TYPES OF CONFORMITY
SPECIFICATION: Types of conformity: compliance, identification and internalisation
Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.
TYPES OF CONFORMITY: INTERNALISATION, IDENTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE
Compliance: This is the weakest level of conformity. This is when a person may publicly show themselves go along with the behaviour of the group to gain their approval or to avoid disapproval. Internally however their opinions may be different and this conformity may happen only when in the presence of the group. An example of compliance is agreeing with a group opinion that Man United are better than Chelsea when secretly disagreeing with this.
Identification: Is deeper than compliance but weaker than internalisation. An individual may adjust their behaviour and opinions publicly and
Compliance is privately due to accepting the group’s viewpoint and wanting to belong to the group. This may only be temporary however and their behaviour changes when they leave the group. For
Identification example someone may join a football team and engage in behaviours that seem right to fit in within the team (e.g. drinking after the match together). However upon leaving the team they
Internalisation may not keep this viewpoint and stop drinking with them.
Internalisation: This is the deepest form of conformity and is also known as “true conformity” or “conversion”. This is when an individual adjusts their behaviour and beliefs because they come to accept a viewpoint as true. This may occur when exposed to the beliefs of others and then having to decide themselves on their own viewpoint. If they accept the group view they adjust their behaviour even when not around the group anymore. An example of this is Tom living with vegetarians at university and upon learning more about this, coming to accept eating meat as wrong. He then continues to be a vegetarian even when he leaves the group.
NORMATIVE AND INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
There are two main explanations for conformity: Normative Social Influence
Normative Social Influence (NSI): NSI is a form of compliance and occurs when the main motivation is to be accepted, liked and respected by the group and to avoid disapproval, rejection or ridicule. The individual may also fear punishment in some form such as exclusion and even though they publicly agree with the groups viewpoint, internally and in private settings they may disagree.
Informational Social Influence (ISI): ISI occurs when individuals are unsure how to behave in a particular situation and therefore look to the opinions and behaviours of others to shape their own opinions on how they should behave and act. This most commonly occurs in unfamiliar settings with conformity to the crowd presenting a safe option as it avoids standing out from the majority (possibly due to embarrassment, rejection or outsider status but also due to lack of knowledge
EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY: INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Explanations For Conformity
NSI Key Study: Solomon Asch (1955)
Procedure
Study Overview: Solomon Asch's Conformity Experiment (1955)
Experiment Methodology: Solomon Asch conducted an experiment with male college students under the guise of a vision test. Each participant was shown a line (referred to as the stimulus line) and then three comparison lines labeled A, B, and C. The task was to identify which of the comparison lines matched the length of the stimulus line. In each group, only one participant was a genuine subject, unaware that the others were actors (confederates) instructed to choose the same incorrect line. The actual participant would give their answer after most or all of the confederates had responded. The experiment involved 123 American students.
Observations: The setup included a stimulus line on the left and three comparison lines on the right. Among these, line C was identical to the stimulus line.
Findings: In trials without confederates (control trials), participants made errors about 0.7% of the time. However, in critical trials with confederates, over one-third (37%) of the actual participants conformed to the majority's incorrect choices. Additionally, 75% of the genuine participants conformed at least once during the experiments. Most cited normative social influence as their reason for conforming to the majority's incorrect judgments.
Evaluation
Analysis of Solomon Asch's Conformity Experiment: Strengths and Limitations
Representation and External Validity Concerns: The exclusive use of student participants in Asch's study raises questions about its representativeness. The sample consisted solely of young individuals, not reflecting the broader age spectrum of the general population. This limitation hinders the study's external validity, as it's uncertain whether the findings would hold true in a more diverse age group, more reflective of real-world scenarios.
Strengths:
Control of Variables: Conducted in a laboratory setting, Asch's experiment allowed tight control over external variables, ensuring that the influence on the participant was predominantly from the confederates.
Replicability and Consistency: With over 100 participants, the study's large sample size and laboratory environment facilitated replication by other researchers. These replications have generally found consistent results, lending credibility and validity to Asch's findings.
