1. Conformity A change in behaviour due to real or imagined pressure from other people

2. Conformity Obedience What is it? Who ‘asks’? Why do we do it?
Conformity
Obedience
What is it?
Going along with the crowd/yielding to group pressure
Behaving as instructed
Who ‘asks’?
Nobody, we act to please peers, friends, social group
Authority figures: parents, teachers , police, government etc.
Why do we do it?
To be accepted, liked or
to avoid becoming ‘outsiders’
To avoid punishment or unpleasant consequences

3. Three Types of Conformity - Kelman (1958):
1. Compliance - involves publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing.
We comply to avoid embarrassment or simply to fit in.
2. Internalisation - involves both acting and believing in accord with social pressure.
E.g., We may decide not to drink alcohol because our society adopts a strong moral view against drinking.
3. Identification – involves taking on the views (or actions) of a group that one joins or admires; involves ideas about social roles (e.g. what a teacher or a cop is ‘supposed’ to be like)

4. Exam Question
1a) Explain what is meant by internalisation in the context of conformity. (2)
Internalisation is where the behaviour or belief of the majority is accepted by the individual and becomes part of his or her own belief system. It is the most permanent form of conformity.
1 (b) Explain what is meant by compliance in the context of conformity. (2)
 Compliance is where the individuals change their own behaviour to fit in with the group. They may not necessarily agree with the behaviour/belief but they go along with it publicly.

5. Classic Studies in Conformity:
Sherif’s work on Norm Formation
Asch’s work on Group Pressure  Compliance
Clark’s work on Minority Influence  Internalisation
Zimbardo’s work on Social Roles  Identification

6. A B C

7. A B C

8. Asch (1951) – Compliance Stimuli for study:

9. Asch’s results: On average across trials, 37% of time Ps conformed.
75% of Ps conformed at least once

10. Factors Affecting Compliance
Size of Group: larger majority  more compliance (a little more complicated; Bond & Smith, meta-analysis)
Unanimity: unanimous majority  more compliance
Ambiguity: increased ambiguity  more compliance
Anonymity: anonymous minority  less compliance
Authority: authoritative majority  more compliance
Confidence: higher confidence  less compliance

11. Exam Q
Describe and discuss at least 2 factors which may influence whether a person is compliant.
(8 marks)

12. Real World applications
ASCH: Methodology
Lab experiment
Control
Mundane realism
Real World applications
Pressure to conform particularly strong in juries
First vote of jury determines over 95% of cases

13. Experimental Method Control Ecological Validity Laboratory Experiments
Field
Experiments
Natural Experiments

14. ASCH: Culture and historical validity
P’s all men, all American
1950’s – people were scared to be different (McCarthyism – being accused of being disloyal)
Conformity may only be high when perceived costs of non conformity are high
Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted experiment on British students in 1970s, found low levels conformity
When conducted on probation participants and confederates were probation officers, conformity was high like in Asch

15. Time, Culture, and Compliance
Smith & Bond (1993) and Bond & Smith (1996):
Meta-analysis of 133 Asch conformity studies
Conformity has decreased over time.
Greater conformity found in “Collectivist” than in “Individualist” cultures.
25% - Individualistic
37% - Collectivist

16. Minority influence Our views may change due to either:
Majority influence (e.g. Asch) OR
Minority influence

17. Minority influence
Early research into minority influence were carried out in labs – why may these be criticised?

18. MOCK JURIES
So, more recent research has looked at the process of minority influence in the jury service!
Juries: 12 randomly selected adults who make group decision about whether defendant is innocent or guilty.
Why would it be unethical to study real-life juries?

19. Internalisation / Minority Influence
Where internalisation-conformity is involved (i.e. conformity based on actually changing ones own/internal views), the minority can have an influence on the majority when the minority is consistent and persuasive.
Moscovici (1969): Calling shades of ‘Blue’ ‘Green’; when consistent, the confederate minority changed 8% of true-participants majority; when inconsistent only 1.25%.
Clark (1998/99): In jury trial simulation, the majority were only swayed by a minority jury when they provided persuasive evidence for their view. Supposed ‘previous defections’ also influenced jurors judgment.

