Conformity (Types & Explanations), Asch's Line Study & Zimbardo's Prison Study

1

Kelman's (1958) Three Types of Conformity

Conformity is a change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people. Herbert Kelman (1958) distinguished three progressively deeper levels: 1. Compliance (shallowest): publicly going along with the majority's behaviour or views to gain approval or avoid disapproval, while privately maintaining your own original beliefs (change stops as soon as group surveillance ends). 2. Identification (moderate): adopting the behaviours and beliefs of a valued group both publicly and privately because you value membership of that role or group, though the change may fade if you leave the group. 3. Internalisation (deepest): genuine acceptance of group norms resulting in a permanent change of both public behaviour and private beliefs, which persists even in the absence of the group.

Save

2

Explanations for Conformity: ISI vs NSI (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)

1. Informational social influence (ISI) is a cognitive process driven by the desire to be right. In ambiguous, unfamiliar, or crisis situations where an individual lacks objective knowledge (or believes others are more expert), they look to the majority as a source of accurate information, leading to internalisation (supported by Jenness's 1932 jelly-bean study and Lucas et al. 2006, where conformity rose on difficult maths problems, especially among students with low mathematical self-efficacy). 2. Normative social influence (NSI) is an emotional process driven by the desire to be liked and accepted (and to avoid social rejection or ridicule as a 'stranger'). It operates in unambiguous situations where the person knows the majority is wrong, leading to compliance (supported by Asch 1951, where conformity dropped from 32% to 12.5% when participants wrote their answers privately).

Save

3

Asch's (1951) Baseline Line Judgement Procedure and Findings

Solomon Asch tested 123 American male undergraduates placed in groups with 6 to 8 confederates (actors). On each of 18 trials (12 critical trials where confederates unanimously gave the same wrong answer), participants had to state aloud which of three comparison lines (A, B, or C) matched the length of a standard line - an unambiguous task with a 99% accuracy rate in a control group tested alone. Findings: On critical trials, the average conformity rate was 32% (or 36.8% in Asch 1956); 75% of naive participants conformed at least once on the 12 critical trials, while 25% never conformed (demonstrating individual differences).

Save

4

Asch's (1955) Situational Variations: Group Size, Unanimity & Task Difficulty

Asch systematically manipulated three situational variables (IVs) to test their effect on conformity (DV): 1. Group size: With 1 confederate, conformity was 3%; with 2 confederates, 13.6%; with 3 confederates, it jumped to 31.8% (adding more than 3 confederates produced little further increase, showing a ceiling effect). 2. Unanimity: Introducing a single dissenter (a confederate who gave either the correct answer or a different wrong answer) broke the group's unanimity and caused conformity to plummet to 5.5% (about a quarter of the baseline level) by providing social support. 3. Task difficulty: Making the comparison lines much closer in length increased ambiguity, causing conformity to rise as Informational Social Influence (ISI) took over from NSI.

Save

5

Evaluation of Asch's Research (Perrin & Spencer, Temporal/Cultural Bias)

Strengths: High internal validity due to strict lab control over variables (confederate scripts, seating position, line lengths). Limitations: 1. 'Child of its time' (Lack of temporal validity): Asch's study took place during the 1950s McCarthyism anti-communist era in the USA when conformity was unusually high; Perrin and Spencer (1980) replicated Asch with UK engineering students and found only 1 conforming response out of 396 critical trials. 2. Androcentric and Ethnocentric bias: all 123 participants were American men; Smith and Bond (1996) showed collectivist cultures (e.g., China, Japan) exhibit significantly higher conformity (averaging ~37%) than individualist cultures (~25%). 3. Low mundane realism and trivial task (Fiske 2014 noted 'Asch's groups were not very groupy').

Save

6

Zimbardo's (1973) Conformity to Social Roles: Stanford Prison Experiment

To investigate whether brutality in prisons is dispositional (due to sadistic personalities) or situational (due to institutional social roles), Philip Zimbardo converted the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison and randomly assigned 24 emotionally stable male student volunteers to the role of 'guard' (given khaki uniforms, mirrored sunglasses for deindividuation, whistles, and batons) or 'prisoner' (arrested at home by real Palo Alto police, stripped, deloused, given loose smocks and ID numbers). Within 48 hours, prisoners rebelled and guards responded with escalating psychological abuse and humiliation; 5 prisoners had to be released early due to severe emotional disturbance, and the planned 2-week study was halted after just 6 days when Christina Maslach objected on ethical grounds.

