible to work out which is operating. Lucas et al's findings could be due to NSI or ISI or both. However, Asch's research clearly demonstrates that both NI and ISI as reasons for conformity. For instance in terms of group unanimity, a unanimous group is a powerful source for disapproval. The possibility of rejection is a strong reason for conforming (NSI). But it is also true that a unanimous group conveys the impression that everyone is 'in the know' apart from you
• Lack of realism:

  One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the re
• Lack of realism:One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison. Banuazizi and Movahedi argues that PPs were merely playacting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. PP's performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.
• For example, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did. This suggests that the findings of the SPE tells us little about conformity to social on conformity
• Counter point:

  However, McDermott argues that the PPs did behave as if the prison was real to them. For example, 90% of the prisoners' conversations were about prison life. Amongst themselves, they discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their 'sentences' were over. Prisoner 416 later explained how he believed the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government. This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity
• Exaggerates the power of roles:

  ANOTHER LIMITATION IS THAT zIMBARDO
• Alternative explanation:

  Zimbardo's explanation for the guards' and prisoners' behaviour was that conforming to a social role comes 'naturally' and easily. Being given the role of guard means that these PPs will inevitably behave brutally because that is the behaviour expected of someone with that role. However, Reicher and Haslam criticise Zimbardo's explanation bacuase it does not account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards. They used social identity theory instead to argue that the 'guards' had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did