Weaknesses:
Ecological Validity and Realism: Being a laboratory experiment, the study may lack ecological validity and realism. This raises doubts about whether the observed behavior would naturally occur in real-world settings, as the experiment did not replicate everyday situations (lacking mundane realism).
Cultural Bias: All participants were American students, suggesting potential cultural bias. The behavior observed in the study might not be representative of other cultures, especially non-Western societies.
Demand Characteristics: The possibility of demand characteristics arises since the confederates were not professional actors. Participants might have sensed the artificial nature of the responses, potentially affecting their reactions.
Gender Bias: The original study's focus solely on male participants also introduces a gender bias, limiting the applicability of its conclusions to other genders.
Non-Contentious Nature of the Task: A significant criticism of Asch's experiment is the non-contentious nature of the task—identifying line lengths. This simplicity might have influenced the level of participant engagement and concern. Unlike real-life situations involving complex and emotionally charged issues like racism or sexism, the task of discerning line lengths is straightforward and non-confrontational. Participants might have been less invested in the accuracy of their responses, suggesting that in more significant, contentious real-life scenarios, individuals might not conform as readily.
Historical Bias - The Influence of the Zeitgeist:
Impact of McCarthyism: Asch's conformity experiment, conducted during the 1950s, coincided with the era of McCarthyism in the United States. This period was marked by intense anti-communist sentiment and a culture of fear, where non-conformity could have serious social and political repercussions. The heightened pressure to conform during this era may have significantly influenced the participants' behavior in the study. Participants might have been more inclined to conform to group pressure, reflecting the societal norms of the time.
Potential Differences in a Modern Context: If Asch's experiment were replicated in the current era, the results could be notably different. Modern society, with its increased emphasis on individualism and access to diverse perspectives (especially through digital media), might show lower rates of conformity. Today's social and cultural climate, which often encourages questioning and challenging the status quo, could lead to a reduction in the influence of group pressure observed in Asch's original study.
In summary, the historical context of Asch's study is a critical factor in interpreting its results. The specific societal conditions of the 1950s, particularly the influence of McCarthyism, may have created an environment more conducive to conformity. This historical bias suggests that the study's findings might not be as applicable or replicable in different historical periods or under varying cultural conditions
Nicholson's Study: Nicholson conducted a study that replicated Asch's experiment but found different results, indicating cultural and temporal variations in conformity.
Perrin and Spencer's Study: In a similar vein, Perrin and Spencer's replication of Asch's study with British participants in the 1980s found much lower conformity rates. This difference suggested that conformity might vary with time and across cultures.
Crutchfield's Research: Crutchfield approached the study of conformity differently. Instead of the public response method used by Asch, Crutchfield employed a more private and anonymous response format. His findings suggested that conformity rates might be lower when individuals are not under direct group pressure, highlighting the influence of response collection methods on conformity.
Refinement of Analysis Considering Informational vs. Normative Social Influence in Asch's Experiment
In the context of Solomon Asch's conformity experiment, it's crucial to distinguish between informational and normative social influence, especially given that some participants genuinely believed they were misperceiving the lines.
Informational Social Influence at Play: Contrary to Asch's interpretation primarily focused on normative social influence, a closer examination reveals that informational social influence was also significantly present. Some participants, rather than just conforming to fit in or avoid social disapproval (normative influence), actually doubted their own perceptions in light of the group's unanimous disagreement. These participants conformed because they believed the group's judgment was more likely to be correct than their own, a classic example of informational social influence.
Reevaluation of Asch's Conclusions: This insight calls for a reevaluation of Asch's conclusions. While normative social influence (the desire to be liked and accepted by the group) undoubtedly played a role, the impact of informational social influence (the desire to be correct or to rely on others' judgments in an ambiguous situation) was also a significant factor. The presence of informational social influence indicates that some participants' conformity was not solely a matter of yielding to peer pressure but also involved a genuine change in their perceptions or beliefs based on the group's input.
