Conformity- SOCIAL INFLUENCE

• Conformity


  The act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms
• Variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated
• Asch (1953) Baseline procedure


  1. Participants say the length of a line

  2. Participants (confederates) give answers that clearly disagree with the majority
• Asch found that the naive participants conformed 36.8% of the time
• 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer (i.e. never conformed)
• 75% conformed at least once
• Variables investigated by Asch


  • Group size
  • Unanimity
  • Task difficulty
• Group size


  1. Asch varied the number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15 (total group size between 2 and 16)

  2. The relationship between group size and level of conformity was curvilinear

  3. If there were two confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%

  4. When there were three confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%

  5. Above three confederates, conformity rate levelled off. Adding more than three confederates made little difference
• Unanimity


  1. Asch introduced a dissenting confederate- sometimes they gave the correct answer and sometimes a different wrong answer (but always disagreed with majority)

  2. In the presence of a dissenter, conformity reduced on average to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous
• Task difficulty


  1. Asch made the line-judging task harder by making stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length

  2. Conformity increased
• One limitation is that the situation and task were artificial. Participants knew they were in a research study (demand characteristics) The task was trivial and there was no reason not to conform
• Another limitation is that Asch's findings have little application. Only American men were tested by Asch. Neto (1995) suggested that women might be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships (and being accepted). Also the US is an individualist culture and studies in collectivist cultures (e.g. China) have found higher conformity rates (Bond and Smith 1996).
• One strength is other evidence to support Asch's findings. Lucas et al. (2006) asked participants to solve 'easy' and 'hard' maths problems. Participants were given answers that falsely claimed to be from three other students. The participants conformed more often (agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder.
• Conformity is more complex than Asch thought. Lucas et al's study showed that conformity was related to confidence (high confidence-less conformity). This shows that individual-level factors interact with situational ones but Asch did not investigate individual factors.
• Asch's research raises ethical issues. Asch's research increased our knowledge of why people conform which may help avoid mindless destructive conformity. But when participants are deceived they cannot give their informed consent to take part and may have a negative experience.
• Types of conformity


  • Internalisation - think the group is right, results in private and public change
  • Identification - value the group, publicly change opinions/behaviour even if don't privately agree
  • Compliance - temporary agreement, only superficial change
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  About a desire to be right, occurs in ambiguous situations
• Normative social influence (NSI)


  About norms, a desire to behave like others and not look foolish, occurs in unfamiliar situations and with people you know
• Asch (1951) found many participants conformed rather than give the correct answer because they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote down answers (no normative pressure) conformity fell to 12.5%
• Lucas et al. (2006) found participants conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems were difficult. With easy problems, participants knew their own minds.
• It is unclear if NSI or ISI operate in studies and real life. A dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (social support) or reduce the power of ISI (alternative source). Therefore ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in most real-world situations
• Some people are concerned about being liked by others - affiliators who have a strong need for 'affiliation' (need to relate to other people). McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
• The Stanford prison experiment (SPE)


  • Zimbardo et al (1973) set up a mock prison to investigate the effect of social roles on conformity
  • 23 male student volunteers were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner
  • Guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs, etc.
  • Prisoners were strip-searched, given a uniform and number (no names, this encouraged de-individuation)
  • Guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
  • Prisoners rebelled within two days, guards retaliated with force
• The study was stopped after six days instead of the planned 14 days. Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour-most conformed strongly to their role. Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive.
• Emotionally-stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard or prisoner. The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance so their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities
• Banuaziri and Mohaved (1975) suggest participants were play-acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave
• Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences (personality)