Conformity: Asch's Research

Conformity happens when you change your behaviour to fit in with a group, even when you know they're wrong. Solomon Asch proved this with his famous line experiment in 1951.

Asch asked people to match lines that were obviously different lengths - dead simple, right? But here's the twist: fake participants (called confederates) deliberately gave wrong answers out loud. The real participant, not knowing the others were fake, often went along with the obviously incorrect group answer.

Group size mattered most with 3 confederates - conformity jumped to 32% but didn't increase much with more people. Unanimity was crucial too; just one person disagreeing with the group cut conformity in half. When the task got harder (task difficulty), people looked to others for guidance and conformed even more.

Key Point: You're most likely to conform when everyone else agrees and you're unsure what's right!

The study's limitations include being artificial $matching lines isn't exactly real-life$, only testing American men, and lacking serious consequences. However, other research supports Asch's findings about task difficulty affecting conformity levels.

Types and Explanations of Conformity

Not all conformity is the same - there are three main types you should know about. Internalisation means genuinely accepting the group's views and changing your private beliefs permanently. Identification involves publicly agreeing to be accepted by a group you value, even if you privately disagree. Compliance is just going along publicly whilst keeping your real opinions private.

Why do we conform? Deutsch and Gerard identified two key reasons. Informational Social Influence (ISI) happens when you're genuinely unsure and think the group knows better - it's about being right. Normative Social Influence (NSI) occurs when you want to be liked and avoid rejection - it's about fitting in.

ISI typically leads to internalisation because you've actually changed your mind. It's most common in new, ambiguous, or crisis situations. NSI usually results in compliance since you're just avoiding social disapproval, especially around strangers or in stressful situations.

Remember: ISI = "I want to be right" and NSI = "I want to be liked"!

Research supports both explanations, though they often work together in real situations. Individual differences matter too - some people (called nAffiliators) have stronger needs for social approval and conform more readily.

Conformity to Social Roles: Zimbardo's Prison Experiment

Philip Zimbardo's 1973 Stanford Prison Experiment revealed how quickly people adapt to social roles. He wanted to understand whether prison violence came from guards' personalities or their situational roles.

Twenty-one emotionally stable male students were randomly assigned as guards or prisoners in a mock prison. Uniforms stripped away personal identity - prisoners wore smocks and numbers, whilst guards had official uniforms with clubs and mirrored sunglasses. Guards were told they had complete power, and prisoners could "apply for parole" rather than quit.

Within days, guards became brutal and aggressive, using divide-and-rule tactics and constant harassment. Prisoners initially rebelled but then became submissive, depressed, and anxious. The violence escalated so severely that Zimbardo ended the study after just 6 days instead of the planned 14.

Shocking Fact: The experiment had to be stopped early because participants were acting so much like real prisoners and guards!

Critics argue participants were just play-acting based on stereotypes, especially since some guards admitted copying film characters. However, 90% of prisoners' conversations focused on prison life, and many believed it was real. The study shows how powerful social roles can be, though only one-third of guards actually became brutal.

Milgram's Obedience Research

Stanley Milgram's 1963 experiment shocked the world by showing how far ordinary people will go when ordered by an authority figure. His research aimed to understand obedience - following direct orders from someone in authority.

Participants thought they were testing memory by giving electric shocks to a "learner" (actually a confederate) every time they got an answer wrong. The shocks started at 15 volts and increased to a potentially lethal 450 volts. The experimenter wore a lab coat and gave four verbal "prods" to continue when participants hesitated.

The results were staggering: 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450-volt shock, even when they could hear the learner screaming and eventually falling silent. All participants continued to at least 300 volts. Many showed extreme stress - sweating, trembling, and even having seizures.

Mind-blowing Stat: Before the study, experts predicted only 3% would go to maximum voltage!

Milgram's findings suggested that ordinary people, not just Germans, could commit atrocities under authority pressure. The study has been replicated successfully, including in a French TV show where 80% went to maximum voltage. However, critics question whether participants truly believed the shocks were real, though follow-up studies with real consequences (like shocking puppies) showed similar obedience rates.

Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

Milgram conducted variations of his original study to identify what situational factors increase or decrease obedience. Three key variables emerged: proximity, location, and uniform.

Proximity dramatically affected obedience rates. When teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. When teachers had to physically force the learner's hand onto the shock plate, it fell to 30%. Most dramatically, when the experimenter gave instructions by phone, only 20.5% fully obeyed.

Location mattered too - moving from prestigious Yale University to a run-down office block reduced obedience from 65% to 47.5%. The university's reputation gave the study legitimacy and authority that participants respected.

Uniform proved crucial for establishing authority. When the experimenter wore everyday clothes instead of a lab coat, obedience plummeted from 65% to just 20%. Lab coats are widely recognised symbols of scientific authority and expertise.

Real-world Evidence: People are twice as likely to obey someone dressed as a security guard compared to someone in ordinary clothes!

These findings have been replicated across cultures, with a Dutch study showing 90% obedience to harmful orders. However, cultural differences exist - collectivist cultures often show higher obedience rates than individualist ones like the US.

Explanations for Obedience

Two main theories explain why people obey destructive orders: agentic state and legitimacy of authority. Understanding these helps explain how ordinary people can commit extraordinary acts of cruelty.

Agentic state theory suggests people shift from being autonomous (taking responsibility for their actions) to being agents of authority. In this state, you feel like you're just following orders and the authority figure takes responsibility. Binding factors keep you in this state by helping you minimise the harm you're causing.

