, Types of conformity
Conformity = a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure
from a person or group
1) compliance:
• change public but not private beliefs
• Temporary type of conformity
• Do this to t in with group of to avoid disapproval (NSI)
• Weakest form of conformity
2) identi cation:
• people act same way as group because they value the group and want to t in (NSI)
• Public change in behaviour to match group - they often conform to be like a role model or social
role they desire
• Public and private attitudes match but its short-lived
3) internalisation:
• you acccept the groups belief as your own
• Public and private attitudes match and its long lived
• Conform because you believe its correct (ISI)
• Strongest form of conformity
fi fi
, Explanations for conformity
Normative social in uence:
• people conform to be part of a majority and to t in
• Based on desire to be liked
• People want approval and acceptance from others to avoid rejection
• Often results in compliance or identi cation
Informational social in uence:
• people conform based on their desire to be right
• People conform to be right because they believe others know more and will give info about
how to behave - particularly in novel (new) or ambiguous (unclear) situations
• Often results in internalisation
-
+ ISI = supporting evidence - Lucas et al - —one problem for both is that they overlap
asked people to give answers to maths and work together to explain conformity - we
problems that were easy or di cult - ppts often look to eachother for info but partly
able to see answers of previous ppts - this becuase we dont want to be di erent -
supports ISI as ppts conformed to be right means it’s di cult to distinguish between
therefore increasing validity of ISI explanation why conformity occurs
+ Supporting evidence for both - Asch
variations
1) NSI = conformity increased when majority
are unanimous - people also reported they
conformed because they were afraid of
disapproval
2) ISI = conformity increased when task
di culty increased - so as the situation
became more ambiguous (unclear) people
looked to others for info about answers
This increases the validity of both NSI and ISI
as an explanation for conformity
ffi ffi fl fl ffiff fi fi
,🔥
🔥
Variables a ecting conformity
Asch (1951):
• procedure: 123 American male students told they were taking part in visual perception task
- in a lab - groups of 7 asked to judge lengths of lines - answer was easy and obvious, but
all but 1 were confederates that gave wrong answer of certain trials - the naive ppt got
12/18 right
• Findings: conformity rate was 33% (where naive ppt gave same wrong answer) on critical
trials, compared to control group of 0.7% error rate
• Conclusion: a majority can in uence a minority when in situations where answer is
unambiguous (clear)
Asch variations:
1) unanimity: agreement by all people involved
• conformity increased when majority are unanimous
• Asch manipulated this in rebel condition by having 1 confederate give the right answer -
conformity rate dropped from 33% to 5%
2)group size:
• conformity increases as group size increases, up to a certain point
• Asch manipulated this by having di erent number of confederates - 1 = 5%, 2 = 13% and 3
= 32% - after 3 the rate no longer increased
3) task di culty:
• conformity increased when task more di cult
• Asch manipulated this by making comparison lines more similar to stimulus
+ lab experiment - high control - can control —biased sample - only American male - lack
population validity - ndings may not represent
number of people present and where they are
conformity in females - Also, the US is an
sat - can establish cause and e ect and be
individualist culture and studies in collectivist
con dent that changes to the IV a ected the cultures, ie china, have found higher conformity
DV (rates of conformity) rates - this means Aschs’ ndings tell us little
about conformity in woman and people from some
cultures
— lab experiment - lacks ecological validity - task
was arti cial and not representative of everyday
conformity - hard to say if results can generalise to
conformity in real life
— = conducted in 1951 so lacks temporal validity -
Aschs ndings may be in uenced by social
attitudes in the 1950s. This was a time when
conformity was high and doing your own thing was
less socially acceptable - society has changed
since then, and people are less conformist today -
this means that ndings may not be relevant in
today’s society
fi fifi ffi fi fi flfi ff ff flff ff ffi
, 🔥
🔥 Conformity to social roles
Zimbardo - Stanford prison experiment (1971):
Aim: wanted to see if people would conform to a given social role
Procedure:
• mock prison in basement of Stanford university
• 21 male students - selected by psychologically testing them to show they are “emotionally stable”
