conformity

• the tendency to change our behaviour or attitudes (opinion) in order to fit in with other people.

• Asch conformity test: participants were shown a photo with several lines on it
-they has to say what line matches line X, Aschs participants all gave the wrong answers, causing 75% of subjects to also give the wrong
answer. 25% did not conform.
-this shows that people would conform to social standards

• it had a lot of control, this allowed Asch to thoroughly establish cause and effect

• however, it lacks ecological validity since it’s with a group of strangers, and most conformity occurs with friends and family

• as well as this, he only used american men and generalised this to everyone, even women!

• ethical issues, participants 6 is being deceived and it could be seen as stressful (protection of participants, emotional, physical and
mental state must be kept intact)
types of conformity and reasons for conformity
• compliance = in which people conform publicly but privately disagree
• identification = conformity in which people change their beliefs to fit in with a group, but the change may only be temporary
• internalisation = the deepest type of conformity in which people change their beliefs permanently, the beliefs then become a part of the
way the people see the world
• normative social influence = based on the desire to be liked and accepted
• informational social influence = based on the desire to do the right thing

1) compliance is when people conform publicly but they privately disagree with the opinion, whereas in identification, you truly agree with
the belief to fit in with the group, but only for a period of time before disagreeing again.
2) beth shows more conformity than cara since cara has a genuine reason for running : her grandma had cancer. whereas beth is running
because all her friends are taking part, this could be seen as normative social influence since she wants to fit in with her group and do the
race for life all together

why do we conform?

• normative social influence = we conform due to the desire to be liked and accepted by a group of people / society
• informational social influence = we conform due to the desire to do the right thing, due to a lack of information and therefore following
someone who is more experienced

types of conformity
• identification = where people change their beliefs temporarily to fit in with a group
• compliance = changing beliefs publicly, but privately disagreeing
• internalisation = the deepest type of conformity in which people change their beliefs permanently, and carry this opinion for the rest of
their life (continue to see the world in this manner)

kelman and crutchfield

kelman identified 3 types of conformity going from weakest to strongest, COMPLIANCE, IDENTIFICATION, INTERNALISATION
crutchfield had subjects respond to questions in a perceived group environment while seated individually in separate cubicles, for each
question the subjects were exposed to a number of answers from purported group members and were then asked to respond themselves
types of conformity

INTERNALISATION

• deepest type of conformity in which a person permanently alters their beliefs and the way they view the world
• private and public conformity
• an example would be growing up with religious parents, then moving out but still being religious due to their teachings as a kid

COMPLIANCE

• weakest type of conformity in which the person agrees with the belief, but privately disagrees
• only public conformity
• an example would be agreeing that a movie you saw was brilliant, but privately disliking it

IDENTIFICATION

• type of conformity in which a person temporarily alters their beliefs to fit into a group, but eventually disagrees
• temporary public and private conformity
• an example would be moving in with a vegetarian then becoming veggie, but then stopping when you move out
conformity to social
... roles

key study = stanford prisoner experiment

1) since they were in a psychiatric ward, they felt the need to act the part too and conform to their social role at the time, which would have
been psychiatric patients. it revealed the power of society to influence peoples behaviour, the patients all conformed to their roles, and it
seems that they did so easily since it only took 2 days. they found themselves behaving as if they were truly psychiatric patients than in a
psychological experiment.

EVALUATION

• control over variables = randomly allocated and emotionally stable

• lack of realism = play acting rather than conforming (dave said he was imagining he was in a movie)
• quantitative data = 90% of prisoner conversations was about prison life
• dispositional factors = individual differences, not all guards were brutal
• zimbardo dual role as lead investigator and prison warden would have interfered
• ethical issues = protection of participant, right to withdraw
• led to ethical guidelines for research
• lack of research = BBC prison study repeated and prisoners stayed together to take control over the prison, NOT REPEATABLE
quantitative data = data gathered showed that 90% of the prisoners conversations was about prison life. prisoner 416 expressed the view
that the prison was a a real one. this is a strength because we can easily assess quantitative data and show it in several ways such as a
graphs or statistics. as well as this it seems like the study was real to the participants which gives the study a high degree of internal
validity