ETHICS: The study raises ethical concerns due to deception; participants were unaware of the experiment's true purpose, believing it to be a vision test. This deception, while arguably necessary for realistic behavior, was addressed through a debriefing post-experiment. A notable aspect of Asch's study was the demonstration of ISI, where some participants doubted their own opinions and conformed to the confederates' answers. This behavior indicates internalization, as individuals adapt their public behavior and internal beliefs to align with others.
The evolutionary basis for conformity can be understood by considering how conforming to group norms and behaviors likely provided significant survival advantages in our ancestral past. This evolutionary perspective offers insights into why conformity is a widespread and deeply ingrained aspect of human behavior:
Enhanced Group Cohesion and Survival: From an evolutionary standpoint, being part of a group has always been crucial for survival. Early humans living in groups could hunt more effectively, share resources, and provide mutual protection against predators and other threats. Conforming to the group's norms and behaviors would have been essential to remain part of the group, as non-conformity could lead to ostracization or expulsion, which in prehistoric times could have been a death sentence.
Facilitated Learning and Knowledge Transfer: Conformity also played a key role in the transfer of knowledge and skills. In a time before written language and formal education, learning from others and adhering to established ways of doing things was vital. By conforming to the behaviors and techniques of the group, individuals could acquire essential survival skills more efficiently.
Social Harmony and Conflict Avoidance: Conformity helps maintain social harmony. In small, interdependent groups, conflicts could be costly and dangerous. Conforming to group norms and expectations would have helped reduce friction and conflicts within the group, thereby promoting a more stable and cooperative living environment.
Reproductive Advantages: Conforming individuals may have had better reproductive success. By adhering to the group's norms, an individual would have been more likely to be viewed favorably by potential mates within that group, thus enhancing their reproductive opportunities.
Adaptive Flexibility: Conformity can be seen as a mechanism for adaptive flexibility. By aligning with group behaviors, individuals can quickly adapt to new environments or changes in circumstances, as the collective knowledge and experience of the group can guide appropriate responses to novel situations
An everyday example of ISI is when someone, unfamiliar with specific dining etiquette in a new restaurant, looks to others for cues on which cutlery to use for different dishes, adjusting their behavior based on the group's actions.
ISI Key Study: Sherif (1935)
Procedure
Overview of Muzafer Sherif's Auto-Kinetic Effect Experiment
Muzafer Sherif's experiment, conducted in a dark room using the auto-kinetic effect, provides valuable insights into the concept of informational social influence. The auto-kinetic effect is an optical illusion in which a stationary point of light appears to move in a dark environment. Sherif used this phenomenon to study how people's perceptions and judgments are influenced by others.
Experimental Procedure:
Initial Individual Estimates: Participants were first asked to estimate individually how far they thought the light moved. These initial estimates varied, as there was no objective reference point in the dark room.
Group Estimation: Participants were then grouped and asked to discuss and agree upon a collective estimate of the light's movement.
Post-Group Individual Estimates: Finally, participants were asked to make individual estimates again after the group discussion.
Findings and Implications:
Convergence to a Group Norm: The results showed that participants' estimates tended to converge toward a common group norm during the group estimation phase. This change indicates that the participants were influenced by each other's perceptions and judgments.
Altered Individual Judgments: Most notably, when participants were asked to provide individual estimates after the group discussion, their estimates had shifted towards the group norm established earlier. This shift persisted even in the absence of the group, suggesting a lasting influence of the group's judgment on individual perceptions.
Demonstration of Informational Social Influence: The absence of a correct answer in this scenario made it particularly ripe for informational social influence. Participants, unsure of the 'correct' answer due to the illusion's nature, relied on each other's judgments to form what they believed to be an accurate estimate. This reliance illustrates informational social influence, where individuals look to others for guidance in ambiguous or unclear situations and may adopt the group's judgment as their own.
Sherif's experiment highlights how social influence can significantly shape individual perceptions and judgments, especially in situations where objective answers are not clear or available. This study is pivotal in understanding how group dynamics and social interactions can lead to the formation of social norms and influence individual behavior and beliefs
Crutchfield's Study on Conformity
Procedure:
Crutchfield developed an alternative method to study conformity, diverging from the Asch paradigm. Participants were placed in booths and led to believe they were part of a group making decisions, but in reality, their 'group members' were fictitious and controlled by the experimenter.