• Random allocation of roles
• Sampling - looking for volunteers, adversitised in paper, paid $15 per day
• Once roles were allocated - prisoners: strip searched, given a uniform (smock), numbered (to make
them feel de-individuated) - guards: given mirrored aviators to make then seem more powerful,
military style uniform, given night sticks and handcu s and were told they had full control over
prisoners
Findings and conclusions:
• guards played roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
• Prisoners rebelled within 2 days - ie put bed against the door, wrecked cells, damaged uniforms,
screaming, shouting and swearing
• When prisoners rebelled - guards responded by making them feel powerless - e.g put them in hole
(solidarity con nement) and made them do menial tasks
• Prisoners became anxious, depressed and showed signs of psychological disturbance - one went
on hunger strike, one left early etc - this led to study stopping after 6 days (14 days were planned)
• Conclusion: most conformed strongly to their new role, guards became brutal and prisoner became
— sample bias - all males, students and volunteers =
+ allocation of ppts to roles - random may all have similar interests - lacks population
allocation - the guards and prisoners had validity and may not be relevant to females
those roles only by chance, so their behaviour
— ethical issues - right to withdraw (not made clear
was due to the role itself not their personalities
they could leave) and protection from harm (ppts
- removes bias and increases internal validity -
were psychologically distressed, ie one went on
can conclude social roles caused behaviour hunger strike) - however, 3 left during the study and
zimbardo followed up years after the experiment and
there were no negative long term a ects
— = zimbardo was a ppt observer - he acted as a
superintendent of the period - means zimbardos own
behaviour a ected the way in which events unfolded
- investigator bias - validity of ndings could be
questioned
— = lacked the realism of a true prison - ppts may
have been play acting - their performances may have
re ected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards
are supposed to behave - prisoners likely rioted
because they thought that is what real prisoners do -
tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual
prisons
fl
ff fi fi ff ff
Conformity = a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure
from a person or group
1) compliance:
• change public but not private beliefs
• Temporary type of conformity
• Do this to t in with group of to avoid disapproval (NSI)
• Weakest form of conformity
2) identi cation:
• people act same way as group because they value the group and want to t in (NSI)
• Public change in behaviour to match group - they often conform to be like a role model or social
role they desire
• Public and private attitudes match but its short-lived
3) internalisation:
• you acccept the groups belief as your own
• Public and private attitudes match and its long lived
• Conform because you believe its correct (ISI)
• Strongest form of conformity
fi fi
, Explanations for conformity
Normative social in uence:
• people conform to be part of a majority and to t in
• Based on desire to be liked
• People want approval and acceptance from others to avoid rejection
• Often results in compliance or identi cation
Informational social in uence:
• people conform based on their desire to be right
• People conform to be right because they believe others know more and will give info about
how to behave - particularly in novel (new) or ambiguous (unclear) situations
• Often results in internalisation
-
+ ISI = supporting evidence - Lucas et al - —one problem for both is that they overlap
asked people to give answers to maths and work together to explain conformity - we
problems that were easy or di cult - ppts often look to eachother for info but partly
able to see answers of previous ppts - this becuase we dont want to be di erent -
supports ISI as ppts conformed to be right means it’s di cult to distinguish between
therefore increasing validity of ISI explanation why conformity occurs
+ Supporting evidence for both - Asch
variations
1) NSI = conformity increased when majority
are unanimous - people also reported they
conformed because they were afraid of
disapproval
2) ISI = conformity increased when task
di culty increased - so as the situation
became more ambiguous (unclear) people
looked to others for info about answers
This increases the validity of both NSI and ISI
as an explanation for conformity
ffi ffi fl fl ffiff fi fi
,🔥
🔥
Variables a ecting conformity
Asch (1951):
• procedure: 123 American male students told they were taking part in visual perception task
