Conformity in Psychology Essay

IntroductionImagine yourself in the following billet You sign up for a psychology experi handst, and on a specified date you and cardinal early(a)s whom you think be also subjects arrive and atomic number 18 seated at a table in a exquisite path. You dont k at one time it at the cadence, alone the others argon actu henchman associates of the investigateer, and their behaviour has been cautiously scripted. Youre the wholly echt subject. The experimenter arrives and tells you that the knowledge in which you atomic number 18 or so to berthicipate concerns races ocular judgments. She places two cards so singler you. The card on the left contains one vertical ancestry. The card on the right displays 3 credit lines of varying duration. The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card.Thetask is repeated several times with incompatible cards. On rough occasions the other subjects unanimously choose the improper line. It is clear to you that they be wrong(p), and they mystify all wedded the equal answer. What would you do? Would you go along with the majority feel, or would you stick to your guns and entrustingness your own eyes? This is the emplacement in line upity. raft tend to con traffic pattern in situations such as that stated above both by a trust to meet in or be demand (prescriptive) or because of a desire to be represent ( instructional) or b arly to aline to a mixer role (identification). This cogitation is going to be focused on human cosmoss, their trend to conform and the reasons why they conform. consonance in psychology shapeis the act of matching attitudes, beliefs and behaviour to base norms. It is the graphic symbol of hearty diverge involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a company. . Norms are implicit rules shared by a sort of individuals, that guide their interacti ons with others and among companionship or brotherly host. People tend to conform when in broken sort outs and/or guild as a whole. It is as a for hit of subtle unconscious g everywherens or direct and overt kindly pressure. People could even conform when they are alone i.e. eating or observance television. This change is in response to real (involving the sensible straw man of others) or imagined (involving the presence of accessible norms and/or expectations) concourse pressure. According to Crutchfield (1955), residence faeces be defined as yielding to classify pressures which could take the form of bullying, criticism, persuasion, teasing etc. accordance of rights is also known as majority watch (or company pressure). It is oft brought up by a desire to fit in or to be handle (normative) or because of a desire to be decline (informational), or simply to conform to fond role (identification).Though peer pressure could manifest negatively, complaisance jo hn hand over a bad or good effect calculateing on the situation. Driving on the correct side of the road could be captivaten as a beneficial accord. accord bendsformation and maintenance of social norms, and helps societies hightail it smoothly and predictably via the self-elimination of behaviours seen as contrary to written rules. In this sense, it clear be perceived as (though non proven to be) a demonstrable force that prevents acts that are perceptually disruptive or dangerous.The term conformation is often used to indicate an agreement to the majority position, brought about either by a desire to fit in or be desire (normative) or because of a desire to be correct (informational), or simply to conform to a social role (identification). There submit been many experiments in psychology investigating residency and grouping pressure. What affects Conformity?CultureBerry studied two incompatible populations the Temne (collectivists) and the Inuit (individualists) an d found that the Temne conformed more than the Inuit when exposed to a conformity task. Bond and Smith compared, (1996) 134 studies in a meta-analysis and found that Japan and Brazil were two nations that conformed a lot whereas atomic number 63 and the United States of America did non as much.GenderSocietal norms often establish gender goings.There are differences in the way men and women conform to social regularize. kind psychologists, Alice Eagly and Linda Carli performed a meta-analysis of 148 studies of influenceability. They found that women are more persuadable and more conformist than men in group pressure situations that fill surveillance. In situations not involving surveillance, women are less likely to conform. Eagly has proposed that this sex difference may be due to different sex roles in society. Women are generally taught to be more agreeable whereas men are taught to be more independent.The composition of the group plays a role in conformity as well. In a s tudy by Reitan and Shaw, it was found that men and women conformed more when there were actors of both sexes involved versus participants of the same sex. Subjects in the groups with both sexes were more apprehensive when there was a discrepancy amongst groupmembers, and hence the subjects reported that they doubted their own judgments. Sistrunk and McDavid make the hypothesis that women conformed more because of a methodological bias. They argued that because stereotypes used in studies are generally male ones (sports, cars) more than distaff ones (cooking, fashion), women are feeling uncertain and conformed more, which was confirmed by their results. coat of the groupMilgram and his colleagues found that if one individual stops and stares at the sky, only 4% of the people would stop as well and 40% would emotional state at the sky, whereas if fifteen confederates do it, those numbers conk out respectively 40% and 90%.Psychologist view on ConformityJenness (1932) was the first psychologist to study conformity. His experiment was an perplexing situation involving a glass bottle filled with beans. He asked participants individually to venture how many beans the bottle