Stmaryspsyweb's Weblog | Just another WordPress.com weblog



[pic]

Definition

“Conformity is a type of social influence in which individuals change their attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to adhere to existing social norms” Baron et al, 2006

Explanation of social norms (you must learn this for small mark answer)

➢ Social norms are one of the key causes of why people conform to the majority view.

➢ Social norms (group norms) are the standard rules of behaviour for individuals in any given society/culture.

➢ Unspoken rules develop spontaneously, unconsciously usually through force of habit and if you do not conform to these rules you will be excluded…

➢ For example, behaviour at a bus stop, the type of clothes that are popular, the type of drinks to be drinking, the type of music to listen to, the places to travel in the world

Jenness (1932)

The first informal experimental study of conformity where participants were asked to estimate how many beans the bottle contained. When asked for a group estimate they almost all changed their individual guesses closer to the group estimate. This persisted when asked again individually. They conformed.

NB: Remember for every study in this topic and obedience try to give a methodological and ethical issue (or advantage) for each study

|Methodological issues |Ethical issues |

| | |

|Problems with sample – size/gender/age etc |For each ethical issue explain why it was an issue in the study and how the |

| |experimenter could overcome it next time. |

|The study conducted was a lab experiment, thus all variables were controlled and so | |

|it is an excellent way to establish a cause and effect relationship (state the cause| |

|and effect in the particular study) |Protection from participants |

| | |

|However a problem with all lab experiments is that they lack ecological validity – |Confidentiality |

|i.e. the behaviour displayed by participants in the controlled situation is not | |

|typical of how they would behave in situations in real life |Withdrawal from investigation |

| | |

|Demand characteristics may have changed their behaviour to suit what they think the |Informed consent |

|experimenter wants or to little cues that are suggestive in the environment. | |

| |Deception |

|The study may not have controlled for extraneous variables (certain variables may | |

|have been ignored about the participants used which affected the overall outcome of |Debrief |

|the study) such as individual differences. Some may have had a higher IQ or had | |

|higher self esteem which influenced whether they conformed or not. | |

Study to support conformity in ambiguous situations

SHERIF (1935)

Aim Sherif wanted to investigate if people conform to group norms when they are in an ambiguous situation.

Method In this experiment a single point of light in a dark room seems to move as there is no point of reference (the autokinetic effect) but actually the light is perfectly still.

Sherif put participants into the darkened room. He told them that a light would appear in front of them for almost an instant and then be extinguished. Then another light would appear and then be extinguished. He asked them to tell him how far the light had moved. However, the light had not moved at all, but because the participants had been asked the specific question “how far…” they assumed it had and gave a distance. It was found that individuals on their own in the room gave estimates about how much the light moved from about 20-30cms or 60-80cms. The influence of group norms was investigated by Sherif putting three people in a room together. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when they were alone was very similar and then one person whose estimate was very different. Each person in the room had to say aloud their estimate with the participant who had previously given the most different estimate last to speak aloud their answer..

Results Sherif found that over numerous estimates of the movement of the light, the group would almost certainly converge. The person whose estimate was very different from the other two would conform to the other two in the group.

Conclusion The results showed that the ‘deviant’ in the group conformed to the majority view. This took place over a small number of trials in the autokinetic effect.

Evaluations The significant difference between Jenness and Sherif’s study is that Jenness requested a ‘group answer’ whereas Sherif did not.

The group size only included three people – some would argue this really isn’t a group.

Ambiguous situation – there was no right or wrong answer – makes it difficult to draw conclusions about conformity, i.e. what would they do in an unambiguous situation?

Also the fact Sherif said he would move the light was a leading question so they thought the light moved which is why they gave that answer.

Any other methodological problems of laboratory experiments.

Ethical considerations of deception, protection from harm, consent are especially easy to use here.

There are two types of conformity

Internalisation

► This is where the individual accepts the majority group view and believes that the view is correct. We can call this ‘private acceptance’ where a person conforms to another persons view because they believe them to be right.

► The Sherif experiment is a good example of internalisation or private acceptance. In ambiguous situations people rely on each other to decide what is right and then stay with that view.

► Can you think of any real life scenarios where you look around you have accepted the majority view.

Compliance

► Is where a person conforms to other peoples behaviours or attitudes but does not believe them to be correct. This is when you go along with other people’s views or what they do to ‘keep the peace’ or not cause disagreement/conflict. It is also known as ‘public compliance’ because you are agreeing with others publicly even if you think they are wrong.

