Social Psychology

Conformity

Definitions

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a group. It is distinguished from obedience (following a direct order from an authority figure) and compliance (publicly agreeing without private acceptance).

Types of conformity:

• Compliance: publicly conforming to the group's behaviour or opinion while privately maintaining one's own views. The change is temporary and situational.
• Identification: conforming to the group because there is a desire to be associated with it or to establish a social identity. The change persists while the individual is in the group's presence or identifies with it.
• Internalisation: a deep, genuine change in private beliefs and attitudes to align with the group. The change is permanent and persists even when the group is absent.

Asch's Line Judgment Experiment (1951, 1955)

Aim: to investigate whether individuals would conform to a group majority when the correct answer was unambiguous.

Procedure: $50$ male US college students participated in a controlled laboratory experiment. Each participant was placed in a group of seven confederates. Participants were shown a line (the standard) and three comparison lines (A, B, and C), and asked to identify which comparison line matched the standard. On $12$ of the $18$ critical trials, confederates unanimously gave the wrong answer.

Findings: participants conformed on $36.8\%$ of critical trials. $75\%$ conformed at least once; $25\%$ never conformed. The overall conformity rate was relatively low, but the presence of any conformity in an unambiguous task was significant.

Variations and findings:

• Group size: conformity increased with group size up to a majority of three, then levelled off. Larger groups did not produce substantially more conformity.
• Unanimity: the presence of a single dissenter (a confederate who gave the correct answer) reduced conformity from $37\%$ to $5.5\%$. A dissenter breaks the unanimity of the majority and provides social support for non-conformity.
• Task difficulty: conformity increased when the lines were made more similar, increasing ambiguity.
• Partner (ally) variation: conformity dropped significantly when the participant had an ally, even one who disagreed for different reasons.
• Culture: later replications found higher conformity rates in collectivist cultures (e.g., Bonds and Smith, 1996).

Evaluation:

Strengths:

• High internal validity: controlled laboratory conditions, standardised procedure, clear IV (group pressure) and DV (conformity rate)
• Replicable methodology with consistent findings across replications

Limitations:

• Low ecological validity: a trivial task (matching lines) does not reflect real-world conformity pressures
• Sample bias: all-male US college students limit generalisability
• Demand characteristics: participants may have suspected the true purpose and behaved accordingly
• Ethics: participants were deceived about the true nature of the experiment and experienced stress
• Historical context: conducted in 1950s America (era of McCarthyism); conformity rates may differ in contemporary contexts

Explanations for Conformity

Informational social influence (ISI): people conform because they believe the group is better informed than they are. This occurs particularly in ambiguous situations or when the individual lacks expertise. Conformity through ISI tends to lead to internalisation.

Normative social influence (NSI): people conform to gain social approval and avoid rejection or social disapproval. This is driven by the fundamental human need for belonging (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Conformity through NSI tends to lead to compliance (public conformity without private acceptance).

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

Aim: to investigate how social roles influence behaviour, specifically whether ordinary people would conform to the role of prisoner or prison guard.

Procedure: $24$ male college students (selected from $75$ volunteers for psychological stability) were randomly assigned the role of guard or prisoner in a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University's psychology building. The experiment was planned to run for two weeks.

Findings: guards quickly adopted authoritarian, punitive behaviour, imposing arbitrary rules, humiliating prisoners, and escalating punishments. Prisoners became submissive, depressed, and showed signs of psychological distress. The experiment was terminated after only six days due to the extreme behaviour of the guards and the distress of the prisoners.

Evaluation:

Strengths:

• Demonstrated the powerful effect of social roles on behaviour
• High ecological validity compared to laboratory experiments (though still a simulation)
• Detailed qualitative data from observations and interviews

Limitations:

• Severe ethical violations: psychological harm to participants, lack of fully informed consent, inability to withdraw freely
• Methodological criticism: Zimbardo actively encouraged the guards to be tough (acting as a co-participant rather than a neutral researcher)
• Sample bias: all-male, predominantly white, middle-class college students
• Demand characteristics: guards may have been acting based on their expectations of how prison guards should behave
• Generalisability: a small sample in a simulated environment; real prisons involve career professionals with institutional culture

Fromme (2004) re-analysed the data and found that not all guards behaved brutally; approximately one-third were punitive, one-third were supportive, and one-third applied the rules fairly. The experiment's conclusions have been significantly qualified.

