Conformity: Types And Explanation

Types Of Conformity Explanation For Conformity

Herbert Kelman (1958) suggested that there are three ways in which people conform Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory, arguing
to the opinion of a majority: that there are two main reasons people conform. They are based on two central
human needs: the need to be right (ISI), and the need to be liked (NSI).
Internalisation –
Internalisation occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results Informational Social influence (ISI) –
in a private as well as a public change of opinions/behaviour. This change is likely to Informational social influence (ISI) is about who has the better information – you or
be permanent because attitudes have been internalised, i.e. become part of the way the rest of the group. Often we are uncertain about what behaviours or beliefs are
the person thinks. The change in opinions/behaviour persists even in the absence of right or wrong. For example, you may not know the answer to a question in class. But
other group members. if most of the class agrees on one answer, you accept that answer because you feel
they are likely to be right. The reason individuals follow the behaviour of the group
Identification – (the majority) is because people want to be right. ISI is a cognitive process because it
Sometimes we conform to the opinions/behaviour of a group because there is is to do with what you think.
something about that group we value. We identify with the group, so we want to be
part of it. This may mean we publicly change our opinions/behaviour to achieve this ISI is most likely to happen in situations that are new to a person (so you don’t know
goal, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for. what is right) or situations where there is some ambiguity, so it isn’t clear what is
right. It is also typical in crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly. It
Compliance – also occurs when one person (or group) is regarded as being more of an expert.
This type of conformity involves simply ‘going along with others’ in public, but
privately not changing personal opinions and/or behaviour. Compliance results in Normative Social influence (NSI) –
only a superficial change. It also means that a particular behaviour or opinion stops Normative social influence (NSI) is about norms, i.e. what is ‘normal’ or typical
as soon as group pressure stops. behaviour for a social group. Norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals
so it is not surprising that we pay attention to them. People do not like to appear
foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected. So NSI is an
emotional rather than a cognitive process.

NSI is most likely to occur in situations with strangers where you may feel concerned
about rejection. It may also occur with people you know because we are most
concerned about the social approval of our friends. It may be more pronounced in
stressful situations where people have a greater need for social support.
Evaluation
 Conformity: Asch’s Research
Procedure Findings Asch’s Variations
Solomon Asch (1951, 1955) tested conformity by The naïve participant gave a wrong answer 36.8% of Asch was further interested in the conditions that might
showing participants two large white cards at a time. the time. Overall 25% of the participants did not lead to an increase or a decrease in conformity. He
On one card was a ‘standard line’ and on the other card conform on any trials, which means that 75% investigated these by carrying out some variations of
there were three ‘comparison lines’. One of the three conformed at least once. The term Asch effect has been his original procedure.
lines was the same length as the standard and the used to describe this result – the extent to which Group Size - He wanted to know whether the size of the
other two were always substantially different (i.e. participants conform even when the situation is group would be more important than the agreement of
clearly wrong). unambiguous. When participants were interviewed the group. Asch found that with three confederates
afterwards most said they conformed to avoid rejection conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% (see
The participant was asked which of the three lines (normative social influence). graph on facing page). But the addition of further
matched the standard. The participants in this study confederates made little difference. This suggests that a
were 123 American male undergraduates. Each naïve small majority is not suf cient for in- uence to be
participant was tested individually with a group of exerted but, at the other extreme, there is no need for a
between six and eight confederates, as shown in the majority of more than three.
diagram (below left). The naïve participant was not Unanimity - Asch also wanted to know if the presence
aware that the others were confederates. of another, non-conforming, person would affect the
naïve participant’s conformity. To test this, he
On the first few trials all the confederates gave the right introduced a confederate who disagreed with the
answers but then they started making errors. All the others – sometimes the new confederate gave the
confederates were instructed to give the same wrong correct answer and sometimes he gave the wrong one.
answer. Altogether each participant took part in18 The presence of a dissenting confederate meant that
trials and on 12 ‘critical trials’ the confederates gave conformity was reduced by a quarter from the level it
the wrong answer. A trial was one occasion identifying was when the majority was unanimous. The presence
the length of a standard line. of a dissenter enabled the naïve participant to behave
more independently. This suggests that the in- uence of
the majority depends to some extent on the group
being unanimous.
Task Difficult - Asch made the line-judging task more
dif cult by making the stimulus line and the comparison
lines more similar in length. He found that conformity
increased under these conditions. This suggests that
informational social in uence plays a greater role when
the task becomes harder. This is because the situation is
more ambiguous, so we are more likely to look to other
people for guidance and to assume that they are right
and we are wrong.
Evaluation
 Conformity To Social Roles: Zimbardo’s Research
Procedure Findings
Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at After a slow start to the simulation, the guards took up their roles with enthusiasm.
Stanford University (Haney et al. 1973). They advertised for students willing to Their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health,
volunteer and selected those who were deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after extensive and the study was stopped after six days instead of the intended 14. Within two days,
psychological testing. The students were randomly assigned the roles of guards or the prisoners rebelled against their harsh treatment by the guards.
prisoners. To heighten the realism of the study, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested in their
homes by the local police and were then delivered to the ‘prison’. They were They ripped their uniforms, and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated
blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a uniform and number. with re extinguishers. The guards employed ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing the
prisoners off against each other. They harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind
The social roles of the prisoners and the guards were strictly divided. The prisoners’ them they were being monitored all the time. For example, they conducted frequent
daily routines were heavily regulated. There were 16 rules they had to follow, which headcounts, sometimes in the middle of the night, when the prisoners would stand in
were enforced by the guards who worked in shifts, three at a time. The prisoners’ line and call out their numbers. The guards highlighted the differences in social roles
names were never used, only their numbers. by creating plenty of opportunities to enforce the rules and punish even the smallest
misdemeanour.
The guards, to underline their role, had their own uniform, complete with wooden
club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades. They were told they had complete power After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and
over the prisoners, for instance even deciding when they could go to the toilet. anxious. One prisoner was released on the rst day because he showed symptoms of
psychological disturbance. Two more were released on the fourth day. One prisoner
went on a hunger strike. The guards attempted to force-feed him and then punished
him by putting him in ‘the hole’, a tiny dark closet. Instead of being considered a
hero, he was shunned by the other prisoners. The guards identi ed more and more
closely with their role. Their behaviour became more brutal and aggressive, with
some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners.
Conclusions
The simulation revealed the power of the situation to in- uence people’s behaviour. Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison. These
roles were very easily taken on by the participants – even volunteers who came in to perform certain functions (such as the ‘prison chaplain’) found themselves behaving as if
they were in a prison rather than in a psychological study.
 Evaluation