Milgram observed that participants wanted to stop but felt powerless to do so. When they learned the experimenter was responsible, they often proceeded quickly without further objection. However, this theory can't explain why nurses in one study disobeyed doctors' orders to give excessive drug doses.

Legitimacy of authority explains obedience through social hierarchies. We're taught from childhood to respect authority figures like parents, teachers, and police. Most societies accept that some people have legitimate power to give orders and even punish others.

Cultural Connection: Countries differ in obedience levels - only 16% of Australian women vs 85% of Germans went to maximum voltage in Milgram-style studies!

This theory explains cultural differences in obedience but struggles to account for disobedience within clear hierarchies, like some of Milgram's participants who refused despite recognising the experimenter's scientific authority.

The Authoritarian Personality

Adorno's research into the authoritarian personality aimed to understand why some people are more obedient than others. He believed certain personality traits made individuals more likely to follow destructive orders, partly explaining events like the Holocaust.

People with authoritarian personalities show extreme respect for authority and believe society needs strong leaders to enforce traditional values. They're contemptuous of those they see as inferior and have an inflexible, black-and-white view of the world where everything is either right or wrong.

This personality type develops through harsh parenting involving strict discipline, impossibly high standards, and conditional love based on behaviour. Children learn to fear authority but displace this fear onto weaker targets through scapegoating.

Adorno's research with over 2000 middle-class Americans used the F-scale to measure authoritarian tendencies. He found strong correlations between authoritarianism and prejudice, with authoritarian people having fixed stereotypes about other groups.

Research Finding: Milgram's most obedient participants scored significantly higher on authoritarianism measures!

However, this explanation has limitations. It can't account for mass obedience in entire populations (like Nazi Germany), focuses only on right-wing authoritarianism, and doesn't explain why many people with normal personalities also obey destructive orders. Social identity theory offers a more realistic alternative for understanding widespread obedience.

Resistance to Social Influence

Not everyone conforms or obeys - some people successfully resist social pressure. Understanding how resistance works can help you maintain your independence when facing unwanted influence.

Social support is crucial for resistance. In Asch's studies, having just one other person who didn't conform gave participants the confidence to resist group pressure, even if that person gave a different wrong answer. The key is knowing you're not alone in disagreeing with the majority.

For resisting obedience, seeing someone else disobey provides a powerful model of dissent. In Milgram's variations, obedience dropped from 65% to just 10% when participants witnessed another person refusing to continue. This challenges the authority figure's legitimacy and makes resistance easier.

Locus of control also affects resistance. People with internal locus of control believe they control what happens to them, whilst those with external locus of control feel controlled by outside forces. Internals tend to be more self-confident and achievement-oriented, making them better at resisting social influence.

Practical Application: Pregnant teens with a supportive buddy were much less likely to start smoking when pressured by peers!

Research supports both explanations, though some studies show contradictory findings. Over a 40-year period, Americans became more resistant to obedience but also more external in their locus of control, suggesting the relationship might be more complex than originally thought.

Minority Influence

Sometimes small groups can change the minds of larger majorities - think about how movements for civil rights or environmental protection started with just a few committed individuals. Minority influence often leads to deeper, more permanent attitude changes than majority influence.

Moscovici's research identified three key factors for successful minority influence. Consistency means the minority must maintain the same message over time and between group members. This draws attention and makes people take notice of their views.

Commitment involves demonstrating dedication to the cause, often through personal sacrifice or risk. When minorities engage in extreme activities or face persecution for their beliefs, it shows genuine commitment that can't be easily dismissed.

Flexibility requires finding the right balance - minorities must be consistent enough to be taken seriously but flexible enough to accept valid counterarguments. Being too rigid can be off-putting and reduce influence effectiveness.

The process works through deeper thinking. When you hear something new or unexpected from a minority, you're more likely to carefully consider their arguments rather than just going along with them. This leads to genuine attitude change rather than superficial compliance.

The Snowball Effect: As more people convert from majority to minority positions, the rate of conversion accelerates until the minority becomes the new majority!

Research supports the importance of consistency and shows that minority influence does involve deeper processing. However, laboratory studies often use artificial tasks that may not reflect how real-world social movements create change.

Social Influence and Social Change

Understanding social influence helps explain how societies transform over time. Real-world social movements use principles discovered in conformity, obedience, and minority influence research to create lasting change.

Minority influence research shows how small groups can transform society. Successful movements draw attention through social proof, maintain consistency in their message, and encourage deeper processing of important issues. The augmentation principle suggests that minorities who face hardship for their beliefs are seen as more committed and influential.

Conformity research reveals the power of dissent. Asch's studies showed that just one person disagreeing can break unanimous group pressure. Social change often begins when people realise others share their concerns and that the majority position isn't as universal as it appears.

Obedience research demonstrates how disobedient role models can inspire others to resist harmful authority. Milgram's findings show that seeing someone else refuse orders makes it much easier for others to follow suit. Zimbardo suggests that gradual commitment can also create positive social change.

The process often involves social cryptomnesia - people remember that change occurred but forget how it happened or who started it. This explains why social movements sometimes seem to emerge suddenly, even though they've been building gradually over time.

Modern Examples: Think about how movements like #MeToo or climate activism started small but created massive social change through these exact principles!

These principles help explain major historical changes like civil rights movements, women's suffrage, and environmental awareness. Understanding social influence empowers you to both resist unwanted pressure and potentially contribute to positive social change yourself.