contained. Jenness whence put the group in a room with the bottle, and asked them to provide a group idea through discussion. Participants were then asked to estimate the number on their own once again to find whether their initial estimates had altered based on the influence of the majority. Jenness then interviewed the participants individually again, and asked if they would like to change their buffer estimates, or stay with the groups estimate. Almost all changed their individual guesses to be closer to the group estimate.Another experiment performed on conformity was the Sherif Autokinetic Effect test. Sherif (1935)Autokinetic Effect try outAim Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment with the aim of demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous (i.e. unclear) situation. Method Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect this is where a small spot of arc (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).It was discovered that when participants were individually tested their estimates on how remote the light locomote varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm). The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was actually akin(predicate), and one somebody whose estimate was very different. Each someone in the group had to say aloud how far they horizon the light had moved. Results Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate.As the figure below shows the individual whose estimate of movement was greatly differe nt to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two. Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to conform. quite an than make individual judgments they tend to come to a group agreement. finish The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (such as the autokinetic effect), a person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance (i.e. adopt the group norm). They want to do the right thing but may deficiency the appropriate information. Observing others can provide this information. This is known as informational conformity.Types of ConformityMan (1969) states that the essence of conformity is yielding to group pressure. He identified three types of conformity Normative, informational and ingratiational. Harvard psychologist HerbertKelman (1958) distinguished between three different types of conformity Compliance, Internalization and identification. Compliance is public conformity, while possibly charge ones own schoolmaster beliefs for yourself . Compliance is motivated by the need for approval and the fear of being rejected Identification is conformist to someone who is liked and respected, such as a celebrity or a favourite uncle. This can be motivated by the attractor of the source,11 and this is a deeper type of conformism than compliance. Internalization is accepting the belief or behaviour and conforming both publically and privately, if the source is credible. It is the deepest influence on people and it will affect them for a long time. Although Kelmans short letter has been influential, look into in social psychology hasfocused primarily on two varieties of conformity.These are informational conformity, or informational social influence, and normative conformity, also called normative social influence. In Kelmans terminology, these correspond to incorporation and compliance, respectively. There are naturally more than two or three variables in society influential on human psychology and c onformity the notion of varieties of conformity based upon social influence is ambiguous and indefinable in this context. For Deutsch and Grard (1955), conformity results from a motivational conflict (between the fear of being socially rejected and the wish to say what we think is correct) that aces to the normative influence, and a cognitive conflict (others create doubts in what we think) which leads to the informational influence.Informational influenceInformational social influence occurs when one turns to the members of ones group to obtain and accept accurate information about verity. A person is most likely to use informational social influence in certain situations when a situation is ambiguous, people become uncertain about what to do and they are more likely to depend on others for the answer and during a crisis when immediate action is necessary, in hurt of panic. Looking to other people can help ease fears, but unfortunately they are not always right. The more knowled geable a person is, the more valuable they are as a resource. thus people often turn to experts for help. But once again people must be dispenseful, as experts can make mistakes too. Informational social influence often results in internalization or private acceptance, where a person genuinely believes that the information is right. Informational influence seems to be what happened during Sherifs study.Normative influenceNormative social influence occurs when one conforms to be liked or accepted by the members of the group. This need of social approval and acceptance is part of our state of humans. In addition to this, we know that when people do not conform with their group and therefore are deviants, they are less liked and even punished by the group. Normative influence usually results in public compliance, doing or saying something without believing in it. The experiment of Asch in 1951 is one example of normative influence In a reinterpretation of the original data from these experiments Hodges andGeyer (2006) found that Aschs subjects were not so conformist after all The experiments provide powerful manifest for peoples tendency to tell the truth even when others do not.They also provide stimulate point of peoples concern for others and their views. By closely examining the situation in which Aschs subjects find themselves they find that the situation places multiple demands on participants They include truth (i.e., expressing ones own view accurately), trust (i.e., taking seriously the