Save

1. Q1

   Outline and evaluate two explanations for conformity. (8 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. [AO1 - 2 marks] Normative Social Influence (NSI) is an emotional explanation based on the desire to be liked, gain social approval, and avoid rejection/ostracism, operating in unambiguous situations and resulting in temporary compliance (public agreement without private acceptance). 2. [AO1 - 2 marks] Informational Social Influence (ISI) is a cognitive explanation based on the desire to be right in ambiguous, unfamiliar, or difficult situations where we look to others as experts, resulting in permanent internalisation (both public and private change). 3. [AO3 - 2 marks] Research support for NSI comes from Asch (1951), where 32% of critical responses conformed on an unambiguous line task to avoid looking foolish, and conformity fell to 12.5% when participants wrote answers privately; Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) also showed exposing teens to normative health messages reduced smoking uptake. 4. [AO3 - 2 marks] Research support for ISI comes from Lucas et al. (2006), who found significantly higher conformity on 'hard' vs 'easy' maths problems (especially in students with low maths confidence), though Deutsch and Gerard's (1955) two-process model is challenged because ISI and NSI often operate simultaneously (e.g., Asch's dissenter variation reduced both NSI and ISI).

2. Q2

   Describe Asch's research into conformity and explain how two situational variables investigated by Asch affected conformity rates. (6 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. In Asch's (1951) baseline study, 123 male US undergraduates were seated in groups with 6-8 confederates and asked aloud on 18 trials (12 critical trials where confederates unanimously gave the wrong answer) which of three comparison lines matched a standard line [1 mark]. 2. On critical trials, the mean conformity rate was 32% (36.8%), with 75% conforming at least once and 25% never conforming [1 mark]. 3. Variable 1 (Group Size): Asch varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15; conformity was 3% with 1 confederate, 13.6% with 2 confederates, and rose sharply to 31.8% with 3 confederates [1 mark]. 4. Increasing the majority beyond 3 confederates produced very little further increase in conformity, showing that a majority of 3 is sufficient to create maximum normative pressure [1 mark]. 5. Variable 2 (Unanimity): When Asch introduced a single dissenter confederate who gave the correct answer (or even a different wrong answer), conformity dropped by over three-quarters to 5.5% [1 mark]. 6. Breaking unanimity provided social support that freed the naive participant to follow their own conscience and resist normative group pressure [1 mark].

3. Q3

   Discuss Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles. Refer to methodological and ethical criticisms in your answer. (8 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. [AO1 - 3 marks] Zimbardo (1973) set up a mock prison at Stanford University with 24 emotionally stable male volunteers randomly assigned to 'prisoner' (arrested by police, stripped, given smocks and numbers) or 'guard' (uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, batons). Within days, guards became increasingly tyrannical and abusive while prisoners became passive and depressed; 5 prisoners were released early with acute emotional distress and the 2-week study was stopped after 6 days, concluding situational roles overpower dispositional morality. 2. [AO3 Strength - 1 mark] Random assignment of psychologically screened volunteers eliminated pre-existing dispositional personality differences as a confounding variable, strengthening internal validity. 3. [AO3 Criticism 1: Exaggerated power of roles / Individual differences - 2 marks] Savin (1973) and Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued participants were merely play-acting stereotypes based on demand characteristics; moreover, only one-third of the guards ('John Wayne' Included) behaved brutally while others were fair or sympathetic, and Reicher and Haslam (2006) showed in the BBC Prison Study that role conformity is not automatic. 4. [AO3 Criticism 2: Ethical issues and dual role conflict - 2 marks] Zimbardo acted as both Lead Researcher and 'Prison Superintendent', creating a conflict of interest that blinded him to severe psychological harm and prevented timely withdrawal when prisoners begged to leave.

4. Q4

   A teacher wants to reduce underage vaping in a secondary school using psychological research on conformity. Suggest how the teacher could apply Normative Social Influence (NSI) and Asch's unanimity findings to design an effective school intervention. (4 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. Apply NSI (Social Norms Marketing): Teenagers often overestimate how many peers vape and conform out of a desire to fit in and be liked [1 mark]. 2. The teacher should publicise accurate school survey statistics (e.g., '88% of Year 10 students at our school do not vape') on posters so students realise the true majority norm is non-vaping [1 mark]. 3. Apply Asch's Unanimity variation: Asch showed that having just one dissenting ally reduces conformity by ~75% (down to 5.5%) by breaking group consensus [1 mark]. 4. The teacher could train peer mentors or pair students with a buddy who openly refuses vapes, giving hesitant students the social support needed to resist peer pressure [1 mark].

Related study guides