Conformity

Seite 1

What is social influence?

Social influence refers to the idea that our thoughts, feelings, actions, beliefs and perceptions are influenced by social groups and social interactions. Social influence can take many forms such as conformity, obedience, resistance and so on.

Seite 2

Conformity

Conformity is a type of social influence whereby an individual or individuals yield to group pressure, real or imagined. Conformity can result in a change in a person's behaviour, beliefs or both.

Conformity is a necessary part of everyday life, and in society we comply to unwritten rules which we all know and follow. Conformity can be applied to the following circumstances:

Pushing into a queue alone, and staying in the queue for at least two minutes

Singing loudly on a public bus

Positioning yourself 6 inches from someone else's face during conversation

Laughing at a funeral

In all of these above situations, we would be breaking the rules, or norms, of society. When we do that we may get menacing looks or disapproving comments from people which can leave us feeling embarrassed and humiliated. This fear of embarrassment and humiliation keeps us in line and ensures that we conform.

Group norms

Group norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate the behaviour of members in the group. Sanctions exist to punish those who do not comply. We can identify group norms when they are violated:

Waiting your turn

Remaining quiet on the public bus

Maintaining interpersonal distance

Assuming a somber attitude and remaining respectful at a funeral

Seite 3

Types of conformity

There are 3 types of conformity, as distinguished by Kelman (1958)

Internalisation

(See: Sherif 1936)

Internalisation occurs when there is a true change of private beliefs to match those of the group. Therefore, the beliefs and norms of a group are internalised by an individual and subsequently become a part of the individual's own beliefs.

An example of this would be if an individual were to become a vegan after spending extended periods of time with people who adopt vegan beliefs. In this example, the individual make take on board and agree with the beliefs, thus conforming to the group.

Identification

(See: Zimbardo 1971)

Identification occurs when an individual accepts the norms of a group both privately and publicly, because he/she values membership of that group. An individual will conform due to a social role they have within a given social setting. Often the individual will change his or her actions to conform with their given social role, but it does not necessarily have an impact upon the individuals personal view or opinions.

An example of this type of conformity would be a young teenage boy choosing to take on the clothing and beliefs of the 'Goth' culture beacuse all of his friends do. Once he leaves college or school, this is likely to change again.

Norms and values taken on this way are not as strong as those acquired through internalisation, and can easily shift around as we find ourselves getting older and becoming members of different social groups.

Compliance

(See: Asch 1951)

An individual may agree publicly with a group, adjusting behaviour to match, but may still privately disagree.

An example of this would be in a class debate, whereby an individual chooses to hide his or her true beliefs in order to conform with the beliefs of the majority and the people around them.

Seite 4

Sherif (1936)

One of the earliest studies into conformity was carried out by Sherif (1936).

Measured

Individual and group judgments in an ambiguous situation.

Technique

In a dark room without any frame of reference, a stationary point of light can appear to move. This is called the 'autokinetic effect'. Participants were placed in a dark room with a stationary light, and were asked to estimate how far it had moved. They were then asked again as a member of a group.

Findings (Individuals)

Individuals all established a personal norm that guided their judgments about how far the light had moved. Each individual had their own estimate of distance, based off of personal experience.

Question

Would each individual's judgments become more similar when making estimates as part of a group?

Findings (Group)

The group formed a new estimate of how far the light had moved that was unique to the group, and different from the judgement of ech individual. Over time the group agreed on how far the light had moved, despite the fact that it had not actually moved, and that they all had different personal estimates.

Rohrer et al (1954) used Sherif's method and found that the group answers from the experiment persisted, even up to a year after the experiment when the group no longer existed. This shows the strength and persistence of group norms. This study can be used to demonstrate a type of conformity known as internalisation, meaning all members of the group believed and accepted that the group answer was correct. They internalised the answer and it became a part of their own individual belief systems.

Seite 5

Identification and the Zimbardo experiment

As is already established, we know that identification occurs when a person takes on the values or behaviours of a group he admires. He may be a member of the group, or simply feel an affiliation with the group and its members. The norms of a group can be seen in the roles that members within that group play. We expect certain roles to have specific characteristics that apply to that role, rather than the person playing the role.