► The Asch study is a good example of this – as hardly any of them actually believed the majority view

Asch (1951)

Criticised Sherif for not demonstrating whether people would still conform in an unambiguous situation – i.e. one where there is an obvious right or wrong answer. Asch conducted a pilot study by asking 36 people to match the target line with one of the comparison lines. In all trials they got the answer correct – this was definitely an unambiguous task

Aim To investigate whether participants would yield (conform) to the incorrect majority even when the correct answers were always obvious.

Method The line judgement task seven male stooges and one naive participant were asked to say aloud which three comparison lines were the same length as the target line.  The correct answer was always obvious. The genuine participant called out his answer second last.

Results In some trials the accomplices gave all the same wrong answers.

Asch measured how many times the naïve participant gave a correct answer or conformed to the incorrect majority. Just over 22% of participants gave the correct answer on all 12 occasions. This means that 78% of participants gave at least one incorrect response in line with the majority. About 5% gave the same answer as all the incorrect majority on all occasions.

CONCLUSION Even in unambiguous situations, there may be strong group pressure to conform, especially if

the group is a unanimous majority

EVALUATIONS Male sample

► The time and place when the research was carried out might have affected the findings. ‘A child of its time’ in the 50’s people were more conforming than they are today

► Lacks Ecological validity

► Demand characteristics

► Lack of Informed consent – did not exactly know what was happening

► However Deception is necessary if we want their behaviour to be more realistic

► Protection from harm was an issue as those with low self esteem may have been affected however this was overcome by debriefing

Asch interviewed the participants afterwards and came up with a number of explanations as to why the participants conformed.

During debriefing the participants who agreed with the incorrect majority gave a number of reasons:

► Did not want to spoil the results for experimenter

► Did not want to be different

► Actually they made the correct judgements

► Suffered from eyestrain

Other explanations for conformity in psychological terms:

People conform to social norms of society so that they know how to behave in certain situations. However other explanations have also been provided to explain conformity. Deutsch & Gerard (1955) put forward a distinction between normative and informational social influence.

1. Normative social influence

This is where people conform to maintain harmony, avoid rejection and to gain approval from the group. The result – people publicly conform to the group however they privately disagree or hold different views with the group. This is exactly what happened with Asch’s participants, they wanted to please the experimenter or maintain group harmony.

Real life examples of normative social influence include wearing certain clothing fashions even though you might not really be a fan of that particular clothing item, i.e. Goths wearing black or chavs wearing hoodies.

|Study to support: |

| |

|AIM Anderson et al (1992) attempted to find whether a women’s ideal body size was related to the reliability of food supply in a |

|culture. It was hypothesised that in cultures where women had a reliable food supply the ideal body size would be ‘slender’. |

| |

|METHOD Women from 54 different cultures were asked about their ideal body size in relation to the categories of slender, moderate |

|and heavy body size. Each culture was categorised as having a reliable, moderately reliable and unreliable food supply. |

| |

|RESULTS It was found that women in countries where the food supply was unreliable regarded a heavy body size as ideal whereas in |

|cultures where food is reliable they preferred to have a slender body size. |

| |

|CONCLUSION: Cultural norms concerning women’s ideal body size are influenced by factors |

|such as reliability of the availability of food. Where food supplies are very |

|reliable there is evidence of normative social influence. |

| |

|EVALUATIONS |

| |

|Try to think of some yourself! |

2. Informational social influence

This is conformity to the majority as a result of information (things you did not know, persuasive arguments etc) presented to you by others in a group. This form of influence leads to private acceptance of the group majority. The group is believed to be correct in what they say or do. Private acceptance or internalisation of views results in persons repeating those behaviours. This doesn’t happen with normative influence. Informational social influence is more likely to occur in ambiguous situations such as the autokinetic effect where there is uncertainty – people have a need to be sure or to be right.

|Study to support |

| |

|AIM Baron et al (1996) hypothesised that conformity would be greater where people would have less confidence in their judgement. |

| |

|METHOD In a novel variation of Asch’s experiment participants were shown a drawing of a person and then asked to match this drawing|

|to a picture of three other drawings. In one condition the drawing was shown for just half a second, in the other condition the |

|picture was shown for 5 seconds. Before being asked to match the drawing, participants heard the wrong judgements of two |

|assistants of the experimenters. |

| |

|RESULTS Conformity of the wrong matching of the drawing by the assistants was much higher when the drawing was shown for only half |

|a second rather than 5 seconds. The information gained from seeing the drawing for just half a second is much less than seeing the|

|drawing for 5 seconds. |

| |

|CONCLUSION When there is not sufficient information to be sure of a judgement, informational social influence will cause people to |

|conform more. |

| |

|EVALUATION |

Factors that affect conformity

Highlight in yellow all the ways that tend to increase conformity. Highlight in green all the ways that tend to decrease conformity.

