CLASSIC STUDIES ABOUT CONFORMITY

Critically discuss the classic studies about conformity

CONFORMITY

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to what individuals perceive is normal of their society or social group. This influence occurs in small groups and society as a whole, and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or direct and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or watching television, even when alone.

People often conform from a desire for security within a group—typically a group of a similar age, culture, religion, or educational status. Unwillingness to conform carries the risk of social rejection. In this respect, conformity can be a means of avoiding bullying or deflecting criticism from peers, though it can also reflect suppression of personality. Conformity is often associated with adolescence and youth culture, but strongly affects humans of all ages.

THE ASCH CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT

 

The Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies published in the 1950s that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups. These are also known as the "Asch Paradigm". One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison lines.

Experiments led by Solomon Asch of Swarthmore College asked groups of students to participate in a "vision test". In reality, all but one of the participants were confederates of the experimenter, and the study was really about how the remaining student would react to the confederates' behavior.

In the basic Asch paradigm, the participants — the real subjects and the confederates — were all seated in a classroom. They were asked a variety of questions about the lines such as how long is A, compare the length of A to an everyday object, which line was longer than the other, which lines were the same length, etc. The group was told to announce their answers to each question out loud. The confederates always provided their answers before the study participant, and always gave the same answer as each other. They answered a few questions correctly but eventually began providing incorrect responses. In a control group, with no pressure to conform to an erroneous view, only one subject out of 35 ever gave an incorrect answer. Solomon Asch hypothesized that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong; however, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants provided incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question.

Variations of the basic paradigm tested how many confederates were necessary to induce conformity, examining the influence of just one confederate and as many as fifteen confederates. Results indicate that one confederate has virtually no influence and two confederates have only a small influence. When three or more confederates are present, the tendency to conform is relatively stable. The unanimity of the confederates has also been varied. When the confederates are not unanimous in their judgment, even if only one confederate voices a different opinion, participants are much more likely to resist the urge to conform than when the confederates all agree. This finding illuminates the power that even a small dissenting minority can have. Interestingly, this finding holds whether or not the dissenting confederate gives the correct answer. As long as the dissenting confederate gives an answer that is different from the majority, participants are more likely to give the correct answer.

One difference between the Asch conformity experiments and the Milgram experiment as carried out by Stanley Milgram (also famous in social psychology) is that the subjects of these studies attributed their performance to their own misjudgment and "poor eyesight", while those in the Milgram experiment blamed the experimenter in explaining their behavior. Conformity may be much less salient than authority pressure.

SHERIF, ASCH, AND FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CONFORMITY

Sherif (1935) made use of the autokinetic effect to perform a classic conformity study. If you look at a stationary light in an otherwise dark room the light will appear to move, because your eyes have no other reference point. Sherif found that a subject's reports of movement were highly influenced by other people's estimates.

Ever here the old phrase: "Seeing is believing." Well, the following experiment by Solomon Asch (1958) indicates the old saying is not necessarily true. Subjects asked to indicate which of three lines was the same length as a standard line. The judgments were very easy. If people were tested individually almost no errors were made.

Some subjects gave their judgments in groups of seven. Six of the group members were confederates of the experimenter. The next to last person to respond was the actual subject. On the early on the early trials, everyone gave the correct answer. Then, on a prearranged trial all confederates gave the same obviously incorrect response. Subjects conformed by giving the wrong response on thirty-two percent of the test trials. Many of those people who did not conform felt the need to explain their actions to other group members.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EXTENT OF CONFORMITY

·                    In general, the larger the number of persons who form a unanimous majority the greater the conformity they produce.

·                    High status persons produce more conformity than low status persons.

·                    Conformity is likely to be greater if you expect to meet the other group members in the future or if the group controls resources that you value.

The degree of conformity is greatly reduced if another "deviant" is in the group. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM AND CONSEQUENCES

NEWCOMB'S SYMMETRY THEORY

THE PRACTICE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS IN DEVELOPED WORLD AND PAKISTAN