Conformity

Definition of conformity:

‘Yielding to group pressure’ Crutchfield (1962).

According to Aronson (1976) the pressure can be real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms/expectations).

Kelman (1958)

• Compliance –A change in behaviour without a change in opinion (just going along with the group),
• Internalisation –A change in both behaviour and opinion (the group’s and your own opinions coincide), or
• Identification –The individual changes their behaviour and opinions to identify with the influencing group.

Sherif (1935)

He asked participants to estimate how far a spot of light in a completely dark room moved. Sheriff kept the point of light stable, but due to the autokinetic effect illusion caused by small eye movements) each individual reported fairly consistent estimates that often differed from other participants. However, when the participants were put into groups, their estimates became closer, despite not being told to arrive at a group estimate, and denying they had been influenced by the others.

Asch (1951)

Asch was interested in the circumstances in which people would be most likely to conform. He wanted to test conformity when there was a clearly correct answer, so, devise a very simple perceptual task of matching the length of a line to one of three other comparison lines.

In the basic design of the Asch study, a group of seven to nine male college students were assembled in a classroom for a ‘psychological experiment in visual judgement’. The experimenter told them that they would be comparing the lengths of lines. He showed them white cards.

The participants were asked to choose the one that was the same length as the standard. The task was so easy that control participants were correct 98% of the time. The participants were asked to give their judgements out loud and they did so in the order in which they were seated.

In the experimental condition only one real (naïve) participant was tested, but was surrounded by six confederates (stooges of the experimenter. The only real participant was second to last to give their estimate.

Out of 124 naïve participants tested,

the average rate of conformity was 32%.

75% conformed at least once,

25% not at all

and 5% conformed on every trial.

Asch found that the following factors influenced conformity:

• Group size – - Conformity does not increase in groups larger than four, so this is considered the optimal group size.
• Ambiguity - increasing the difficulty of the task – when the comparison lines were made closer in length, the rate of conformity increased.
• Unanimity – when one other person in the group gave a different answer to the others, and therefore the group answer was not unanimous, conformity dropped.

  Even participants that did not conform, felt strong social pressure to do so. One was heard to exclaim ‘I always disagree – darn it!’, and on being debriefed, commented ‘I do not deny that at times I had the feeling “to heck with it, I’ll go along with the rest”’.

Crutchfield (1954)

Crutchfield tested conformity in situations where participants answered questions in private. They sat in a booth with a row of lights in front of them; each of the lights was supposed to indicate the answers others had given to the same question. Participants gave answers by pressing a button.

Crutchfield found on average about one-third conformity (a result similar to Asch’s) and also noted that some participants were very conforming and others very independent.

Evaluation of research on conformity

• Artificiality – results derive from studies conducted in laboratory settings these experiences were not related to real life and the groups were artificially created.
• Prevailing social norms – replications of Asch’s work have not generally found similar levels of conformity and one explanation may be the period during which the research took place. In the USA in the 1950s there was a strong anti-Communist/pro-American culture that encouraged people to conform to the social norms of the period.

Cultural difference in Conformity

Smith and Bond (1998)

For example, the 37% conformity in Asch’s study may be considered high in the USA, where independence and individualism are valued.

Shouval et al (1975)

Smith and Bond

Compared conformity studies from several countries, noting that variations between them made direct comparison impossible. But there were some patterns of in the levels of conformity found:

• Collectivist cultures (where the importance of one’s family, religion or race is paramount) produced higher levels than individualist cultures (where independence is most valued). For example, there was higher conformity in Japan than in France.
• Common experiences among participants (for example Indian teacher in Fiji) showed high levels of conformity to their group.
• Students generally showed lower levels of conformity.