value of others claims), and social solidarity (i.e., a commitment to incorporate the views of self and others without deprecating either). In addition to these epistemic values, there are multiple moral claims as well These include the need for participants to care for the integrity and well-being of other participants, the experimenter, themselves, and the worth of scientific inquiry. Deutsch & Grard (1955) knowing different situations that variated from Asch ex periment and found that when participants were writing their answer privately, they were giving the correct one Normative influence, a function of social force theory, has three components.The number of people in the group has a surprising effect. As the number increases, each person has less of an impact. A groups strength is how important the group is to a person. Groups we value generally have more social influence. Immediacy is how close the group is in time and space when the influence is taking place. Psychologists have constructed a mathematical representative utilize these three factors and are able to predict the amount of conformity that occurs with some degree of accuracy. Baron and his colleagues conducted a second eyewitness study that focused on normative influence. In this version, the task was easier. Each participant had five seconds to look at a slide instead of beneficial one second. Once again, there were both high and low motives to be accurate, but the resu lts were the reverse of the first study.The low motivation group conformed 33% of the time (similar to Aschs findings). The high motivation group conformed less at 16%. These results show that when accuracy is not very important, it is better to get the wrong answer than to risk social disapproval. An experiment using procedures similar to Aschs found that there was significantly less conformity in six-person groups of friends as compared to six-person groups of strangers. Because friends already know and accept each other, there may be less normative pressure to conform in some situations.Field studies on cigarette and alcohol abuse, however, generally demonstrate evidence of friends exerting normative social influence on each other. nonage influenceAlthough conformity generally leads individuals to think and act more like groups, individuals are occasionally able to reverse this tendency and change the people approximately them. This is known as minority influence, a special case of informational influence. nonage influence is most likely when people can make a clear and consistent case for their point of view. If the minority fluctuates and shows uncertainty, the chance of influence is small. However, a minority that makes a strong, convincing case increases the probability of ever-changing the majoritys beliefs and behaviours.Minority members who are perceived as experts, are high in status, or have benefited the group in the prehistoric are also more likely to succeed. Another form of minority influence can sometimes override conformity effects and lead to unhealthy group dynamics. A 2007 review of two dozen studies by the University of Washington found that a single bad apple (an unconsidered or negligent group member) can substantially increase conflicts and pare performance in work groups. Bad apples often create a negative emotional climate that interferes with healthy group functioning. They can be avoided by careful selection procedures and manag ed by reassigning them to positions that require less social interaction.All these are illustrated in the table belowNormative ConformityInformational ConformityYielding to group pressure because a person wants to fit in with the group. E.g. Asch Line Study. Conforming because the person is scared of being rejected by the group. This type of conformity usually involves compliance where a person publicly accepts the views of a group but privately rejects them.This usually occurs when a person lacks knowledge and looks to the group for guidance. Or when a person is in an ambiguous (i.e. unclear) situation and socially compares their demeanour with the group. E.g. Sherif Study. This type of conformity usually involves internalization where a person accepts the views of the groups and adopts them as an individual.ComplianceInternalizationPublicly changing behaviour to fit in with the group while privately disagreeing. In other words, conforming to the majority (publicly), in spite of not really agreeing with them (privately). This is seen in Aschs line experiment.Publicly changing behavior to fit in with the group and also agreeing with them privately. This is seen in Sherifs autokinetic experiment.Ingratiational ConformityIdentificationWhere a person conforms to impress or gain favor/acceptance from other people. It is similar to normative influence but is motivated by the need for social rewards rather than the curse of rejection, i.e., group pressure does not enter the decision to conform.Conforming to the expectations of a social role. Similar to compliance, there does not have to be a change in private opinion. A good example is Zimbardos Prison Study.Source Mann, L (1969). kind psychological science. New York Wiley.Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in knowledge. Archives of Psychology, 27(187) .However, perhaps the most historied conformity experiment was by Solomon Asch (1951) and his line judgment experiment.Solomon Asch Paradigm/Expe rimentThe Asch experiment or imageIt is closely related to the Stanford prison and Miligan experiment, in that it tries to show how perfectly normal human beings can be pressurized into comical behaviour by authority figures, or by the consensus of opinions rough them. The Asch paradigm was a series of laboratory studies published in the 1950s that exhibit a surprising degree of conformity to a majority opinion. Solomon Asch attributed his research on group conformity based on an experiment he had as a child while growing up in Poland. It was Passover and he stayed up late to participate, his grandmother set out an special(a) glass of wine on the table and when he asked who the wine was for, his uncle answered him that it was for the illusionist Elijah. Asch was filled with the sense of suggestion and expectation and believed that he even maxim the level of the wine slightly decrease.At the beginning of the Second terra firma War (WWII), Asch began studying the effects of pro paganda and indoctrination at Brooklyn College. According to the Encarta dictionaries, propaganda means take publicity deceptive or distorted information that is systematically broadcast. Indoctrination on the other hand is simply to cause to believe something to memorise somebody a belief, doctrine or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions brotherly rack and PerceptionIn 1951 social psychologist Solomon Asch devised this experiment to go steady the extent to which pressure from other people could affect ones perceptions. In total, about one third of the subjects who were placed in this situation went along with the clearly erroneous majority. Asch showed bars like those in the cypher to college students in groups of 8 to 10. He told them he was studying visual perception and that their task was to decide which of the bars on the right was the same length as the one on the left.As you can see, the task is simple, and the correct answer is obvious. Asch asked the students to give their answers aloud. He repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars. whole one student in each group was a real subject. All the others were confederates who had been instructed to give two correct answers and then to some erroneous answers on the remaining staged trials. Asch arranged for the real subject to be the next-to-the-last person in each group to announce his answer so that he would hear most of the confederates amiss(p) responses before giving his own. Would he go along with the crowd?Solomon Asch far right real subject third from right.To Aschs surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed themselves to the obviously erroneous answers given by the other group members at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the staged trials. Whenfaced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the staged trials. Asch was disturbed by these results The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning newborn people are willing to call white black. This is a motion of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct. really subject leans forward to get a better view of the lines being displayed. This particular individual insisted that he has to call them as he sees them and disagreed with the consensus over each of staged trials. Why did the subjects conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar. A few of them said that they really did believe the groups answers were correct. Asch conducted a revised version of his experiment to find out whether the subjects rattling did not believe their incorrect answers.When they were permitted to write down their answers after perceive the answers of others, their level of conformity declined to about one third what it had been in the original experiment. Apparently, people conform for two main reasons because they want to be liked by the group and because they believe the group is better informed than they are. speak up you go to a fancy dinner party and notice to your affright that there are four forks beside your plate. When the first course arrives, you are not sure which fork to use. If you are like most people, you look around and use the fork everyone else is using. You do this because you want to be accepted by the group and because you assume the others know more about table etiquette than you do.Conformity, group size, and cohesivenessAsch found that one of the situational factors that influence conformity is the size of the argue majority. In a series of studies he varied the number of confederates who gave incorrect answers from 1 to 15.The subj ects responses varied with the level of majority opinion they were faced with. He found that the subjects conformed to a group of 3 or 4 asreadily as they did to a larger group. However, the subjects conformed much less if they had an ally In some of his experiments, Asch instructed one of the confederates to give correct answers. In the presence of this nonconformist, the real subjects conformed only one fourth as much as they did in the original experiment. There were several reasons First, the real subject find that the majority did not ridicule the dissenter for his answers. Second, the dissenters answers made the subject more certain that the majority was wrong.Third, the real subject now experienced social pressure from the dissenter as well as from the majority. Many of the real subjects later reported that they wanted to be like their nonconformist partner (the similarity principle again). Apparently, it is difficult to be a minority of one but not so difficult to be part o f a minority of two. Some of the subjects indicated afterward that they assumed the stick of the people were correct and that their own perceptions were wrong. Others knew they were correct but didnt want to be different from the rest of the group. Some even insisted they saw the line lengths as the majority claimed to see them. Asch concluded that it is difficult to maintain that you see something when no one else does. The group pressure implied by the expressed opinion of other people can lead to modification and distortions effectively fashioning you see almost anything.Conclusion and ComparisonPublic conformity vs. social influenceThe Asch conformity experiments are often interpreted as evidence for the power of conformity and normative social influence. That is, the willingness to conform publicly in order to attain social reward and avoid social punishment. Others have argued that it is rational to use other peoples judgments as evidence. along the lines of the latter persp ective, the Asch conformity experiments are cited as evidence for the self-categorization theory delineate of social influence. From that perspective the Asch results are interpreted as an outcome of depersonalization processes whereby the participants expect to hold the same opinions as similar others. Social equivalence theoryThe conformity demonstrated in Asch experiments is problematic for social similitude theory, which predicts that social reality testing, or informational influence, will arise when physical reality testing yields uncertainty. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated that uncertainty can arise as an outcome of social reality testing. Relatedly, this inconsistency has been used to support the position that the theoretical distinction between social reality testing and physical reality testing is untenable.REFERENCES1. Hogg, M. A. Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology. Harlow Pearson/scholar Hall. 2. McLeod, S (November 2011). Conformity. solely psycho logy. 3. Aronson, E Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M. (2007). Social Psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-233487-7. 4. Hogg, M. A. Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology. Harlow Pearson/Prentice Hall. 5. Baron, R. S. Vandello, J. A. & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research Impact of task importance on social influence. daybook of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (5) 915927. doi10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.915. 6. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American 193 (5) 3135. 7. Guimond, S (2010). Psychologie Sociale Perspective Multiculturelle. Warve Mardaga. pp. 1928. 8. Asch, S. E. (1952). Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hal. 9. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American 193 (5) 3135. 10. Kelman, H. C (1958). Compliance, Identification, and Internalization Three Processes of Attitude miscellanea. diary of competitiveness Resolution 2(1) 5160. 11. Kelman, H. C (1958). Compliance, Identification, and Internalization Three Processes of Attitude Change. ledger of Conflict Resolution 2(1) 5160. 12. Deutsch, M Grard, H. B (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement.. Journal of abnormal psychology 51 (3) 629636. 13. Hogg, M. A. Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology. Harlow Pearson/Prentice Hall. 14. Sherif, M (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York Harpe. 15. Hogg, M. A. Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology. Harlow Pearson/Prentice Hall. 16. Schachter,, S (1951). Deviation, Rejection, and communication..Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46 190208. 17. Hodges,, B. H. Geyer, A. L. (2006). A Nonconformist Account of the Asch Experiments Values, Pragmatics, and virtuous Dilemmas.Personality and Social Psychology Review 10 (1) 219. 18. Deutsch, M Grard, H. B (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement.. Journal of a bnormal psychology 51 (3) 629636. 19. Latan,, B (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 63 (4) 343356. 20. Forgas, J. P. Williams, K. D (2001). Social influence Direct and corroborative processes. The Sydney symposium of social psychology.. New York Psychology Press.. pp. 6176. 21. McKelvey, W. Kerr, N. H. (1988). Differences in conformity among friends and strangers. psychological Reports 62 (3) 759762.. 22. Urberg,, K. A. Degirmencioglu, S. M. Pilgrim, C. (1997). Close friend and group influence on girlish cigarette smoking and alcohol use.Developmental Psychology 33 (5) 834844. 23. Moscovici,, S. N. (1974). Minority influence. Social psychology Classic and contemporary integrations.. Chicago Rand McNally. pp. 217249.. 24. Felps, W Mitchell, T R. Byington, E (2006). How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel negatively charged Group Members and Dysfunctional.GroupsResearch in Organizational Behavior 27 one hundred seventy-five222. 25. Berry,, J W. (1 967). Independence and conformity in subsistence-level societies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7 415418.. 26. Bond,, M. H & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and Conformity A meta-analysis of studies using the Aschs (1952b, 1956) line judgement task.Psychological Bulletin 119 111137. 27. Reitan,, H Shaw, M (1964). Group Membership, Sex-Composition of the Group, and Conformity Behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology64 4551. 28. Applezweig, M H Moeller, G (1958). Conforming behavior and personality variables. New capital of the United Kingdom Connecticut College. 29. Beloff,, H (1958). Two forms of social conformity Acquiescence and conventionalism. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 56 (1) 99104. 30. Coleman,, J Blake, R R & Mouton, J S (1958). Task difficulty and conformity pressures. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 57(1) 120122. 31. Eagly,, A. H & Carli, L. L (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differ ences in influenceability A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin 90 (1) 120. 32. Eagly,, A. H. (1987).Sex differences in social behavior A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum. 33. Reitan,, H Shaw, M (1964). Group Membership, Sex-Composition of the Group, and Conformity Behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology64 4551. 34. Sistrunk,, F & McDavid, J. W (1971). Sex variable in conforming behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 (2) 200207. 35. Milgram,, S Bickman, L. & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13 (2) 7982. 36.age-of-the-sage.org37.McLeod, S. A. (2007). Simply Psychology Conformity in PsychologyConformity in Psychology. 38.Martyn Shuttleworth (2008). Asch Experiment. Retrieved 17 Apr. 2012 from Experiment. Resources http//www.experiment-resources.com/asch-experiment.html