dispositional factors = only a minority of the guards behaved in a brutal manner, another third were keen on applying the rules fairly, and
the rest actively attempted to help the prisoners by offering them cigarettes and privileges. this is a limitation because it suggests that
zimbardo conclusion may have been over stated. the difference in the guards behaviour indicate that they were able to be moral despite
the situational pressures to conform

lack of research support = there was a partial replication of the stanford prison experiment broadcasted on BBC TY. their findings were
very different to zimbardos as it was the prisoners who eventually took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a number of
humiliating tasks. this finding challenges the original conclusion about conformity due to its weak replicability, which insinuates that it also
has weak validity

ethical issues = major ethical issues rose during this experiment. on one occasion a student who wanted to leave spoke to zimbardo in his
role as leading officer. instead of letting him exit he expressed his worry of running his prison and the issues this may cause. this is a
limitation because he is breaching the right to withdraw. and as well as protection of participant due to the conditions. however, it can be
argued that this is a strength as it is due to this experiment that ethical guidelines to research were put in place
obedience
milgrams experiment = administering shocks when answers are wrong, person on the other side was part of the experiment and no real
shocks were administered (teachers and students), 60% were ready to administer the fatal shock 2/3. the learner gave mainly wrong
answers and received his fake shocks in silence until they reached the 300 volts, at this point, he pounded on the wall and then gave no
response to the next question

• before the study, milgram asked psychiatrists, college students and colleagues to predict how far the participants would go before
refusing to continue. these groups predicted that nearly all participants would refuse to obey the experimenter at some point and
expected very few to go beyond 150 volts and only about 1 in 1000 to administer the full 450 volts. (all went to 300 volts and only
12.5% stopped there)
• 65% continued to the maximum shock level, this was despite the shock generator being labelled ‘’danger, severe shock’’ at 420 volts
and ‘’XXX’’ at 450. all participants went to 300 volts with only 5 (12.5%) stopping there, which is when the learner first objected

milgram found 4 situational factors that affected the levels of obedience

• the power of uniform = more likely to obey if someone is wearing uniform
• proximity = proximity of researcher and participant / proximity of teacher and learner
• location = done in yale uni, more likely to do it because of the prestige. less likely to do it in less prestigious place, (run down office)
• social support = had 3 teachers who had to make decision about shock, if 1 says no then you are more likely to stop as well
EVALUATION

• ethical issues = right to withdraw, deception, protection of participant

• lack of realism = done in lab, doesn’t seem like something that would happen in real life (some people didn’t believe it, doubters)

• counter evidence = puppy study, 100% administered the top shock (women). 54% administered the top shock (men)

• obedience alibi = looking at when people will actually refuse to do it. looked at real study in poland where german soldiers were given
an option to not kill people. proximity was close to the victim and the commander. however, they did do it even though proximity was
close and was given the option to leave

• historical validity = done in 1960s so would be different results now

why do people obey / not obey?
~ agentic state , you believe you are an agent for someone else and therefore accept no responsibility, therefore will obey even if what
you are doing is wrong
~ autonomous state , you are independent and free to behave to your own principles and will therefore feel responsible for your actions.
less likely to obey if you don’t agree with them
~ legitimacy of authority , we are brought up to obey people in authority, our whole society is built on a hierarchy

