conformity 1-4

AO3 weakness

• P: Asch's research is oversimplified
• did not take into account cultural differences in conformity

• E: Smith and Bond (2006) meta-analysis
• 133 Asch type studies across 17 countries
• individualist cultures- 25%, collectivist cultures- 37%
• Markus and Kitayama (1991) conformity is viewed more favourably in collectivist cultures

• C1: reduces the external reliabilty of the study
• sample only consists of male US undergraduates

• C2: this means that Asch did not take into account the variable of culture
• reduces generalisability of results for conformity in other cultures
• could suggest that Asch measured cultural differences rather than conformity

situational factors in obedience

proximity

• teacher and learner in same room- obedience level fell to 40%
• experimenter absent- obedience level fell to 21%

location

• lab in Yale university- gave participants confidence in integrity of the people involved
• moved to a run-down office- obedience level dropped to 48%

uniform

• Bushman (1988):
• female researcher stopped people in the street and asked them to give money to a male researcher for a parking meter
• female researcher dressed in police uniform (72%), business executive (48%), beggar (52%)

AO1

Asch (1956):

• 123 male US undergraduates (volunteers)
• all participants were confederates except one
• asked to identify matching line lengths
• conformity was measured on 12 critical trials where all confederates gave the same wrong answer
• average conformity rate was 33%
• less than 1% of participants gave a wrong answer in control situation with no confederates
• majority of participants conformed to avoid disapproval, but did not believe it was the correct answer

AO3 strength

• P: a strength of Asch's study is that the methodology used a non-ambiguous situation to prove conformity

• E: the critical trials had right or wrong answers
• confederates would either answer with the right answer or a wrong answer
• participants would either get the answer right or conform and get the answer wrong
• conformity could be proven as less than 1% of answers given in control situations were wrong

• C1: this shows that Asch's study was internally valid
• it suggests that conformity was the only reason for wrong answers given by participants

• C2: this means that Asch's study can be used to prove the validity of conformity through normative social influence

AO1

conformity can be shown through two explanations;

normative social influence:

• individuals conform with the expectations of the majority
• gain approval or avoid social disapproval
• usually compliance; only conform publicly and not privately

informational social influence:

• individuals conform as a result of a desire to be right
• they look to others to gain information or evidence about reality
• more likely when the situation is ambiguous
• an example of internalisation as they believe the others are correct

AO1

Haney et al. (1973):

• prison set up in Stanford university, CA
• 24 male student volunteers assigned randomly the role of guard or prisoner
• both given uniforms for their role
• Zimbardo as prison superintendent
• some guards became increasingly sadistic and abusive towards prisoners
• most prisoners became increasingly passive
• some prisoners started to rebel
• conformed to their roles even when they were unaware of being watched
• 5 prisoners were released throughout the study
• both guards and prisoners conformed to their social roles

AO1

Milgram (1963):

• controlled observation
• situational variable affecting obedience
• 40 participants at a time (volunteers)
• two confederates- experimenter and 'learner' (47 year old man)
• participant believed they were randomly chosen as teacher
• teacher tested learner on his ability to remember word pairs
• teacher gave learner a shock for every wrong answer increasing by 15 volts each time
• learner banged on the wall and did not respond after 300 volts
• experimenter encouraged teacher to go on if they asked to stop the experiment
• 65% of participants continued all the way to 450 volts
• all participants continued to 300 volts; 12.5% of participants stopped there

AO3 strength

• P: a strength of the research is that Zimbardo meticulously planned his research to ensure maximum controls were in place

• E: uniforms were given to both guards and prisoners
• loss of individual identity
• makes prison setting more realistic
• participants were physically and psychologically screened before the experiment
• reduces individual differences
• makes it easier to randomly assign roles

• C1: this shows that the research has high internal validity
• easy to identify that the reason for their conformity was the institution

• C2: this means that the theory of conformity is valid
• the experiment can be used to support the theory

AO3 weakness

• P: Zimbardo's research can be argued to be very controversial

• E: ethical issue of lack of protection from harm
• Zimbardo's dual role as prison superintendent meant that there was not a researcher who was able to protect the participants
• ethical issue of right to withdraw
• through Zimbardo's role as prison superintendent, participants were made to feel as if they could not leave

• C1: this shows that the results of the experiment are unreliable
• the experiment cannot be ethically repeated to be proven as reliable

• C2: this increases reliability of the theory of conformity
• ethical issues like those in the experiment are likely to occur in real life
• this means that the experiment is more ecologically valid

AO3 strength

• P: a strength of Milgram's observation is that he conducted variations of the study to show situational factors in obedience

• E: Milgram studied proximity, location and uniform
• Bushman (1988) found a higher level of conformity (72%) to a researcher dressed as a police officer
• Blass (1999) studied nine other replications of Milgram's study which had male and female participants; eight out of nine found no evidence of gender difference, consistent with the findings of Milgram's study with female participants

• C1: this increases the reliability of the study
• there is supporting evidence for more than one situation

• C2: this increases the overall ecological validity of obedience
• can be applied to real life

variables affecting conformity

group size:

• very little conformity when majority consisted of just one or two confederates
• conformity rose to 30% with a majority of three confederates
• further increases did not increase conformity significantly

unanimity of the majority:

• conformity dropped to 5.5% when participant had support for the correct answer
• conformity dropped to 9% when unanimity was broken with a different incorrect answer

difficulty of the task:

• conformity increased when the correct answer was made less obvious
• Lucas et al. (2006) found that the influence of task difficulty is moderated by the self-efficacy of the individual

AO3 weakness

• P: a weakness of Milgram's observation is the lack of realism in the situation

• E: Orne and Holland (1968) suggests that participants in psychological studies have learned to distrust the experimenter about the aim of the study
• a demand characteristic in Milgram's study is the calm reaction from the experimenter, leading participants to believe that the shocks must not be real

• C1: this means that the observation is less internally valid
• results from participants who were 'doubters' (Taketo Murata) cannot be used to show conformity

• C2: this suggests that Milgram's study shows obedience to an experimenter rather than showing conformity in general