IB Psychology – Flashcards

Conformity is the term used for the convergence of individual's thoughts, feelings, and behaviour towards a group's norms, and this can be the result of real or imagined pressure.

Informational social influence is based on our desire to be right. We look to others whom we believe to be correct, to give us information about how to behave, particularly in novel or ambiguous situations. Sherif's (1935) study of the emergence of group norms demonstrated that people will use each other as a source of information when a situation is unclear.

Normative social influence is based on our desire to be accepted and liked. We conform because we think that others will approve of and accept us. Asch's (1951) study is a good example of normative social influences.

Aim: Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment with the aim of demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous situation.

Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect - this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to more, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion. It was discovered that when participants were individually tested their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm). The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was very similar, and one person whose estimate was very different. Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved.

Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two. Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to conform. Rather than make individual judgements they tend to come to a group agreement.

The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (such as the autokinetic effect) a person will look to others (who know more/better) for guidance (i.e. adopt the group norm). They want to do the right thing but may lack the appropriate information. Observing others can provide this information.

A weakness of this study is that it only measures conformity in a very ambiguous situation. It was almost inevitable that people would conform as the answer is so unclear (and in fact there isn't really a correct answer unless you know it is an illusion). It can also be argued that Sherif failed to actually measure conformity to group norms because when the participants were placed in groups, there were only three people; not justifiably big enough to be a 'group'.

Asch had noted the research carried out earlier by Sherif and wanted to set up a situation in which there was a clear, right answer to a simple task - the judgement of line length. Asch wished to see if people would conform when a clearly wrong answer was systematically given by other group members. This experiment examined conformity by looking at majority influence.

Asch wished to access what would happen when people were confronted with a majority who were plainly wrong in their judgements, to see if they would change their own views to conform to the majority. Majority influence takes place when a person changes their attitudes, beliefs or actions in order to fit in with a larger group. An everyday example of this would be following a fashion trend you don't like or saying that you had enjoyed a film that everyone else had when in reality you didn't.

Asch tested 123 American male college students who worked in groups between seven and nine in size. In each trial only one real (naïve) participant was tested - the others were actually confederates working for the experimenter, acting in a pre-arranged way. In each trial the members of the group were shown two cards, one with a single 'reference line' and a second with three comparison lines, one of which was the same length as the reference line. Confederates gave the wrong answer on 13 out of 18 trials. The genuine participant was alwaus the last but one to answer.

Participants went along with the wrong answer given by the majority on nearly 37% of the critical trials. 76% of the participants conformed on at least one critical trial. After the experiment, Asch asked participants to explain their conformity, most said they had conformed in order to avoid criticism and social disapproval. 25% of participants never conformed, which illustrates the importance of individual differences). 5% of participants conformed on each trial. The average conformity rate on the critical trials was 37%.

Because the answers on the critical trials were obviously (objectively) incorrect, Asch's study shows the impact that a majority can have on an individual. However, the majority doesn't have the same impact on every individual. In fact, Asch was interested in the social and personal conditions that help individuals resist group pressure.

Asch's study took place in the USA in the 1950's, an era known for conformity to social norms. Perrin and Spencer (1981) suggested that the Asch effect was a "child of its time". They carried out an exact replication of the original Asch experiment using engineering, mathematics and chemistry students as subjects. The results were clear cut: on only one out of 396 trials did an observer join the erroneous majority. They argue that a cultural change has taken place in the value placed on conformity and obedience and in the position of students. In America in the 1950s, students were unobstructive members of society whereas now they occupy a free questioning role.

One one level it can be claimed that Asch's research was useful because it showed how individuals can conform when subject to majority influence (even when they privately do not agree). However, Moscovici et al (1972) questioned whether Asch actually measured majority influence. They argued that the numerical majority (the confederates) actually represent an unorthodox, unconventional (minority influence) viewpoint when giving the incorrect answer; the numerical minority (the naïve participant) represents the conventional (majority) 'truth'. A way of interpreting Asch's results is to say that the unconventional, minority viewpoint (the confederates' purposely incorrect answers on the critical trials) held sway over the conventional, majority view (the 'obvious', objectively correct answer) a third of the time (the overall conformity rate).

Smith and Bond analysed conformity studies carried out between 1952 and 1994 that had used the same (or similar) procedures as Asch's original study. This resulted in total of 133 studies carried out in 17 countries. Some countries such as the US and UK were classified as individualistic and others, such as Japan and Fiji, collectivist. The results showed that collectivist countries tended to show higher levels of conformity than individualist countries. However, it can also be questioned whether the testing procedure is applicable to other cultures. The whole process of being 'tested' and asked questions by an experimenter may not make sense in some cultures (particularly those without a formal education system).