Social Influence
Conformity
Conformity to group roles (Zimbardo)
Explanations for obedience
Dispositional explanation for obedience
Resistance to social influence
Minority influence
Role of social processes in social change
,Conformity
Types and explanations
What is conformity
How we behave is governed by social influence (influence of others) & social norms, a set of
“rules” people follow when in public to fit in - called conformity (or majority influence).
There are 3 types of conformity, Kelman 1958.
1. Compliance
a. Changing outward behaviours
b. Inward beliefs remain the same Short-term
2. Identification conformity
a. Changing outward behaviours
b. Changing personal beliefs –whilst w a certain group
3. Internalisation
a. Changing outward behaviours Long-term
conformity
b. Changing personal beliefs
Jenness, jellybean experiment
A If pressure from a group could change individual judgements
P Pts guessed how many beans in the jar
Put into groups of three, asked to revaluate the no. of jelly beans
F Almost all pts changed their answers
Males average change = 256 / Female average change = 382
C People conform to social pressure
This task lacked mundane realism and was ambiguous w no clear answer
Asch (1950s)
This study was a response to the criticism around Jenness’ study (it was too ambiguous)
A If people would conform when clearly wrong answer given by confederates
P 1. Naïve pts placed alone in group of confederates (6-9 people)
2. Told taking part in a study on vision
3. Shown picture of 4 lines, had to identify which 2 were same length
4. Naïve pts was placed 2nd to last
5. Asked around 18 times (confederates gave incorrect answer on 12 trials)
F Pts conformed on around 31% of the critical trials
74% conformed on at least one critical trial
25% never conformed
C Would conform, even when they knew they were right
Also conducted w no confederates (control), found > 1% of pts gave an incorrect answer
Most pts said they knew answers were incorrect but went w to fit in or because they thought
they would be ridiculed.
, Variables affecting conformity:
1. Group size
Varied confederates from 1-15.
Found curvilinear relationship, conformity
agreed with group size, but only up to a point.
W 3, conformity = 31% but then levels
2. Unanimity
Introducing another confederate who gave a different answer (right or just another different),
reduced naïve pts’ conformity rates.
Decreased to less than ¼ of the level it was when the majority was unanimous
Prescence of a dissenter allowed pts to behave more independently.
3. Task difficulty
Conformity increased – unclear what the answer is and so it is natural to look to others for
guidance and assume they are right (ISI)
Evaluation:
Ethically questionable – deception / informed consent
o Bogdonoff found increased blood pressure and heart rate
o Required deception to achieve valid results
o Many pts reported feeling stressed when disagreeing w majority
But Asch interviewed after to overcome this issue
Lack of cultural relativity, ethnocentric
o Bond and Smith, 133 studies in 17 countries
o Found higher levels of conformity in collectivist
Lack of temporal validity, reflected norms of American society
o During 1950s (cold war) important to be ‘American’
To avoid label as a communist
o No conformity in British students, Perrin and Spencer 1981
Lack of ecological validity
o Artificial task, pts knew they were in a study
o May have shown demand characteristics
o Fiske “groups were not very groupy”
Does not resemble groups in everyday
o Limited application to real-world situations
Lack of population validity, androcentric
o 123 male students from colleges in America
o Endler 1965 – women conform more
o Therefore, example of beta bias
Research support, Lucas
o Asked pts to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths qs
o Given answers from 3 other students
Conformity
Conformity to group roles (Zimbardo)
Explanations for obedience
Dispositional explanation for obedience
Resistance to social influence
Minority influence
Role of social processes in social change
,Conformity
Types and explanations
What is conformity
How we behave is governed by social influence (influence of others) & social norms, a set of
“rules” people follow when in public to fit in - called conformity (or majority influence).
There are 3 types of conformity, Kelman 1958.
1. Compliance
a. Changing outward behaviours
b. Inward beliefs remain the same Short-term
2. Identification conformity
a. Changing outward behaviours
b. Changing personal beliefs –whilst w a certain group
3. Internalisation
a. Changing outward behaviours Long-term
conformity
b. Changing personal beliefs
Jenness, jellybean experiment
A If pressure from a group could change individual judgements
P Pts guessed how many beans in the jar
Put into groups of three, asked to revaluate the no. of jelly beans
F Almost all pts changed their answers
Males average change = 256 / Female average change = 382
C People conform to social pressure
This task lacked mundane realism and was ambiguous w no clear answer
Asch (1950s)
This study was a response to the criticism around Jenness’ study (it was too ambiguous)
A If people would conform when clearly wrong answer given by confederates
P 1. Naïve pts placed alone in group of confederates (6-9 people)
2. Told taking part in a study on vision
3. Shown picture of 4 lines, had to identify which 2 were same length
4. Naïve pts was placed 2nd to last
5. Asked around 18 times (confederates gave incorrect answer on 12 trials)
F Pts conformed on around 31% of the critical trials
74% conformed on at least one critical trial
25% never conformed
C Would conform, even when they knew they were right
Also conducted w no confederates (control), found > 1% of pts gave an incorrect answer
Most pts said they knew answers were incorrect but went w to fit in or because they thought
they would be ridiculed.
, Variables affecting conformity:
1. Group size
Varied confederates from 1-15.
Found curvilinear relationship, conformity
agreed with group size, but only up to a point.
W 3, conformity = 31% but then levels
2. Unanimity
Introducing another confederate who gave a different answer (right or just another different),
reduced naïve pts’ conformity rates.
Decreased to less than ¼ of the level it was when the majority was unanimous
Prescence of a dissenter allowed pts to behave more independently.
3. Task difficulty
Conformity increased – unclear what the answer is and so it is natural to look to others for
guidance and assume they are right (ISI)
Evaluation:
Ethically questionable – deception / informed consent
o Bogdonoff found increased blood pressure and heart rate
o Required deception to achieve valid results
o Many pts reported feeling stressed when disagreeing w majority
But Asch interviewed after to overcome this issue
Lack of cultural relativity, ethnocentric
o Bond and Smith, 133 studies in 17 countries
o Found higher levels of conformity in collectivist
Lack of temporal validity, reflected norms of American society
o During 1950s (cold war) important to be ‘American’
To avoid label as a communist
o No conformity in British students, Perrin and Spencer 1981
Lack of ecological validity
o Artificial task, pts knew they were in a study
o May have shown demand characteristics
o Fiske “groups were not very groupy”
Does not resemble groups in everyday
o Limited application to real-world situations
Lack of population validity, androcentric
o 123 male students from colleges in America
o Endler 1965 – women conform more
o Therefore, example of beta bias
Research support, Lucas
o Asked pts to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths qs
o Given answers from 3 other students