Obedience

Milgram's Obedience Studies (1963)

Aim: to investigate how far ordinary people would go in obeying an authority figure who instructed them to harm another person.

Procedure: $40$ male participants (aged $20$--$50$, from various occupations) were recruited for a study supposedly on "learning and memory." Participants were assigned the role of "teacher" and a confederate played the role of "learner." The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks of increasing intensity (from $15\;\mathrm{V}$ to $450\;\mathrm{V}$) each time the learner made an error on a word-pair task. No actual shocks were delivered, but the teacher believed they were real.

Findings: $100\%$ of participants administered shocks up to $300\;\mathrm{V}$; $65\%$ administered the maximum $450\;\mathrm{V}$ shock. Participants showed signs of extreme tension (sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughter), yet most continued to obey.

Variations and findings:

• Proximity: when the learner was in the same room, obedience fell to $40\%$. When the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate, obedience fell to $30\%$. Physical proximity reduced obedience.
• Location: when the experiment was moved from Yale University to a run-down office building, obedience fell from $65\%$ to $47.5\%$. The prestige of the institution influenced obedience.
• Legitimacy of authority: when the experimenter was absent and orders were given by telephone, obedience fell to $20.5\%$. Participants defied orders when the authority figure was not physically present.
• Peer rebellion: when two confederates (co-teachers) refused to continue, only $10\%$ of participants proceeded to $450\;\mathrm{V}$. Dissent by others dramatically reduced obedience.
• Role of the participant: when the participant was assigned the role of recording results while another confederate administered shocks, $92.5\%$ continued to $450\;\mathrm{V}$. The passive role increased obedience.

Evaluation:

Strengths:

• Strong evidence of the power of obedience to authority
• Controlled methodology allowing identification of variables affecting obedience
• High reliability: consistent findings across multiple replications and variations

Limitations:

• Ethical concerns: extreme psychological distress, deception about the true purpose and the reality of the shocks, the right to withdraw was not made genuinely available
• Sample bias: all male, self-selected volunteers (may be more obedient than the general population)
• Ecological validity: a laboratory setting does not replicate the complexity of real-world obedience (e.g., the Holocaust, which Milgram used as motivation)
• Cultural bias: later replications found varying obedience rates across cultures (e.g., higher in some collectivist cultures, lower in Australia)

Explanations for Obedience

Situational factors:

• Legitimate authority: Milgram's participants obeyed because they perceived the experimenter as a legitimate authority figure (associated with Yale University, wearing a lab coat, having scientific expertise).
• Agentic shift: people shift from an autonomous state (acting on their own values) to an agentic state (feeling responsible to the authority figure). They pass moral responsibility to the authority: "I was just following orders."
• Proximity: physical proximity of the victim increases empathy and reduces obedience.
• Gradual commitment (foot-in-the-door): shocks increased in $15\;\mathrm{V}$ increments, making each step feel like a small escalation from the last.
• Buffers: physical and psychological distance from the consequences of one's actions reduce the moral strain of obedience.

Dispositional factors:

• Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950): individuals with high authoritarian tendencies (conventional, submissive to authority, aggressive toward out-groups) may be more obedient. Measured by the F-scale (Fascism scale). However, evidence for a strong link between authoritarianism and obedience is mixed.
• Locus of control (Rotter, 1966): individuals with an external locus of control (believing outcomes are determined by external forces) may be more obedient than those with an internal locus of control.

Resistance to Social Influence

Social Support

The presence of a dissenting individual (social support) significantly reduces both conformity (Asch's dissenter variation) and obedience (Milgram's peer rebellion variation). Social support provides an alternative reference point, validates the individual's own judgment, and increases the psychological cost of conforming.

Locus of Control

Internal locus of control: individuals believe they have significant control over their own lives and outcomes. They are more likely to resist social influence because they take personal responsibility for their actions and trust their own judgment.

External locus of control: individuals believe that external forces (luck, fate, powerful others) determine outcomes. They are more likely to conform and obey because they attribute responsibility to external authority.

Rotter (1966) developed the Locus of Control scale. Research has found that people with an internal locus of control are more resistant to obedience and conformity, though the effect is not always strong.

Self-Esteem and Confidence

Individuals with higher self-esteem are generally more resistant to social influence. They are more confident in their own judgment and less dependent on social approval. Individuals with low self-esteem seek social validation and are more susceptible to normative social influence.