|SIZE OF THE GROUP |LACK OF GROUP UNANIMITY (i.e. agreement) |

|Asch found as the group size increases, a larger incorrect majority results in higher |When one person (confederate) in the group of 7 always gave the correct answer, |

|levels of conformity. With small groups of two or three, where there are only one or |Asch found that the conformity of the naïve participants dropped to around 10%. |

|two confederates, giving the wrong answers, conformity dropped to below 10% amongst | |

|the naïve participants. | |

| DIFFICULTY OF THE TASK |ANONYMITY (i.e. secrecy) |

|When the comparison lines (A, B, C) were made more similar in length, it was harder to|When participants were allowed to answer in private (so the rest of the group |

|judge the correct answer and conformity increased, reflecting Asch’s results. |did not know their response) conformity decreased. |

| | |

|When we are uncertain, it seems we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult|This suggests that individuals conform because they are concerned about what |

|the task, the greater the conformity. (Informational influence). |other people think of them (i.e. normative influence). |

|ATTRACTIVENESS |THE EXTREME DISSENTER |

|Stang (1973) found that the attractiveness of belonging to a group for the individual |Asch fixed the experiment so that all six confederates gave the same wrong |

|affects conformity. Generally the more attractive a group to the participant, the |answer, whilst the seventh confederate gave a different wrong answer. |

|greater the conformity to the majority view. |Conformity again dropped to around 10% |

|CULTURES |COHESIVENESS |

|Smith and Harris Bond (1993) conducted a review of conformity studies conducted in |The cohesiveness of the group has also been found to affect conformity. |

|different cultures around the world between 1957 and 1985. They made a distinction |Cohesiveness concerns the extent to which individuals in the group like each |

|between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Individualistic cultures are |other and prize being a member of that group. |

|ones such as the USA and GB, where personal choice and individual achievement are | |

|valued. Collectivistic cultures are ones such as China and Asia where the good of the|Highly cohesive groups, where each member of the group likes the other and so |

|group is valued over individual achievement. Studies conducted in different cultures |values being part of that group show higher levels of conformity. Whilst low |

|showed that conformity is higher in a collectivist than individualistic culture. The |cohesive groups show low levels of conformity (Latane and L’Herrou, 1996) |

|main explanation is that collectivist strive for group harmony more than | |

|individualistic cultures do. | |

|THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY |PERSONALITY |

|The authoritarian personality (Adorno et al 1950) is also associated with high levels |Crutchfield (1955) suggested that personality characteristics are associated |

|of conformity. According to Adorno, the authoritarian personality is one which values|with high levels of conformity, including low levels of self esteem, low |

|convention, rules and obeying rules to those in authority. The authoritarian |intelligence, high levels of anxiety and a need for social approval. |

|personality is also associated with obedience to authority and prejudice. | |

Other studies that have investigated conformity

(You can use these to make comparisons in your essay)

Many experiments have been carried out since Asch’s experiment; some have been shown to increase conformity whilst others have been shown to decrease conformity.

Crutchfield (1955)

Aim Crutchfield conducted a study to investigate conformity, but where participants sat alone in separate booths. The aim of the study was to determine levels of conformity with other people not present.

Method Participants sat in separate booths, side by side. In each booth was a set of switches and lights. Each participant was told that they would be given a simple task (some of which were Asch’s line task) to make a decision about. They were also told that 5 other people would be doing the same task and that the participant would see their answers (shown as lights) before being asked their own view or decision. Participants had to indicate their view by flipping one of the switches representing their choice.

Results Conformity with incorrect majority views by participants dropped to below 50% (in the Asch study, 77% conformed at least once to the majority view). With statement of opinion, conformity was below 35%.

Conclusion When people are placed in situations where they are exposed to an incorrect majority view but not to other people, conformity levels are low. Hence the actual presence of people increases the likelihood of a person conforming to a majority view. This indicates that social pressure has a strong effect on behaviour.

Perrin and Spencer’s Conformity Experiment (1980)

In Asch’s (1951) classic conformity experiment an observer had to say which of the three lines was equal in length to the standard line. The lines were easy to distinguish and if tested on their own observers made few if any errors.

When they were tested in a group who gave their judgements publicly and all the rest of the group gave the wrong answer, three quarters of the naïve participants conformed at least once by responding incorrectly. Overall about a third of the overall responses were conforming ones. As Eiser (1987) says ‘for Asch, the important finding was that there was any conformity at all’. This study becomes a classic and is to be found in all texts on psychology. However, studies carried out from 1980 onwards have undermined the classic status – or at least preferred alternative explanations for the amount of conformity found.

