Types of Conformity and Explanations

Social influence and conformity are fundamental concepts in psychology, exploring how individuals adapt their behavior to match group norms. This page introduces the three main types of conformity and provides explanations for why people conform.

Definition: Conformity is the tendency to adjust one's behavior or beliefs to align with those of a group.

Types of Conformity:

1. Internalization: Occurs when a person genuinely accepts a group's norms, resulting in both private and public changes in behavior and opinions.
2. Identification: Involves conforming to a group's opinions or behavior because there is something in the group the individual values, leading to public changes in opinions even if privately disagreeing.
3. Compliance: Involves going along with others in public but privately not changing opinions or behavior.

Highlight: Understanding the different types of conformity is crucial for analyzing social behavior and group dynamics.

Explanations for Conformity:

Deutsch and Gerard developed the two-process theory, arguing that there are two main reasons people conform, based on fundamental human needs:

1. Normative Social Influence $NSI$: Stems from the need to be liked and accepted by others. It is an emotional process used to gain social approval.
2. Informational Social Influence $ISI$: Arises from the need to be right. People accept a majority answer because they believe others are more likely to have correct information.

Example: In a study by Lucas et al., students showed greater conformity to incorrect answers on difficult math problems, especially those who rated their math ability as poor. This demonstrates ISI, as students looked to others for guidance when unsure.

Vocabulary: NSI Psychology refers to the influence of social norms on behavior, while ISI Psychology relates to the influence of information from others on decision-making.

Asch's Conformity Experiment

This page delves into Solomon Asch's famous line study, a seminal experiment in social psychology that explored conformity to majority opinions.

Aim: To investigate if people would conform to a majority, even when presented with an obvious answer.

Procedure:

• 123 American males participated in groups of 6-8
• Only one true participant per group; others were confederates
• Participants had to match a line to one of three options
• On 12 out of 18 trials, confederates unanimously gave wrong answers
• The real participant answered last or second-to-last

Highlight: The Asch conformity experiment results showed that 36.8% of answers given by participants conformed to the incorrect majority opinion.

Findings:

• 75% of participants conformed at least once
• 25% never conformed

Conclusions: People will conform to a majority, even if that majority is clearly wrong. This demonstrates the power of Normative Social Influence $NSI$.

Quote: "Afterwards, participants said they conformed in order to fit in."

Asch's Variations:

1. Group Size: Conformity increased to 31.8% with 3 confederates, but additional confederates had little effect.
2. Unanimity: A non-conforming confederate reduced overall conformity.
3. Task Difficulty: Increased task difficulty led to higher conformity rates, suggesting a greater role for Informational Social Influence $ISI$.

Example: In the task difficulty variation, ISI and NSI Psychology evaluation showed that as the line-judging task became more challenging, participants relied more on others' judgments.

Evaluation of Asch's Study

This page provides a critical evaluation of Asch's conformity experiment, highlighting its strengths and limitations.

Strengths:

1. Controlled experimental design allowed for manipulation of variables
2. Provided quantitative data on conformity rates
3. Inspired further research into social influence and conformity

Limitations:

1. Artificial Situation and Task: Participants were aware they were in a study, potentially leading to demand characteristics The task didn't resemble real-life group situations, limiting generalizability

Highlight: The artificial nature of the experiment is a key criticism when considering Asch study strengths and weaknesses.

2. Limited Application of Findings: Only male participants were included Participants were from an individualistic culture $United States$ Results may not apply to other demographics or collectivist cultures
3. Ethical Issues: Participants were deceived about the true nature of the experiment They were led to believe they were taking part in an eye test

Vocabulary: Demand characteristics refer to cues that make participants aware of what the researcher expects to find, potentially influencing their behavior.

Despite these limitations, Asch's study remains a cornerstone in understanding social conformity and has inspired numerous follow-up studies exploring various aspects of social influence.

Example: The finding that 75% of participants in Asch's study conformed at least once demonstrates the powerful impact of social pressure on individual behavior.

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment

This page introduces Philip Zimbardo's infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, a controversial study that explored the impact of social roles on behavior.

Procedure:

• Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the Stanford University basement
• 24 male participants were selected from 75 volunteers based on mental and physical health
• Participants were randomly assigned roles as prisoners or guards
• Prisoners were "arrested" by local police to enhance realism
• Guards worked in 8-hour shifts and were given complete power over prisoners
• The study was planned to last two weeks

Highlight: The Stanford Prison Experiment procedure was designed to simulate a real prison environment as closely as possible.

Findings:

• The experiment was terminated after only 6 days due to the escalating situation
• Guards enforced harsh treatments and used divide-and-rule tactics
• Prisoners initially rebelled but later became depressed and anxious
• Participants quickly internalized their assigned roles, leading to abusive behavior from guards and psychological distress in prisoners

Example: Guards harassed prisoners constantly and emphasized the difference in their social roles, demonstrating how quickly people can adapt to and exploit power dynamics.

Conclusions:

• The study showed the profound impact of social roles on behavior
• It highlighted how quickly ordinary people can adopt authoritarian or submissive behaviors when placed in certain situations
• The experiment raised significant ethical concerns about the psychological impact on participants

Vocabulary: Stanford Prison Experiment results refer to the outcomes and observations made during the study, which have been widely discussed and debated in psychology.

The Stanford Prison Experiment conclusion suggests that situational factors can have a more powerful influence on behavior than individual personality traits. This finding has implications for understanding real-world scenarios such as prison systems, military hierarchies, and other institutional settings.

Evaluation of Zimbardo's Study

This page provides a critical evaluation of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, discussing its strengths, weaknesses, and ethical implications.

Strengths:

1. High ecological validity due to the realistic setting
2. Provided valuable insights into the power of social roles and situations
3. Influenced real-world policies and practices in prisons and other institutions

Weaknesses:

1. Lack of scientific rigor and control
2. Small sample size $24 participants$ limits generalizability
3. Potential researcher bias, as Zimbardo was both lead researcher and prison superintendent

Highlight: The strengths and weaknesses of Zimbardo study are crucial for understanding its impact and limitations in psychology.

Ethical Concerns:

1. Participants experienced significant psychological distress
2. The study was terminated early due to the escalating abusive behavior
3. Long-term effects on participants were not adequately considered or monitored

Example: Some Stanford Prison Experiment participants reported lasting psychological effects, raising questions about the ethical boundaries of psychological research.

Impact and Legacy: Despite its controversies, the Stanford Prison Experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology and public understanding of social influence. It has:

• Sparked debates about research ethics
• Influenced prison reform efforts
• Contributed to our understanding of how social situations can shape behavior

Vocabulary: How long was the Stanford Prison Experiment? The study was originally planned for two weeks but was terminated after only 6 days due to ethical concerns.

The experiment's findings continue to be debated and reinterpreted, with some researchers questioning the validity of its conclusions. However, its impact on psychology and popular culture remains significant, serving as a cautionary tale about the power of social roles and the importance of ethical considerations in research.

Overall Summary

Social influence and conformity in psychology:

• Explores three types of conformity: internalization, identification, and compliance
• Examines explanations for conformity, including Normative Social Influence $NSI$ and Informational Social Influence $ISI$
• Discusses Asch's line study on conformity to majority opinions
• Analyzes Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment on the power of social roles