20. Exam Question
 Outline one method used to study conformity (2); one limitation of this method (2); an appropriate way of overcoming it (2).
- The most likely method offered is an experiment (such as those
carried out by Asch). Laboratory experiment (1 mark) where
confederates deliberately gave the wrong answer to see if the naïve
participant conformed (+1). Could either refer to a research method in
general, or they could describe the procedures of a particular study.
- The limitation will depend on the method given in (a). Lab
experiments lack ecological validity (1 mark) this means that the
findings cannot be generalised to the real world (+1).
- To overcome lack of ecological validity conduct the experiment in
the real world (1 mark) by setting up a field experiment so people
behave as they would do normally (1 further mark).

21. Why do we conform?
Deutsch & Gerard (1955): Dual-Process Dependency Model
Normative influence: conform to fit in with a group; may not privately agree with those norms (as in Asch)  Compliance, no scope for Minority Influence.
Informational influence: accept information as evidence of reality; based on the need to be ‘right’  Internalisation, therefore available for Minority Influence. When there is uncertainty about how to behave, or what the right answer is (as in Sherif), going with the majority seems logical.

22. Compliance / Internalisation Recap
In Public
Accept
Reject
Accept In
Private
Reject
INDEPENDENCE
COMPLIANCE
ANTI-CONFORMITY
INTERNALISATION
Internalisation Or
Compliance?
Normative Influence …………………......
Informational Influence ……………….. ..….

23. Compliance / Internalisation Recap
In Public
Accept
Reject
ANTI-CONFORMITY
Accept
INTERNALISATION In
Private
Reject
COMPLIANCE
INDEPENDENCE
Normative Influence Compliance
Informational Influence Internalisation

24. Identification / Zimbardo (1971) Prison Simulation
Simulated prison in basement of Stanford University
24 male volunteers – carefully selected to be ‘stable’
Random allocation to role of prisoner or guard
Prisoners arrested at their homes, taken to ‘prison’, deloused, searched, dressed in smock uniforms, referred to by a number
Guards – shift work, uniforms, dark glasses, truncheon (night stick), told to “ keep prisoners under control but don’t use violence”.

26. Zimbardo - Observations (findings)
Prisoners
First day - ripped off numbers, rebelled, protested.
After a few days of humiliation by the guards, became passive & depressed, displaying ‘learned helplessness’.
Guards
Responded to protests with harsh ‘punishments’ - humiliation, locking in cells, removing blankets, depriving them of sleep.
Punishments escalated.
Study was planned for 14 days, had to be stopped after 6 days.

27.  7 Social Processes of the “slippery slope to evil”:
The simulation shows the way people conform to the role they are given, Identification.
Also shows the power of situational factors to influence behaviour even to the extent that ordinary, stable individuals can abuse power and behave in antisocial ways if the situation facilitates this – ‘Pathology of Power’.
 7 Social Processes of the “slippery slope to evil”:
Mindlessly taking the first small step
De-humanisation of Others
De-individuation of self (anonymity)
Diffusion of personal responsibility
Blind obedience to authority
Uncritical conformity to Group Norms
Passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference

28. Zimbardo Bingo!

29. Explaining Social Influence
Latane and Wolf (1981) - Social Impact Theory:
They move away from qualitatively differentiating between ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ influence, to talking about the nature of influence itself
Individuals’ behaviour in any situation can be predicted in terms of 3 factors about the source of influence :
Strength of source (importance, power or status)
Immediacy of source (psychological, physical or social distance)
The numbers of source (‘negative accelerating positive function’)