- in a lab - groups of 7 asked to judge lengths of lines - answer was easy and obvious, but
all but 1 were confederates that gave wrong answer of certain trials - the naive ppt got
12/18 right
• Findings: conformity rate was 33% (where naive ppt gave same wrong answer) on critical
trials, compared to control group of 0.7% error rate
• Conclusion: a majority can in uence a minority when in situations where answer is
unambiguous (clear)
Asch variations:
1) unanimity: agreement by all people involved
• conformity increased when majority are unanimous
• Asch manipulated this in rebel condition by having 1 confederate give the right answer -
conformity rate dropped from 33% to 5%
2)group size:
• conformity increases as group size increases, up to a certain point
• Asch manipulated this by having di erent number of confederates - 1 = 5%, 2 = 13% and 3
= 32% - after 3 the rate no longer increased
3) task di culty:
• conformity increased when task more di cult
• Asch manipulated this by making comparison lines more similar to stimulus
+ lab experiment - high control - can control —biased sample - only American male - lack
population validity - ndings may not represent
number of people present and where they are
conformity in females - Also, the US is an
sat - can establish cause and e ect and be
individualist culture and studies in collectivist
con dent that changes to the IV a ected the cultures, ie china, have found higher conformity
DV (rates of conformity) rates - this means Aschs’ ndings tell us little
about conformity in woman and people from some
cultures
— lab experiment - lacks ecological validity - task
was arti cial and not representative of everyday
conformity - hard to say if results can generalise to
conformity in real life
— = conducted in 1951 so lacks temporal validity -
Aschs ndings may be in uenced by social
attitudes in the 1950s. This was a time when
conformity was high and doing your own thing was
less socially acceptable - society has changed
since then, and people are less conformist today -
this means that ndings may not be relevant in
today’s society
fi fifi ffi fi fi flfi ff ff flff ff ffi
, 🔥
🔥 Conformity to social roles
Zimbardo - Stanford prison experiment (1971):
Aim: wanted to see if people would conform to a given social role
Procedure:
• mock prison in basement of Stanford university
• 21 male students - selected by psychologically testing them to show they are “emotionally stable”
• Random allocation of roles
• Sampling - looking for volunteers, adversitised in paper, paid $15 per day
• Once roles were allocated - prisoners: strip searched, given a uniform (smock), numbered (to make
them feel de-individuated) - guards: given mirrored aviators to make then seem more powerful,
military style uniform, given night sticks and handcu s and were told they had full control over
prisoners
Findings and conclusions:
• guards played roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
• Prisoners rebelled within 2 days - ie put bed against the door, wrecked cells, damaged uniforms,
screaming, shouting and swearing
• When prisoners rebelled - guards responded by making them feel powerless - e.g put them in hole
(solidarity con nement) and made them do menial tasks
• Prisoners became anxious, depressed and showed signs of psychological disturbance - one went
on hunger strike, one left early etc - this led to study stopping after 6 days (14 days were planned)
• Conclusion: most conformed strongly to their new role, guards became brutal and prisoner became
— sample bias - all males, students and volunteers =
+ allocation of ppts to roles - random may all have similar interests - lacks population
allocation - the guards and prisoners had validity and may not be relevant to females
those roles only by chance, so their behaviour
— ethical issues - right to withdraw (not made clear
was due to the role itself not their personalities
they could leave) and protection from harm (ppts
- removes bias and increases internal validity -
were psychologically distressed, ie one went on
can conclude social roles caused behaviour hunger strike) - however, 3 left during the study and
zimbardo followed up years after the experiment and
there were no negative long term a ects
— = zimbardo was a ppt observer - he acted as a
superintendent of the period - means zimbardos own
behaviour a ected the way in which events unfolded
- investigator bias - validity of ndings could be
questioned
— = lacked the realism of a true prison - ppts may
have been play acting - their performances may have
re ected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards
are supposed to behave - prisoners likely rioted
because they thought that is what real prisoners do -
tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual
prisons
fl
ff fi fi ff ff