Obedience: Milgram’s Research

Procedure Findings
Milgram recruited 40 male participants through newspaper adverts and - yers in the No participants stopped below 300 volts, 12.5% ( ve participants) stopped at 300
post. The ad said he was looking for participants for a study about memory. The volts (‘intense shock’), 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts. Qualitative
participants recruited were aged between 20 and 50 years, and their jobs ranged data were also collected, such as observations that the participants showed signs of
from unskilled to professional. They were offered $4.50 to take part (this was a extreme tension; many of them were seen to ‘sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips,
reasonable amount of money in the early 1960s). groan and dig their ngernails into their hands’. Three even had ‘full-blown
uncontrollable seizures’.
When participants arrived at Milgram’s lab they were paid the money at the outset
and there was a rigged draw for their role. A confederate, ‘Mr. Wallace’, always Prior to the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants’
ended up as the ‘learner’ while the true participant was the ‘teacher’. There was also behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would
an ‘experimenter’ (another confederate) dressed in a lab coat, played by an actor. continue to 450 volts. This shows that the ndings were not expected.
Participants were told they could leave the study at any time.
All participants were debriefed, and assured that their behaviour was entirely
The learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes. The normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire; 84% reported that they felt
teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each glad to have participated.
time the learner made a mistake on a learning task (the task involved learning word
pairs). The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher. Thereafter the shocks were not
real.

The shock level started at 15 (labelled ‘slight shock’ on the shock machine) and rose
through 30 levels to 450 volts (labelled ‘danger – severe shock’). When the teacher
got to 300 volts (‘intense shock’) the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no
response to the next question. After the 315-volt shock the learner pounded on the
wall again but after that there was no further response from the learner.

When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, the experimenter gave a
standard instruction: ‘An absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer’.
If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of four
standard ‘prods’, which were repeated if necessary:

Prod 1 – ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on.’

Prod 2 – ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’
Prod 3 – ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue.’
Prod 4 – ‘You have no other choice, you must go on.’

Evaluation