Minority Influence

Moscovici's Blue-Green Study (1969)

Aim: to investigate whether a consistent minority could influence a majority.

Procedure: $6$ participants (all confederates except one) viewed $36$ blue slides of varying shades. The minority of two confederates consistently described the slides as "green" on every trial.

Findings: in the consistent condition, $8.2\%$ of participants' responses agreed with the minority (calling the slides green). In an inconsistent condition (where the minority was not unanimous), the influence dropped to $1.25\%$.

Explanations of Minority Influence

• Consistency: a minority must be consistent in its position over time and between members. Inconsistency is perceived as uncertainty and reduces influence.
• Commitment: sacrifice or commitment to the minority position (e.g., taking risks, suffering social costs) signals sincerity and attracts attention.
• Flexibility: while consistency is important, some flexibility (willingness to compromise on less central issues) prevents the minority from appearing rigid and dogmatic.
• The conversion effect: minority influence is gradual and operates through internalisation rather than public compliance. The majority may not publicly agree but may privately adopt the minority's position, leading to delayed but deeper attitude change.

Social Change

Social change occurs when society as a whole adopts new beliefs, values, or behaviours. Minority influence and conformity processes interact to produce social change.

Processes of social change:

1. Minority influence: a small, committed group consistently advocates for a new position (e.g., the civil rights movement, women's suffrage, environmentalism)
2. Consistency and commitment attract attention and create cognitive conflict within the majority
3. Internalisation (conversion): some majority members privately adopt the minority's position (the snowball effect)
4. Adequate minority becomes the new majority: as more people are converted, the minority position gains momentum
5. Normative social influence: as the new position becomes the norm, remaining individuals conform through NSI
6. Social change is consolidated through institutionalisation (laws, policies, social norms)

Examples:

• Civil rights movement in the USA: a minority (African Americans and allies) consistently challenged segregation through protests and civil disobedience. Public opinion gradually shifted, leading to the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965). Once these laws were in place, normative social pressure ensured broader compliance.
• Smoking ban: medical evidence (minority of researchers) identified smoking as harmful. Over time, public attitudes shifted, legislation was introduced, and smoking became socially unacceptable.

Common Pitfalls

• Confusing conformity with obedience. Conformity involves responding to peer pressure (equal-status group members); obedience involves responding to authority (unequal status, explicit commands).
• Confusing the three types of conformity (compliance, identification, internalisation) and failing to link them to the appropriate explanations (NSI leads to compliance; ISI leads to internalisation).
• Describing Zimbardo's findings as if all guards were brutal. Subsequent analyses show considerable variation in guard behaviour.
• Stating that Milgram's experiment proves "Germans are different" — this was Milgram's hypothesis, not his finding. His US participants showed similar obedience rates.
• Confusing minority influence with conformity. Minority influence involves a minority changing the majority's views; conformity involves an individual changing to fit the majority. The mechanisms differ: minority influence relies on consistency and internalisation; conformity relies on NSI and ISI.

Practice Problems

Problem 1: Asch Evaluation

Discuss two strengths and two limitations of Asch's line judgment experiment as a study of conformity.

Strengths:

1. High internal validity: Asch controlled extraneous variables by using a standardised procedure in a laboratory. The independent variable (whether confederates gave the correct or incorrect answer) was clearly manipulated, and the dependent variable (the proportion of trials on which the participant conformed) was precisely measured. This allows a clear cause-and-effect relationship to be established between group pressure and conformity.

2. Reliability: the experiment has been replicated many times with broadly consistent results (though conformity rates vary across cultures and eras), supporting the reliability of the findings. The methodology is standardised and could be repeated.

Limitations:

1. Low ecological validity: the task (matching lines) was trivial and unambiguous, bearing little resemblance to real-world conformity situations (e.g., political opinions, social norms, fashion). Conformity may differ significantly in situations involving meaningful or ambiguous judgments.

2. Sample bias and cultural bias: Asch used only male US college students in the 1950s. The results may not generalise to women, other age groups, other cultures, or contemporary populations. Later research found higher conformity rates in collectivist cultures and lower rates in individualist cultures, suggesting cultural variation.

Problem 2: Obedience Variation Analysis

Milgram found that obedience dropped from $65\%$ to $20.5\%$ when orders were given by telephone rather than in person. Explain this finding using psychological theory.

