Conformity Flashcards
Describe Kelman’s 3 types of conformity
Kelman suggested 3 ways people conform to the opinion of majority:
Compliance:
-Going along with others to gain their approval or avoid their disapproval
-When exposed to majority view/actions, individuals engage in social comparison in which they adjust their own views/actions to fit in with them - so fitting in is what motivates conformity
-private attitude doesn’t change, only what they express in public changes
-particular behavior/ opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops
Internalisation:
-occurs when person genuinely accepts group norms bc it’s consistent with their own
-involves engaging in validation process (examining own beliefs to see if own beliefs are correct or majority’s belief is correct.)
-conformity motivated by belief that majority are correct
(more likely if conformed to them in past)
-results in attitude change publicly and privately.
Identification:
- sometimes we value something about a group so we conform to their opinions and behaviour so we are associated with them
- identification has both elements of internalisation and compliance:
- we accept attitudes as right and true (identification)
- purpose of conforming is to be accepted (compliance) - publicly agree, even though privately disagree
Describe the 2 process theory
- designed by Deutsch and Gerard arguing 2 main reasons people conform based on 2 central human needs: need to be liked (NSI) and need to be right(ISI).
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
-The desire to be liked
-Humans are a social species and have a fundamental need for social companionship and a fear of rejection.
-So, it is an emotional process
-To conform with the expectations of another, to avoid sanctions from them or to achieve specific goals
-Most likely to result in compliance - conform to majority in public, although it won’t endure over time, as privately disagree
-NSI likely to occur in unambiguous situations
Informational Social Influence:
- The desire to be right
- When an individual believes others in group are right so they are likely to go along with them
- So, it is a cognitive process
- Internalisation rather than compliance because view changes privately and publicly
- Most likely to occur when:
- situation is ambiguous - answer not clear
- situation s a crisis - rapid action is required
- believe others are experts - more likely to know what to do than us.
Evaluate the two process theory designed by Deutsch and Gerard
Shultz et al - hotel guests exposed to message “75% of guests choose to reuse their towels each day”, reduced their own towel use by 25% compared to the control group who just received environmental benefits of reusing towels.
-Supporting evidence of normative social influence because guests conform to the norm, in order to avoid social disapproval. This case, NSI more influential than ISI. This is real world application bc helps improve environment + save money for business, so high external validity
Lucas et al asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or difficult. Greater conformity to wrong answers when they were difficult rather than they were easy. Most true for students who rated mathematical ability as poor.
-supporting evidence of informational social influence bc students conform in order to be right in ambiguous situation. Students poor maths ability saw others as expert so more likely to conform. Real life application: use “expert” in positive way to help under performing students as we know they will look to them
Conformity dropped to 5.5% when there is one other dissenting participant in Asch’s experiemnt.
-opposes two process theory which suggests conformity is either due to ISI or NSI bc could be due to both processes being involved. E.g dissenter could reduce power of NSI (bc dissenter provides social support) or dissenter may have reduced power of ISI (bc alternative source of info). This means it’s not possible to know whether ISI or NSI is at work.
Some research shows that NSI doesn’t affect everyone in the same way. Some people are less concerned with being liked by others. Those who care more are called nAffilators. McGhee and Teevan found those with high need for affiliation, more likely to conform. Therefore, indicates that for some people desire to be liked is the underlying reason they conform more than it is for others. So, Deutsch + Gerrard failed to consider indivual differences in two process theory.
Describe Asch’s conformity experiment and his results
PROCEDURE:
123 American male participants, each tested individually in a group with 6-8 confederates. Had to identify which ‘comparison line’ out of the 3 had same length as standard line - 2/3 substantially different so unambiguous. First 6 trials C correct answers but then started to make errors, Cs instructed to give same wrong answer in 12 critical trials.
FINDINGS:
- out of 2 critical trials - ppts gave wrong answer 36.8% of time
- 25% ppts never conformed in any trial, 75% ppts conformed at least once
- control condition, without C giving wrong answer, ppts only made mistakes 1% of the time
- when ppts interviewed after, most said conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
Describe the variables affecting conformity that Asch found
GROUP SIZE:
- when size of majority was less than 3, conformity levels in critical trials were less than 15%
- but when majority increased to 3%, conformity rose to 36.8%
- addition of further confederates made little difference to rate of conformity
- suggests small majority isn’t sufficient for influence to be exerted but no need for majority more than 3.
UNANIMITY:
- support from another ppt or confederate instructed to give right answer throughout caused conformity to drop from 36.8% to 5.5%
- partner gave different answer from majority that was still wrong, conformity rates would drop to 9%
- shows when unanimity of group is broken, their power reduces and therefore desire to be liked (NSI) is reduced - majority is seen as inconsistent.
TASK DIFFICULTY:
- made comparison lines more similar in length to standard line to increase difficulty Conformity increased.
- suggests ISI plays greater role when tasks becomes harder because situation becomes more ambiguous so more likely to look at others for guidance, as individuals assume others are right and they are wrong.
Evaluate Asch’s conformity experiment
Beneficial bc helps us understand how we behave in group decisions. More we understand it, the more we can help to use it in our favour or reduce it, especially when it has negative effects.
