conformity

conformity

what is conformity?
1. is a form of majority influence and refers to the yielding to group pressure and adopting the ATTITUDES, BELIEFS AND BEHAVIOURS of people in the reference group (eg a circle of friends or peers) in response to imagined or real group pressure.
2. two types of conformity
  1. COMPLIANCE
    1. THE PERSON CONFORMS PUBICLY (OUT LOUD) WITH THE VIEWS OR BEHAVIOURS EXPRESSED BY OTHERS I THE GROUP BUT PRIVATELY DISAGREE. EG, THEY MAY LAUGH A JOKE THAT OTHERS ARE LAUGHING AT WHILST PRIVATELY NOT FINDING IT FUNNY. IN SPITE OF DISAGREEING WITH THE GRIUP AND BEHAVINGIN A WAY THAT COSISTENT WITH THE GROUP NORM IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED, THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT DO NOT CHANGE.
  2. INTERALISATION
    1. INTERNALISATION IS WHERE THE BEHAVIOUR OR BELIEF OF THE MAJORITY IS ACCEPTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL AND BECOMES APART OF HIS OR HER OWN BELIEF SYSTEM. ITS THE MOST PERMANENT AND DEEPEST FORM OF CONFORMITY EG. A STUDET WHO BECOMES A VEGETERIAN WHILSTS HARING A FLAT WITH AN ANIMAL RIGHT S ACTIVIST AT UNI MAY RETAIN THOSE VIEW TO CONTINUE AND BE VEGETERIAN FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. PEOPLE CAN INTERNALISE THE VIEWS OF A LARGER GROUP (MAJORITY INFLUENCE) OR OF A SMALL GROUP OR INDIVIDUL (MINORITY INFLUENCE) EG SHERIF.
EXPLAINATIONS OF WHY PEOPLE CONFORM.
1. INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
  1. when in a new or ambiguous situation we look to see what others are doing and gain information from them and copy/conform to it. since this often occurs when we doubt our opinions or ability its more likely to lead to a change in our personal opinions- we believe in what others do or say and as a result we dont just comply to the behaviour alone, we also change our ow point of view.
2. NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE
  1. we conform to the group and the social norms to be accepted and to avoid riducle/ rejection from them, this occurs when we think a group can reward us (accept us) or punish us (reject us), this may lead to a change in behaviour but is much less likely to lead to a change in our personal opinions therefore its mor elikly to lead to COMPLIANCE.
study on internalisation
1. sherif (1935)
  1. aim; to ivestigate conformity in an ambigious situation using autokinetic effect
  2. method; 1. participants (forty male students not majoring in psychology) were shown a light individually and were asked to estimate how far and in which direction it moved. an average was calcuated for each individual paticipant.
    1. 2.participants then were put into groups of 2 or 3 and were grouped with people who gave quite different estimates to themselves
      1. 3. each group member continued to be asked to give individual estimates aloud (in their groups) they were NOT told to reach a group decision and the individuals were tested again on their own.
  3. findings; at first each subjects estimates varied widely but over 100 trials they settled down to a narrow range with a consistent central value (showing conformity
    1. after a few exposures the judgments of the group tended to converge
      1. when subjects again gave their individual estimates their judgements were now ore like the group norm.
        conclusion; we look to others to provide a social standard r norm in ambiguous situations (informational social influence.
  4. evaluation of sherif study
    1. strengths
      1. as its a lab experiment it has high control over extraneous variables and we can establish a cause and effect relationship this is a strength as the rsearcher can be more confident that its the iv thats causing the dv and therefre giving the results validity.
    2. weakness
      1. one weakness of this study is it has lowe ecological validity as its in a artifical setting. this is a limitation as results may not help us to understand conformity influence in real life and therefore the results cant be fully generalised to real life settings.
ASCH (1956) STUDY ON COMPLIANCE
1. AIM; to see if participants would yield(conform) to majority social influence and give incorrect answeres in a situation were the answers always obvious
2. method; participants were seated in a room and asked to look at three lines of different lengths the participants task was to call out in turn which of the three lines were the ame length as the standard ine. the correct line was always obvious. all participants expect one were confederates. the confederates were instructed to give the same incorrect answer 12 out of the 18 trials. the genine participant caled out his anwser last but one
3. finding; the particiants conformed to the unanimous incorrect answer onn 37% of the critical trials. 26% of participants never conformed and 74% coformed at least once
4. conclusion; even in unambiguous situations, there may be strong group pressure to conform, especialy if the group is a unanimous majority. ths demonstrates compliance to majority
5. evaluation of asch study
  1. strengths;
    1. as its a lab experiment it has high control over extraneous variables and can establish cause and effect relationship, this is a strength as the researcher can be more confident that its the IV that causing the \DV therefore giving the results validity.
  2. weakness
    1. the study has low ecological validity as the task and enviroment were very artifical the results may not help us to understand conformity in real life and therefore the results cant be fully generalised.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Pia Ricioppo over 10 years ago