The reduction in obedience when orders were given by telephone can be explained by several factors:

1. Legitimacy of authority: the physical presence of the experimenter in a lab coat at a prestigious university (Yale) reinforced his legitimacy and authority. When orders were given by telephone, the experimenter was not physically present, reducing the salience of his authority.

2. Agentic shift: in the face-to-face condition, participants entered an agentic state, feeling they were acting as the agent of the authority. The telephone condition weakened the agentic shift because the authority figure was distant and less immediate.

3. Proximity: participants were in the same room as the learner, hearing his protests and screams, but the authority was remote. The immediate distress of the victim was more salient than the distant authority, shifting the participant's moral focus toward the learner.

4. Buffers: the telephone created a physical buffer between the participant and the authority figure, reducing the social pressure to obey. Participants found it easier to defy when they did not have to face the authority figure directly.

5. Gradual commitment was weakened: the experimenter could not use the standard prods (e.g., "the experiment requires that you continue") as effectively over the telephone, and participants could more easily rationalise disobedience.

Problem 3: Social Change Application

Using minority influence theory, explain how the campaign for same-sex marriage achieved social change in the UK.

The campaign for same-sex marriage in the UK illustrates several processes of social change driven by minority influence:

1. Consistent minority advocacy: LGBTQ+ rights organisations and their allies consistently argued for marriage equality over decades, maintaining a unified message despite opposition. This consistency was critical in establishing credibility.

2. Commitment: activists demonstrated commitment through visible actions (pride marches, lobbying, public campaigns, legal challenges). The willingness of individuals to face social stigma, discrimination, and violence signalled the depth of their conviction.

3. Snowball effect (conversion): over time, public opinion shifted. Opinion polls showed growing support for same-sex marriage as individuals privately internalised the arguments for equality. The minority position gradually gained converts.

4. Flexibility: the movement engaged in democratic processes (parliamentary debate, legal challenges) rather than demanding revolutionary change, making the position appear reasonable and compromising.

5. Normative social influence: once public opinion reached a majority in favour, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed. After legalisation, normative social pressure reinforced the new norm — opposition to same-sex marriage became socially unacceptable in mainstream discourse.

6. Internalisation: the new norm was not merely publicly accepted; it became genuinely embedded in social attitudes and institutional practice.

Problem 4: Resistance to Social Influence

A student is pressured by peers to skip revision and attend a party the night before an exam. Using psychological concepts, explain the factors that might lead the student to resist this social influence.

Several factors from social psychology can explain the student's resistance:

1. Internal locus of control: if the student believes their own actions determine their outcomes (internal locus of control), they are more likely to trust their own judgment about the importance of revision and resist peer pressure. They take personal responsibility for their academic performance.

2. Self-esteem: a student with high self-esteem is more confident in their own priorities and less dependent on social approval from peers. They are better able to tolerate potential social disapproval from refusing the invitation.

3. Social support: if even one friend also refuses to attend the party (a dissenter), the student gains social support, which significantly reduces the pressure to conform (Asch's dissenter effect). The presence of a non-conforming ally validates the student's own judgment.

4. Time perspective and future orientation: the student may perceive the exam as more important than the immediate social reward, weighting long-term consequences more heavily than short-term social approval.

5. Prior internalisation of academic values: if the student has genuinely internalised the value of academic achievement (through family, school culture, or personal experience), their private beliefs align with the decision to revise, making resistance easier.

Problem 5: Conformity vs. Obedience Comparison

Compare and contrast conformity and obedience, using research evidence to support your answer.

Similarities:

• Both are forms of social influence in which individuals change their behaviour in response to social pressure
• Both are influenced by group size and social support: larger groups increase conformity (Asch) and obedience (Milgram); the presence of dissenters reduces both
• Both can lead individuals to act against their own moral judgment or better knowledge

Differences:

Aspect	Conformity	Obedience
Source of influence	Peers (equal-status group members)	Authority figure (higher-status individual)
Nature of influence	Implicit pressure (no direct instruction)	Explicit instruction or command
Primary explanation	Normative and informational social influence	Agentic shift, legitimate authority
Research evidence	Asch (36.8% conformity rate)	Milgram (65% obedience rate to maximum voltage)
Type of change	Primarily compliance or internalisation	Public compliance (participants showed distress)
Presence of authority	No designated authority figure	Authority figure is central

Asch and Milgram's studies demonstrate that ordinary people are susceptible to social influence from both peers and authority, but the mechanisms, context, and nature of the influence differ significantly.