30. Support for the Social Impact Theory
Hart, Stasson & Karau (1999) - Tested two of the
factors, effect of immediacy and strength.
Ps in groups of 3 – 2 naïve Ps and 1 confederate
Confederate argued for minority position.
Task – rate 40 applicants for university places.
Immediacy was manipulated by -
Confederate was 4 or 10 feet away from Ps
Strength was manipulated by –
Confederate acted as a student (low ) or as an expert (high)

31. Hart et al (1999) Findings:
Expert confederate had more influence than student confederate when they were 10 ft away (low immediacy)
No difference in amount of impact between the expert and student confederates when the confederate was 4 ft away (high immediacy)
This suggests that immediacy (how close the source is to the target) may be the most important factor in influencing the target.

32. Explaining Social Influence II (extension; not on syllabus)
Hogg & Abrahams (1988): Social Identity Explanations.
Based on our seeming need for Social Identification as shown by Tajfel’s minimal group experiments.
To emphasise our group’s (i.e. in-group) identity, we perceive contrast with other groups (i.e. out-group), and seek to maximise that contrast  ‘meta contrast principle’
By identifying with the group and conforming to the group norms (‘referent informational influence’) we internalise the norms and continue to abide by them when the group is no longer there.
Hogg & Turner (1987): Individuals continue to conform with in-group (but not out-group) on Asch task even when the answer is given in private.

33. (1935) demonstrated a group’s inclination to N. F. These N
(1935) demonstrated a group’s inclination to N F These N puts pressure on individuals to C
C……………… - involves publicly a………….. in accord with social pressure while p.....………… ………………
In………………………. - involves both b…………….. and a…………… in accord with social pressure
I……………..– taking on the views (or actions) of a g……………. that one j………………………………; involves ideas about –and conforming with- S………………..
(1958) suggests 3 major types of
( ) illustrated this using a mock , also showing that the M can influence the M when they are and through previous Mos ( ) showed the importance of
( ) showed this in his P S , which also demonstrated the P of P However, & ( ) had a very different outcome.
(1951.) illustrated this using the experiment
M by
B & S
found C is not an inherent constant, but varies across T and C
H……. & A………….. (……) –based on T…...….’s S I…….…. T….……. – explain C…………. to the ‘R I I ’ in terms of a ‘M……. C…..…….. P……………..’
D……..…. & G….…..… (……) posit N……..….. & I….....…… influences are the reasons for C…………. in their D….……..-…….…….…… …model.
Other factors affecting C include: majority’s S & U , the minority's A , and the situation’s A
In terms of the groups’ make up, L & W ( ) through the S I
T posit that S , I and N are the most important factors.
H et al ( ) present support for the importance of and in social influence.

34. Sherif (1935)
Norm formation
Norms
Conformity
Conform
Kelman (1958)
Hart et al (1999
Meta – analyses
Bond & smith (1993/1996)
Identification
Group
Strength
immediacy
Joins or admires
Zimbardo (1971)
Prison simulation
Tajfel’s social identity theory
Informational
Internalisation
Compliance
Times
‘strength’
‘immediacy’
Deutsch & gerard (1955)
Normative
Clark (1998/99)
Hogg & abrahams (1988)
Latane & wolf (1981)
Social impact theory
Social influence.
‘Mock jury’
Minority
Majority
Defections.
Moscovici (1969)
Consistency
Cultures.
Compliance
Size
Unanimity
Believing
Acting
Anonymity
‘Referent informational influence’
‘meta contrast principle’
Dual-process dependency model
Ambiguity.
Asch (1951)
‘Three lines’ acting
Privately disagreeing
Social roles
Pathology of power
Reicher & haslam (2006)
Number
Pursuasivness