Perrin and Spencer (1980) reproduced the Asch experiment with groups of 6 stooges and one genuine participant. But they found that genuine participants only conformed out of 396 trials.

The Asch experiment is so well known today that it is difficult to find ‘naïve’ participants so they used engineering, maths and chemistry students and after the experiment, discarded the results of anyone who heard of the original study Asch. This makes comparison with the Asch study difficult and yields two possible explanations;

Interpretation 1

Science students may be particularly inclined to see accurate line measurement as important and be less willing to be swayed to the group opinion. When Perrin and Spencer used young offenders on probation with people who were normally in authority over them acting as experimenters the results were similar to Asch’s.

Interpretation 2

During the 1950’s conformity was viewed as sensible if not desirable and there were stronger pressures on students to conform that there are now. The high level of conformity found by Asch might be a ‘child of its time’. So far no one else has been able to separate these two variables and we do not know which interpretation is correct.

Conformity summary

In the Asch experiment, a distinction was made between those who changed their behaviour but not their opinion (public conformity) and those who changed both their behaviour and opinion (private change).

Kelman (1958) picked up on this distinction referring to compliance (public conformity) and internalisation (private change). These can be related to normative and informational influence respectively.

Fill in the blanks to summarise the conformity theory:

One form of conformity is ……………………….. where there is public acceptance of a group decision, but private disagreement. It depends heavily on ………………… influence, and is motivated by ………………… It is more likely in ……..……… situations, such as in the study by …………………..

The other form of conformity is …………………….. where there is both public and private acceptance. It depends more heavily on ……………….. influence, and is motivated by ……………………. It is more likely in ………………… situations, such as the study by …………………

Two other explanations as to why people conform include …………………… and ………………. The former is when we conform to people we admire or like, because we want to be like tem. The latter refers to when we behave in certain ways which we think appropriate to the situation.

|internalisation |identification |compliance |the need for approval/acceptance |

|Asch |the need to be right |unambiguous |Sherif |

|ambiguous |informational |normative |social roles |

Past paper exam questions

Identify three factors, which according to Asch, might influence whether or not a person conforms to a group norm. State whether or not each factor tends to increase or decrease conformity.

(6 marks)

(AO1 = 3, AO2 = 3)

Outline what is meant by informational conformity. (2 marks)

(AO1=2, AO2=0)

Outline what is meant by normative conformity. (2 marks)

(AO1=2, AO2=0)

Using an example, outline what is meant by a group (social) norm. (3 marks)

(AO1=2, AO2=1)

Distinguish between normative social influence and informational social influence. (3 marks)

(AO1=2, AO2=1)

Outline what is meant by a social norm. (2 marks)

(AO1=2, AO2=0)

Outline what social psychologists mean by internalisation. (2 marks)

(AO1=2, AO2=0)

Max is a member of a jury in a complicated trial. He feels he has little in common with the other jurors. When the jury starts to

discuss a verdict, each member is asked in turn to state his or her opinion. All the other members say that the defendant is

guilty. Max is the last to give his opinion. From the description above, identify three factors likely to increase the probability

that Max will conform with a guilty verdict. (3 marks)

A group of designers have to decide on a new company logo. The majority of the group prefers a modern logo but Jack prefers a more traditional design. Identify two factors which, according to Asch, might affect whether or not Jack conforms to the group norm. For each factor explain whether it would lead to an increase or a decrease in the likelihood of Jack conforming. (4 marks)

The twelve directors of a football club are meeting to decide how much money the club should spend on new players. It will not be easy for them all to agree on a figure. Most of the directors are unwilling to spend more than £10 million. One of the directors, Gary, wants the club to spend £15 million. Another director agrees with Gary. From the description above, identify three psychological factors that might influence conformity. State the likely influence of each factor on whether or not Gary will conform to the majority of the group. (6 marks)

Discuss Asch’s research into conformity. (10 MARKS)

Discuss two factors which might affect levels of conformity. Refer to evidence in your answer. (10 MARKS)

Discuss at least two factors which might influence whether or not an individual will conform or not to the majority of the group.

(10 MARKS)

Discuss at least two psychological factors which might influence whether or not an individual will yield to group pressure. Refer to empirical evidence in your answer. (10 MARKS)

Psychologists have discovered a number of factors which influence conformity. Describe and discuss at least two psychological factors which might influence whether or not someone might obey an order. (10 MARKS)

Describe and discuss ethical and methodological issues which have arisen in studies of obedience conformity. (10 MARKS)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download