1. Types of conformity
1.1. Compliance
1.1.1. conforming publicly but continuing to disagree privately (shallow)
1.2. Internalisation
1.2.1. A deep type of conformity where a person conforms publicly and privately because they have internalised and accepted the views of the group.
1.3. Identification
1.3.1. a moderate form of conformity where we act the same as the group because we share the same values and want to be accepted. Change of belief and behaviour may occur.
2. Explanations of conformity
2.1. Normative social influence
2.1.1. This is based on our desire to be liked. We conform because we think that others will approve and accept us.
2.2. Informational social influence
2.2.1. This is based on our desire to be right. We look to others who believe we are correct, to give us information about how to behave.
3. Asch
3.1. Participants
3.1.1. 50 male college students were studied. Each being paid $3 to participate that involved a visual judgment task.
3.2. Procedure
3.2.1. Tested in groups of 7-9. Only one participant in each group was real, others being confederates. Each group was shown 2 pieces of card. The first, had a ‘standard line’, the other had 3 lines of varying length. Each member of the group had to state aloud, which line they thought was the same length of the ‘standard line’. On the 3rd trial, the confederates unanimously gave the wrong answer. In all 18 trials, 12 of them were ‘critical’ in that the confederates deliberately gave the wrong answer.
3.3. Findings
3.3.1. 24% never conformed and gave their own answer. 5% conformed on all trials. 75% conformed at least once on critical trials. During debriefing interviews, Asch found that there were 3 levels of conformity: distortion of judgement, distortion of perception, and distortion of action.
3.4. Conclusions
3.4.1. Some people will conform to group norms even when the answer is clearly wrong. This shows that conformity is a powerful influence in behaviour.
3.5. Variables affecting conformity
3.5.1. Size of group (larger groups decrease conformity), Supporter (if one disagrees, conformity drops sharply), difficulty of task (the more difficult the task, the more conformity increases), familiarity of task (less likely to conform if the task is familiar)
4. Zimbardo
4.1. Procedure
4.1.1. Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of a psychology department at Stanford university. They advertised to students and picked the volunteers they thought were ‘emotionally stable’. The 24 students were randomly assigned the roles of guards or prisoners. There were 16 rules the prisoners had to follow, which were enforced by the guards. The prisoners’ names were never used, only their numbers. Guards had their own uniform, complete with a wooden club, handcuffs, keys, and mirror shades.
4.2. Findings
4.2.1. Their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health, and the study was stopped after 6 days instead of the planned 14. In addition to this, 5 of the participants were released early because of emotional/stress responses to the study.
4.3. Conclusions
4.3.1. The stimulation revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour. Guards, prisoners, and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison. Everyone found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study.