35. Asch (1951) illustrated this using the ‘three lines’ experiment
Sherif (1935) demonstrated a group’s inclination to Norm Formation These Norms puts pressure on individuals to Conform
Compliance - involves publicly Acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing.
Internalisation - involves both Believing and Acting in accord with social pressure
Identification – taking on the views (or actions) of a group that one joins or admires; involves ideas about –and conforming with- Social Roles
Kelman (1958) suggests 3 major types of Conformity
Clark (1998/99) illustrated this using a ‘mock jury’, also showing that the Minority can influence the Majority when they are Persuasive and through previous Defections. Moscovici (1969) showed the importance of Consistency for Minority influence.
Asch (1951) illustrated this using the ‘three lines’ experiment
Zimbardo (1971) showed this in his Prison Simulation , which also demonstrated the Pathology of Power. However, Reicher & Haslam (2006) had a very different outcome in theirs.
Meta – Analyses by Bond & Smith (1993/1996) found Compliance is not an inherent constant, but varies across Times and Cultures.
Hogg & Abrahams (1988) –based on Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory– explain Conformity to the ‘Referent Informational Influence’ in terms of the ‘Meta Contrast Principle’
Deutsch & Gerard (1955) posit Normative & Informational influences are the reasons for Conformity in their Dual-Process Dependency Model.
Other factors affecting Compliance include: the majority’s Size & Unanimity, the minority's Anonymity, and the situation’s Ambiguity.
In terms of the groups’ make up, Latane & Wolf (1981) through the Social Impact Theory posit that ‘Strength’, ‘Immediacy’ and Number are the most important factors in Social Influence..
Hart et al (1999) present support for the importance of Strength and Immediacy in social influence.

36. Zimbardo Bingo! De-humanisation Zimbardo Ecological Validity 24
Underwear
Identification Number
Males
Stanford University
Pathology of Power
Simulation
Ethical Guidelines
Real Prison
6 Days
Newspaper Article
Learned
Helplessness
Military
Debriefing
Chain and Lock
Randomly
Identification
Role
De-individuation
Observation
Aggression
Laboratory Experiment

37. Zimbardo Bingo Questions
A part we play in society?
A ‘mock environment’ may be called this?
The type of study this was not?
The simulated prison was created here?
This study breaks these?
This study attempted to maximise?
The gender of all the participants?
This person played the role of the prison warden?
The number of participants used in the study?
How the participants were found?
The guards uniform portrayed this role?
The participants were assigned this way to the role of prisoner or guard?
The prisoners were referred to by this?
The prisoners wore this?
The feeling that one is a passive victim is termed?
The prisoners were not allowed to wear any?
How long did the study last for?
When a person is said to enjoy and abuse power, this is called?
When a person loses their individuality and personal values, and takes on the group values?
This study lacked some ecological validity because it was not this?
After the study Prisoners were given this?
The guards behaviour showed an increase in this?
Results were recorded this way?
Type of conformity was Zimbardo researching?
The guards –through actions and statements- asserting the prisoners’ inferiority?

38. Zimbardo Bingo Answers
The prisoners wore this? Chain and lock
The feeling that one is a passive victim is termed? learned helplessness
The prisoners were not allowed to wear any? Underwear
How long did the study last for? 6 days
When a person is said to enjoy power, this is called? Pathology of Power
When a person loses their individuality and personal values, and takes on the group values? De-individuation
This study was not ecologically true because it was not this? a real prison
After the study Prisoners were given this? Debriefing
The guards behaviour showed an increase in this? Aggression
Results were recorded this way? Observation
What type of conformity was Zimbardo researching? Identification
The guards –through actions and statements asserting the prisoners’ inferiority? De-humanisation
A part we play in society? Role
A ‘mock environment’ may be called this? Simulation
The type of study this was not? Laboratory Experiment
The simulated prison was created here? Stanford University
This study breaks these? Ethical Guidelines
This study attempted to maximise? Ecological validity
The gender of all the participants? Male
This person played the role of the prison warden? Zimbardo
The number of participants used in the study? 24
How the participants were found? Newspaper article
The guards uniform portrayed this role? Military
The participants were assigned this way to the role of prisoner or guard? Randomly
The prisoners were referred to by this? Identification number