explain 2 criticisms of milgrams research = 6/6

One criticism of milgrams research would be that he breached numerous ethical issues. Protection of participant was not taken into
account when creating a stressful situation for the ‘’teacher’’, essentially leading them to believe that they were capable of murder, as well
as this, milgram did not give his participants the right to withdraw. When the ‘’teachers’’ expressed concern over the ‘’student’’ and refused
to go forth, the so called ‘’experimenter’’ kept repeating phrases such as ‘’you must go on’’ or ‘’the experiment requires you to carry on to
the next shock’’, breaching the participants right to withdraw. Thirdly, milgram deceived his participants by falsely leading them to believe
that they potentially killed or seriously injured a man with underlying heart conditions. It is necessary to include in the participants brief the
whole truth (informed consent), however, it could be argued that if he did not deceive his subjects then the results would not have been
accurate since they would have been aware it was fake. Another criticism of his research is that there is a lack of realism to this
experiment, it was carried out in a lab at yale university (therefore having low ecological validity) and as well as this, it is highly unlikely
that anyone would be put into this situation in the first place where they have to administer fatal shocks to people. This is why some
people claim that this study is not valid or realistic.
dispositional explanations for obedience
authoritarian personality :
• identify with strong people and generally contemptuous of the weak
• have a cognitive style, fixed an distinctive stereotypes about other groups (strong positive correlation with prejudice and this)
• have a tendency to be especially obedient to authority (extreme respect and submissiveness)
• therefore believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values in the country
• no grey areas, everything is either right or wrong : very uncomfortable with uncertainty
• formed in childhood as a result of harsh parenting / conditional love depends on the child’s behaviour
• fear of parents is displaced onto others who are perceived to be weaker (scapegoating) this is a psychodynamic explanation
•
1) explain what is meant by normative social influence
• we conform due to the desire to be liked and accepted by a group of people / society
2) explain what is meant by anonymity in relation to conformity
• anonymity is not knowing any people that you are with, In other words, it frees you from declarative social influence as there is no
longer a need to fulfill the expectations of others. therefore anonymity often significantly reduces conformity levels.
3) one limitation of milgram study is that there is counter evidence against is, puppy study, 100% administered the top shock (women).
54% administered the top shock (men)
resistance to social influence
social support = can help people resist to conform if there are other people present who are not conforming we feel more able to follow
own our conscience
study - allen and levine, conformity decreases when there was one dissenter in an Asch type study (even if the dissenter had vision
difficulties)
• can help people resist obedience, if there is another person who seems to disobey then we are free to act on our own conscience
• study = gamson et al, participants were in groups and 29/33 did not obey as there was a dissenting peer in the group who resisted
obedience
1) what is social support?
social support is something that can help people resist to conformity if there are other people present who are not conforming, we feel
more able to follow our own conscience
2) how does it affect conformity?
it significantly reduces rate of conformity, when there is a dissenting peer in the group who resists obedience then we are less likely to
also conform
3) research to support resistance to conformity?
allen and levine found that conformity decreased when there was on dissenter in an Asch type study, more importantly, this occurred even
if the dissenter wore thick glasses and claimed he has problems with his vision. this supports the view that resistance is not just motivated
by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressure from a group
4) how does social support help people resist obedience?
the pressure to obey can be reduced is there is another person who is seen to disobey, rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when
subject joint by disobedient confederate
5) research to support resistance to obedience?
gamson et al found higher levels of resistance , 29/33 participants (88%) rebelled, this shows that peer support is linked to greater
resistance since these people were in groups in comparison to milgrams research: his study was just a single participant

LOCUS OF CONTROL

• a continuum between internal and external

• if you are more internal you believe you control the things that happen to you, these people are more likely to resist pressures to
conform or obey as they take responsibility for their own actions
• if you are more external then you believe that things happen to you without your own control, these people are more likely to conform
and to obey
• holland found 37% of internals resisted and only 23% of externals
• twenge found that people have become more resistant to obedience but are more external which is contradictory
minority influence
• influence of minority on you
main processes in minority influence =

CONSISTENCY
• the consistency in the minority’s views increases the amount of interest from other people,
• agreement within minority people = synchronic
• agreement over time = diachronic

COMMITMENT
• some minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views, its important that these activities are at some risk
• this demonstrates their commitment
• this is the augmentation principle

FLEXIBILITY
• being extremely consistent and repeating the same arguments can be seen as rigid and dogmatic
• this is seen as off putting to society
• members of the minority should be prepared to adapt their POV and accept reasonable counter arguments
distinguish between social influence + social change
• social change occurs when whole societies adopt new attitudes and beliefs, this can be through many ways such as minority
influence, conformity or obedience. however, social influence occurs when an individual adopts new attitudes and beliefs due to
normative social influence or informational social influence (conformity as an example)

1) suffragettes showing proof that women voting would be beneficial

2) they never strayed from their opinion and kept fighting for the cause
3) the higher classes started noticing their efforts and the unjustness of it
4) one of the suffragettes got trampled to death trying to pin a badge onto a upper class’ horse to show her commitment
5) more and more people began to see the positives
6) people remember that women are allowed the vote but are unsure of how it happened (cryptic amnesia)