The participants were presented with various tasks, such as estimating line lengths, and shown the supposed responses of others (which were actually predetermined by the experimenter).
Findings:
The study revealed that participants often conformed to the false group norm presented to them, despite the clear evidence of the correct answer.
Crutchfield’s findings highlighted the powerful influence of perceived group norms on individual behavior, even in solitary conditions.
Evaluation:
This approach mitigated the influence of direct peer pressure and public embarrassment, offering insights into conformity in more isolated settings.
However, like previous studies, it faced criticism for its artificial nature and lack of ecological validity.
Nicholson's Study on Conformity
Procedure & Findings:
Details about Nicholson's specific study on conformity are not as widely cited or well-known as those of Asch, Sherif, or Crutchfield. If Nicholson conducted a study on conformity, it would have presumably followed similar methodologies, investigating how individuals adjust their behaviors or opinions to align with a group norm.
Evaluation:
Without specific details on Nicholson’s study, it’s challenging to provide a precise analysis. However, any study in this field would contribute to understanding the nuances of conformity and the conditions under which it is more likely to occur
Analysis of Arthur Jenness's Jellybean Study on Informational Social Influence
Experimental Procedure: Arthur Jenness's study, initially aimed at assessing the impact of group interaction on judgment, emerged as a seminal research into informational social influence (ISI). The experiment involved the following steps:
Initial Individual Estimates: Participants first made private estimates about the number of jellybeans in a jar, a task with no clear answer and challenging to gauge accurately.
Group Discussion: Following their individual estimates, participants engaged in group discussions to share and deliberate on each other's opinions.
Post-Discussion Individual Estimates: After the group interaction, participants were asked to provide another private estimate.
Findings:
Shift Towards Group Consensus: The study found that individuals' second private estimates often aligned more closely with the group estimate formed during the discussion. This shift indicated that participants' judgments were influenced by the group's viewpoint.
Greater Change Among Women: The data showed that women participants, on average, exhibited a greater change in their estimates post-group discussion compared to their male counterparts.
Impact in Ambiguous Situations: The study concluded that in situations lacking clear answers or familiarity, people's judgments are significantly influenced by the majority viewpoint.
Evaluation:
Ethical Considerations: Both Jenness's study and similar experiments involved a degree of deception, which raises ethical concerns. However, the nature of the deception was relatively minor and arguably necessary to achieve realistic results. In many ethical frameworks, this level of deception might be considered acceptable if it's crucial for the study's validity and if participants are adequately debriefed afterwards.
Lack of Ecological Validity: Conducted in laboratory settings, these studies may not accurately reflect real-world situations. The artificial environment raises questions about ecological validity and the potential for demand characteristics, where participants alter their behavior because they are aware they are being observed.
Questionable Mundane Realism: Both Jenness's jellybean estimation and studies like the auto-kinetic effect experiment involve tasks that are somewhat abstract and not directly relatable to everyday situations. This lack of mundane realism suggests that the findings might not directly translate to more common real-world scenarios where informational social influence occurs.
In summary, while Jenness's jellybean study provides valuable insights into ISI, particularly in how individuals conform to group opinions in uncertain situations, its laboratory setting and the nature of the task limit its direct applicability to more typical social settings.
VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY INCLUDING GROUP SIZE, UNANIMITY AND TASK DIFFICULTY AS INVESTIGATED BY ASCH
Factors Affecting Conformity
Variables Affecting Conformity: Insights from Asch's Experiments and Subsequent Research
1. Group Size:
Asch's Findings: In Asch's experiments, the influence of group size on conformity was evident. With just one confederate, conformity was a mere 3%. This figure rose to 13% with two confederates and significantly increased to 33% with three. However, adding more than three confederates (up to 15) did not substantially increase conformity rates, suggesting a plateau effect.