- e.g help improve justice system, we know conformity can affect jury decisions which should be impartial
- reduce towel usage in hotels study, helps environment
- anti-smoking campaign
Cost of experiment is that it used deception, which is an ethical issue bc ppts are naive to the real aim of the experiment, in order to prevent demand characteristics.
-Some ppts were uncomfortable with experiment because it caused acute psychological harm
-Therefore, benefits outweigh costs because minute psychological distress outweighed by the positive impacts that have been caused by Asch’s research.
Perrin + Spencer carried out an exact replication of original Asch experiment using engineering, maths and chemistry students. Ppts conformed to the majority when they gave the wrong answer 1 out of 396 trials.
- Perrin + Spencer’s research opposes Asch’s, it indicates conformity levels lower nowadays which indicates Asch’s study lacks historical validity.
- McCarthyism is the practice of accusations of disloyalty, subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. This was prominent in the 1940s-1950s (time period of Asch’s experiment) could be argued higher levels of conformity bc ppl were more worried to stand out due to McCarythism.
- Other researchers say Asch’s research was ‘a child of its time
Asch’s study used an artificial stimuli so it’s not realistic, as this is not a task ppts would do in real world.
- There were no consequences to conforming during task although in real life there would be. E.g conforming on jury could lead to false imprisonment for someone else as well as lifelong guilt for the individual who conformed.
- Therefore, it lacks generalisability + lacks ecological validity
Describe Zimbardo’s prison experiment and his results
PROCEDURE:
- Zimbardo set up mock prison in Standford Uni. Advertised for male students who would be paid $15 day, selected those deemed ‘emotionally stable’.
- students randomly assigned roles of prisoner or guard
- Added to realism by arresting ‘prisoners’ from their huse by local police. Prisoners blindfolded, strip-searched, issued uniform and number.
- Guards had own uniform including handcuff, keys + mirror shades. Told they had complete power over prisoners, could even decide when they went toilet
- prisoners’ routines heavily regulated, 16 rules they had to follow which were enforced by guards. Prisoners’ names never used only their numbers.
- Zimabrdo himself took role as superintendent. experiment planned to last 2 weeks, only lasted 6 days
RESULTS:
-Over first few days grew increasingly tyrannical and abusive. Forced prisoners to do degrading activities e.g wash toilets with bare hands + hug each other naked.
Issued frequent headcounts, sometimes at night to show prisoners they were being monitored all the time
-Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment by guards: ripped uniforms, barricaded themseleves in cells + shouted + swore at guards
-Guards employed divide + rule tactic - playing prisoners against each other
-1 p released first day, showed signs of psychological disturbance: rage, uncontrollable crying + disorganised thinking
-2 more p released 4th day. One asked for parole rather than to withdraw shows disillusioned
-Prisoner 416 hunger strike - g tried to force feed + put him ‘in the hole’ the next day. This prisoner shunned by other ps not seen as hero
-Guards became increasingly sadistic + cruel, Prisoners increasing passive and accepting
Conclusion:
- experiment revealed its the power of situation that influences people’s behaviour
- Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison
Evaluate Zimbardo’s Prison experiment
Benefit of Standford Prison experiment helps us to understand why people commit harmful acts by conforming.
- E.g from 2003 - 2004, US Army Military Police committed serious human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Prisoners tortured physically and sexually, routinely humiliated and some were murdered.
- According to Zimbardo, people conform not bc they are a “few bad apples” but due to the power of the situation, so US soldiers didn’t oppress Iraqi’s bc they have sadistic personalities but bc the situation created this behaviour
- Zimbardo even defended one of the US guards in jury with this explanation
Cost of this experiment was that it breached the following ethical guidelines:
- right to withdraw (as Zimbardo made some of the prisoners feel they couldn’t)
- Privacy
- Protection against psychological and physical harm (e.g the prisoner e.g prisoner who left on first day who Zimbardo said acted mentally disturbed at first and then started believing himself, as well as officers who may feel long term regret.
- However, these ethical regulations were breached to maintao=in internal validity and mundane realism
- Also, Zimbardo lacked objectivity due to his role as superintendent
Therefore, benefits outweigh costs bc psychological harm wasn’t as long-lasting, as they only went through it for 6 days. Experiment allowed them to learn about themselves. Outweighed by fact that it has helped us understand why past, as well as present atrocities occur + has provided real-world applications.
- Banuazizi + Mohavedi argue ppts were merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Their performances were based on their stereotypes of how stereotypes and guards are supposed to behave.
- limitation of Zimbardo’s study is that demand characteristics were present, as ppts were playing into stereotypes of how they thought their roles would behave.
- e.g David Eshelman said he behaved similar to how prison officer in an action movie that he watched acted
- -So, some researchers argues it lacks internal validity
- But Zimbardo argues that he found 90% of prisoner’s conversations were about prison life. Prisoner 416 expressed view was real one but was one run by psychologists instead of government. so it does have high internal validity.
Only a minority of guards (about 1/3) behaved in a brutal manner, another 1/3 were keen on applying the rules fairly, the rest tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating priveledges.
-Limation of prison experiment bc Zimbardo didn’t consider dispositional characteristics, as guards had the free will to be brutal or not.
Indicates judgement can override the social conformity of the situation