An example of this would be expecting a nurse to show more kindness and compassion when compared with a prison officer.

One of the most controversial studies ever carried out in social psychology was Philip Zimbardo's (1971) prison experiment.

The experiment was commissioned to look at the psychological effects of prison life and to find out if the brutality often found within American prisons was related to the personality traits of the guards, or simply due to their assigned roles.

Zimbardo set up a mock prison in his university's basement and observed the participants through hidden cameras. The experiment was due to last 2 weeks, but was halted after just 6 days. Many believe it should have been stopped even sooner.

Zimbardo's (1971) prison experiment

Participants: 24 volunteer male students

State of mental and physical health of participants: Only the most stable participants were selected. (None with any violent or anti-social characteristics)

Allocation to roles: Random allocation to either a 'prisoner' or a 'guard' role

Clothing: Guards given unifroms and nightsticks. Prisoners dressed in smocks and referred to by number

Instructions to guards: Keep prisoners under control without using physical violence

Behaviour of guards: Escalating punishments, including humiliation, sleep deprivation and even force feeding

Duration of experiment: 6 days

Findings: Situations enforce conformity. Those assigned the role of guard abused their power and behaved violently, despite being selected for their stability and knowing they were taking part in a study.

Commentary/Evaluation

Zimbardo and Ruch (1977) believe that the behaviour can be explained by the strong 'prisoner' and 'guard' stereotypes we see portrayed in the media, both in real life and fictional situations. Secondly, the mock prison setting in which the study took place added to the behaviour by providing cues for the role-play exercise.

Ethical issues

Savin (1973) was a harsh critic of this study as he claimed that the benefits resulting from the experiment did not outweigh the terrible distress caused to the participants.

Zimbardo defends his study, arguing that all the participants were told exactly what was going to happen, and all signed consent forms. They were given a thorough debrief, and Zimbardo felt certain that the distress caused by the experiment did not cause any long term effects in the participant's real lives.

Historical and social context

Zimbardo's original experiment was replicated in 2002 by Haslam and Reicher, and broadcast on British TV as a programme called 'The Experiment'. The findings were not entirely in line with the original.

In the remake:

Guards were uncomfortable about exercising power and therefore never formed any group identity

Prisoners were unhappy about the inequalities they faced. They supported each other, shared a social identity and challenged the guards' authority

Eventually a commune of ex-guards and ex-prisoners was established but broke down because some members wished to revert to a more tyrannical regime. At this point the study was ended.

These altered findings may be because social roles and the way we view authority and human rights has changed a lot since the 1970's. Reicher and Haslam (2006) believe the study proved that a shared social identity doesn't always lead to negative outcomes. Zimbardo (2006) points out that the participants in the modern study were more streetwise than his original participants. In addition, all modern participants had microphones and were aware they were being filmed at all times, unlike in the original study. This could have affected their behaviour.

Seite 6

Variables affecting conformity (Solomon Asch 1951)

Asch (1951)

As part of a study into the factors affecting conformity, Asch conducted a series of experiments where he asked participants to complete what appeared to be a relatively simple perceptual task. He believed that there was a difference between what he called 'true' conformity and compliance. Compliance is shown when an individual 'goes along' with a group because he wishes to be accepted or does not want to appear foolish. It involves public conformity, even though the individual's private beliefs do not change. He claimed that the power of social influence would be better demonstrated if he were able to get participants to conform by complying with an obviously incorrect answer during a simple task, simply because the rest of the group did the same.

Asch told 123 male students that they were taking part in a test of visual perception. He split them into groups of 7-9 and then seated them around a table. They were shown two cards with lines printed on them. The first card had a single line, and the second card had three 'comparison lines' of different lengths. The group was asked to match the length of the line on the first card to one of the comparison lines on the second card. The task was simple and obvious.

However, not all participants were genuine. Some were 'non-participants' who had been briefed by the experimenter to answer in a particular way. In psychology, these non participants are called 'confederates'.

There were 18 trials for each group. Asch used confederates to give obviously wrong answers in 12 of the 18 trials. The naive (true) participant was seated second to last around the table so that they would hear the incorrect answers repeatedly before giving their own answers.

