Psychology: Conformity

• Conformity: a change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of pressure
• Compliance: where we go along with majority view, privately disagree, only lasts while with group
• Identification: where we act with a group because we value it and want to be part of it, we don't neccessarily agree with majority
• Internalisation: where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct, leads to a permanent change even when the group is absent

Informational social influence (ISI): need to be right, agree with opinion because we believe it is correct

Normative soical influence (NSI): need to be liked, agree with opinion because we want to be accepted

Research support: Lucus et al: easy / hard maths questions, greater conformity to wrong answers when q's were harder, shows people conform when they don't know the answer (ISI)

Individual differences: some people less concerned with being liked so affected less by NSI, conformity is higher for those who have a need to be in relationships with others

Asch's research (1950s)

Participants: 123 American male undergraduates

Procedure

• 2 cards: one with a standard line, one with 3 comparision lines
• 1 of comparison lines same length as standard, other 2 lines different lengths
• Participants tested with 6-8 confederates and asked which line matched
• When confederates made errors, they all gave the same wrong answer

Findings & Conclusion

• Participants gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time
• Overall 25% did not conform on any trials
• 75% conformed at least once
• Most said they conformed to avoid social rejection
• People conform when they want to be accepted

Evaluation

Artificial task: weakness because task has no significance to participant, no reason to conform so lacks generalisability, can't relate to real situations

Demand characteristics: participants knew they were in a research study so may have just gone along with demands of situation, can't generalise findings to real situations

Child of its time: study carried out in 1950s, a conformist time in America, normal to conform, Perrin and Spencer repeated original study with engineering students - only 1 conformed out of 396 trials, possibly more confident in maths skills but means findings aren't consistent

Asch's variations

• Lines more similar in length: less obvious so conformity increased
• Ps more confident in maths ability (Lucas et al.) conformity decreased (<--->)
• Group size: with 1 confed conformity rate only 4%, 2 = 14%, 3 = 31% (originally 36.8%)
• 1 confed. gave correct answer, conformity decreased by 25%
• 1 confed, gave different wrong answer, conformity decreased by 25%

Stanford Prison Experiment: (conformity to social roles)

Procedure:

• Mock prison set up, volunteer students randomly assigned roles; prisoners or guards
• Prisoners arrested, searched, given a uniform and a number - realistic
• Guards given uniform, handcuffs, keys etc
• Guards worked 3 shifts, prisoners had 16 rules to follow - enforced by guards
• All student volunteers had to be emotionally stable and willing

Findings & Conclusion:

• Study stopped after 6 days (intended 14), prisoners rebelled against harst treatment
• Prisoners ripped uniforms, shouted and swore at guards
• Some released early due to psychological disturbance
• Prisoners became subdued, depressed, anxious
• All participants conformed to their roles and acted as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study

Evaluation:

• Strength: high level of control
• lab study and role assigned randomly
• reduces individual personality differences, increases internal validity
• confident conclusions can be made

• Weakness: lack of realism
• guards possibly responding to situation
• may have just been playacting rather than conforming
• means findings can't be related to real situtions

• Weakness: major ethical issues
• participants suffered distress, depression, anxiety
• participants' health not fully considered

• Zimbardo was the researcher but also played the role of superintendent
• Participant asked to leave, responded as superintendent only concerned with running prison
• Responsibility as researcher towards his participants not considered
• Could have caused harm because he was playing his 'role'

Procedure

• Teacher (only real participant) told learner has learnt a set of word pairs
• Told to give learner an electric shock when wrong answer given
• Fake shocks increased 15V each time
• Learner and teacher in different rooms, teacher could only hear learner, not see
• Learner reacted as if shocks were real
• Experimenter prompted teacher to continue with shocks
• After voltage reached 300V learner pretended to be unconscious, no sound made

Findings & conclusion

• No participants (teachers) stopped below 300V
• 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300V
• 65% continued to highest level of 450V
• Participants shows signs of extreme tension / sweating, trembling, stuttering, lip biting
• 3 had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'
• People will obey a person in authoriy (experimenter in uniform)

Evaluation:

• Weakness: lacks internal validity
• Orne and Holland; participants only continued because they guesses it wasn't real
• confident conclusions can't be made

• Strength: high external validity
• Research to support findings, Hofling et al - 21 / 22 nurses obeyed to unjustified demands
• Obedience to authority can be generalised to other situations

• Weakness: ethical issues
• Participants were led to believe that assignment was random and shocks were real
• Participants were decieved, trust was betrayed

• Proximity: learner and teacher in same room
• Lowered obedience rate from 65% to 40%

• Location: from Yale University to run down building
• Lowered obedience rate from 65% to 47.5%

• Uniform: experimenter called away, conducted by member of public
• Lowered obedience rate from 65% to 20%

Evaluation

• Strength: research to support situational variable
• Bickman, people more likely to obey security guard than jacket and tie
• Uniform represents authority so people obey

• Weakness: lack internal validity
• Participants guessed situation was fake
• unclear if results are due to obedience or if participants knew they were being decieved and acted accordingly