Further Research: A meta-analysis by Bond and Smith, examining 133 studies similar to Asch's, supported the finding that conformity peaks with a group size of 4-5. Campbell and Fairey further nuanced this understanding by distinguishing between tasks involving personal preference (where larger groups increased conformity) and those with a correct answer (where two confederates were sufficient for optimal conformity).
2. Unanimity:
Impact of a Dissenting Confederate: Asch found that conformity rates were high (33%) when all confederates unanimously gave the wrong answer. However, introducing a dissenting confederate who gave the correct answer dramatically reduced conformity to 5.5%. Even when the dissenting confederate gave a different wrong answer, conformity decreased to 9%. Asch concluded that breaking the unanimity, regardless of whether the dissent supported the real participant's view, was enough to significantly reduce conformity.
3. Task Difficulty:
Increased Conformity with Difficult Tasks: As task difficulty rises, so does conformity, as individuals look to others for guidance in uncertain situations. This effect is a manifestation of informational social influence. Asch demonstrated this by making the line lengths very similar, thereby increasing the task's difficulty and observing an increase in conformity.
Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy: Lucas et al. found that the impact of task difficulty on conformity is moderated by individual self-efficacy. People with high self-efficacy, confident in their abilities, were less likely to conform, even in the face of challenging tasks. This finding underscores how individual differences, like self-efficacy, interact with situational variables like task difficulty to influence conformity.
In summary, these studies collectively highlight that conformity is influenced by multiple factors, including group size, unanimity, and task difficulty. They also underline the interplay between situational variables and individual differences in shaping conformity behavior. Understanding these dynamics is essential for a comprehensive grasp of social influence processes.
Evaluation of Variables Affecting Conformity: Insights from Asch's Experiments and Subsequent Research
1. Group Size:
Strengths: The consistency in findings across various studies, including Asch's and the meta-analysis by Bond and Smith, provides robust evidence for the influence of group size on conformity. This finding is valuable in understanding group dynamics and peer pressure in various settings, from social groups to organizational behavior.
Limitations: However, the impact of group size might vary depending on the context and cultural background. In some cultures or situations, larger groups might not necessarily exert more influence, especially where individualism is highly valued.
2. Unanimity:
Strengths: Asch's exploration of unanimity provides critical insights into the power of dissent in reducing conformity. This aspect is particularly relevant in understanding how minority viewpoints can influence majority opinions and foster independent thinking.
Limitations: The scenarios in Asch's experiments were highly controlled and artificial, raising questions about the ecological validity of these findings. Real-world situations often involve more complex dynamics and interactions, which may not be accurately captured in a laboratory setting.
3. Task Difficulty:
Strengths: The finding that task difficulty increases conformity, especially under conditions of uncertainty, is significant. It highlights the role of informational social influence and can be applied to understand decision-making processes in complex or ambiguous situations.
Limitations: The generalizability of this finding is constrained by individual differences. Factors such as self-efficacy, expertise, and confidence can significantly moderate the relationship between task difficulty and conformity, as shown in the research by Lucas et al. This variability indicates that conformity cannot be predicted solely based on task difficulty.
4. Overall Evaluation:
Contextual and Cultural Factors: The variables affecting conformity are not universal and can vary greatly depending on cultural, situational, and individual factors. What holds true in one context may not necessarily apply in another.
Ethical Considerations: Many of these studies, particularly those following Asch's methodology, involve some level of deception. While necessary for experimental integrity, this raises ethical concerns about participant consent and the potential psychological impact.
Application and Relevance: Despite their limitations, these studies offer valuable insights into human social behavior. They have practical applications in various fields, including psychology, marketing, education, and organizational management, helping to understand and predict how people are influenced by the groups they are part of.
Need for Further Research: Given the complexities and variations in conformity behavior, there is a continuous need for further research, particularly studies that account for varying cultural contexts and real-world scenarios.
In conclusion, while the research on conformity, including Asch's experiments, has significantly advanced our understanding of social influence, it's crucial to approach these findings with an awareness of their limitations and the need for contextualization