The naive participants gave the same, incorrect answers as the group in 37% of trials. There were however, variations between individuals. The most conformist (5%) conformed on every single trial, whereas 25% remained independent, despite the pressure of the group to conform. During the experiment some individuals began showing signs of stress and self consciousness. After the experiment, they were asked why they had conformed. Some stated they had doubted their own perceptions, and others admitted to not wanting to stand out from the group.

Findings

Between each trial, a few changes were made and these changes provide the following findings:

A non-unanimous majority - When one other person gave the correct answer during the trial, conformity dropped to just 5%. This shows the effect of having social support

Size of the majority - When the majority consisted of just 2 people, conformity was 12.8%. When the majority was increased to 3, conformity also increased to 32%. Increasing the majority size thereafter had no effect

Losing a partner - The naive participant had a 'partner'. A confederate who originally gave the correct answer, but then conformed to the majority by changing answer during the middle of the trial. This resulted in conformity of 28.5%

Gaining a partner - One of the confederates switched his answer during the trial, giving the correct answer halfway through. This resulted in conformity of 8.7%

Nature of the task - By making the length of the lines more similar, the task was made harder. This resulted in higher levels of conformity.

Mode of response - When participants were asked to write down their answers rather than saying them out loud, conformity rates dropped to a low level

Methodological issues

This type of laborotary experiment isolates a particular aspect of behaviour for study. It is well-controlled and easy to replicate, however, the groups and tasks are artificial and lack ecological validity.

Ethical issues

There was deception used, and the true nature of the experiment was never revealed to the participants. This means fully informed consent was not possible. There was some stress caused to the participants during the study.

Seite 7

Variations on Asch

Variations of the study were created to look at the factors affecting conformity,

Imagined pressure

Crutchfield (1955) replicated Asch's experiment, but sat participants in booths so they couldn't see each other. They could however, see what they thought were the other participants responses on a control panel in front of them. Despite the lack of face-to-face contact, Crutchfield still recorded conformity rates of 30%. He too found that conformity increased as the task was made more difficult. This shows us that imagined pressure is enough to get people to conform.

Historical context

Asch's experiments were conducted in 1950's America, during the McCarthy era. The high levels of conformity during the experiments were seen by some as a reflection of American society in the 1950's. Some psychologists have called the Asch phenomenon a 'child of its time'. Nicholson et al (1985) replicated the experiments under the same conditions and found lower levels of conformity. This may be due to changes in American society, but may also be due to other factors such as individual differences in the participants used.

Despite these differences, most social psychologists still agree with Elliot Aronson (1999): "Decades of research indicate that conformity for normative reasons can occur simply because we do not want to risk social disapproval even from people we will never see again"

Cultural context

Asch's experiments have been replicated 13 times, all in countries outside the USA. In the original experiment, conformity was found to be 37%. In experiments conducted on students in other countries and societies, the conformity rates varied considerably, from 14% in Belgium to 51% in Zimbabwe. The main reason given for these variations in cultural differences, and the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures. In individualist cultures, high value is placed upon individual freedom, self-help, self-reliance and individual responsibility. In collectivist cultures they place more emphasis on collective responsibility, group co-operation, collective effort and dependance on social groups. As a result of these differences, group pressure to conform is higher in collectivist cultures.

Gender differences

Asch and Crutchfield both used males participants, meaning nothing was learned about conformity in women. For many years it was assumed that women were more conforming than men, however no research has found this to be true. Eagly and Carli (1981) found that male researchers were more likely to find higher levels of conformity in women than female researchers were. This may be due to male researches using tasks that were more familiar to male participants.

Sistrunk and McDavid (1971) conducted an experiment in which male and female participants were asked to identify different objects while subject to group pressure to give the wrong answer and therefore conform. Some participants were given traditionally male items (e.g wrench), some were given traditionally female objects (e.g types of needlework) and some were given 'neutral' objects (e.g identifying rock stars). Conformity for men was highest on female items, and conformity was highest for female on male items, but conformity on neutral items were similar for both sexes. This indicates that there are no significant differences between levels of conformity behaviour between men and women.

Seite 8

Factors that can affect conformity

Size of the group - The larger the group, the more likely an individual is to conform, though the extent to which this may occur in unknown

Unanimity and social support - A unanimous response is more likely to lead to individual conformity

Difficulty of task - When individuals are uncertain of their answers, they are more inclined to look to others for conformity

Privacy - Individuals are less likely to conform if they are able to make choices or decisions in private

Status of the group - The higher the status of the other group members, the more likely an individual is to conform

Culture - A collective culture results in higher levels of conformity among individuals

Age - Younger individuals are more likely to conform than older ones, due to factors such as life experience and confidence

Features of the situation an individual is presented with - Individuals are more likely to conform if the situation they are presented with is ambiguous to them

Seite 9

Why do people conform?

Dependency

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) explain conformity in terms of a 'dual-process dependency model'. This model suggests that people conform for two distinct reasons: for social approval and for information.

They then went on to describe two types of social influence:

Normative influence: The need to be accepted and belong. This leads to compliance and is shown in Asch's experiment. An individual will make a decision according to the influence of the majority because of its normative influence. The individual will act according to the behaviour of the majority because they do not wish to be left out or be a part of a minority. This stems from a basic need to be accepted and belong.

Informational influence: The need to get it right and gain information. This leads to internalisation and can be seen in Sherif's experiment. In this case an individual will be presented with a situation whereby they do not know which is the correct answer, so they will look to the majority opinion and assume it to be correct. An example of this would be not knowing who to vote for during a general election, and voting according to majority opinion.

Evaluations on Deutsch and Gerard

Deutsch and Gerard's explanation has been criticised because it implies that normative and informational influence are independent and work separate from one another. Insko et al (1983) have shown that often the two types of influence can work together to increase conformity. If someone were to give an answer in class based on the majority opinion of their classmates, this could be due to normative influence in that they do not wish to be rejected by the group and appear different. It could also be due to informational influence because she may begin to question why so many people are giving different answers to herself and begin to ask herself what they know that she doesn't. The two types of influence can be seen working together in variations of Asch's experiment where the tasks are made harder, increasing the informational influence and increasing conformity.

The explanation has been further criticised by those who point out that it fails to recognise the importance of belonging to a group. Many studies have shown that conformity to group norms may persist for many years, even if the group has since disbanded. This doesn't seem to fit either definition of influence.

Social identity theory

Social identity theory was created by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. It claims that apart from the level of personal identity, an individual will also hold multiple social identities. A social identity is a the individual's view of themselves derived from perceived membership of social groups. (Hogg and Vaughan, 2002) In other words, it is the 'Us' when associated with internalised group membership.

Social identity theory suggests that group membership creates in-group self-categorisation. This self-categorisation can be seen in the minimal group studies of Tajel and Turner (1986) in which the mere act of individuals categorising themselves as group members is sufficient enough to lead the to display in-group favouritism.

Once an individual sees themselves as belonging to a group, they will begin to seek positive self esteem by perceiving strong similarities between themselves and other group members, and they will begin to find differences between their own group and other similar groups. This is often seen between rival football fans. This tendency to maximise perceived differences is known as the meta-contrast principle. In other words, people's sense of who they are is defined in terms of 'we' rather than 'I'.

Social groups provide us with norms or rules which regulate the behaviour of the group members. Not only will members conform to such norms whilst within the group, but they will also refer to them and abide by them, even when the other group members are no longer present.

Evaluations of social identity theory

Social identity theory has a considerable impact on social psychology. It is tested in a wide range of fields and settings, including prejudice, stereotyping, negotiation and language use. The theory also has implications for the way people deal with social and organisational change.

This approach can be used to explain the findings of Rohrer's follow up to a Sherif-type study where participants conformed to group norms, even up to a year after the group was disbanded and the study was ended.

It also has support form Asch-type studies in which participants are allowed to write down their responses, rather than calling them out. This removes normative influence. In these cases, conformity is dependant on the nature of the group. If the confederates are perceived to be a part of the same 'in-group' as the naive participant, conformity is higher than if the participant views the confederates as belonging to the 'out-group'. (Hogg and Turner, 1987)

Seite 10