Conformity
Social Psychology
Chapter 7
October 8, 2004
Class #6
Conformity

Changing one’s behavior to match the
responses or actions of others (no
pressure necessarily)
The Chameleon Effect

Chartrand and
Bargh (1999)

Participant and
confederate worked
on a task together
Is behavior contagious?

Milgram et al. (1969)


Research confederates congregated and
craned their necks to gawk at a window on
the 6th floor of an apartment building
80% of all passers-by stopped and gazed
upward
Uncertainty

In ambiguous situations, people tend to
rely on information provided by others


Sherif asked students to judge the apparent
movement of a stationary light on a wall
Autokinetic Effect

A stationary spot of light in a dark room
appears to move
Sherif (1937)

Put yourself in the role of the participant…
 Day 1
 Participant stares at a pinpoint of light
about 15 feet away
 The light seems to be moving but you can’t
be sure…after a few seconds it disappears
Sherif: How far did it move?
 Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe
about 8 inches

Sherif (1937)


Day 2
 The participant is now joined by three confederates
 This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about
15 feet away
 Again, you think it moved about 8 inches
 Sherif: How far did it move?
 Confederate 1: 2 inches
 Confederate 2: an inch or two
 Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one
inch
 Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inches
Everyone else looks at you as if you are crazy
Sherif (1937)

Day 3


The same situation as Day 2 except this time
you reply “about 4 inches”
Day 4

The same situation as Day 2 except this time
you reply “its probably like 2 inches”
Conformity:
Asch’s Research on Group Influence

Lets look at Asch’s
classic research
studies involving
group pressure…
 Asch (1951,
1952, 1956)
Asch (1951)

Which of the lines on the left most closely
matches line A on the right?

1 2 3
In this early
version, Asch had
16 “naïve”
participants with 1
confederate who
gave incorrect
answers
A
Asch (1951)

Results:

Participants laughed at and ridiculed the
confederate
Asch’s Research on Group Influence
(1951, 1952, 1956)


Series of experiments
most done with 1
participant and 5-8
confederates
Real participant would
give their judgment
after several
confederates had
already given theirs
Asch (1956)

Which of the lines on the left most closely
matches line A on the right?

1 2 3
What would you say if
you were in a group
of 6 others, and all
agreed the answer
was 2?
A
Asch (1956)

When alone, 95% of participants got all the
answers correct…

1 2 3
When confronted by the
unanimous incorrect
majority, participants
conformed 37% of the
time…in fact 75% went
against their own eyes at
least once if the group
gave a wrong answer
A
Asch (1956)

Some participants said they didn’t want to look
silly or be rejected by the rest of the group


This is referred to as normative social influence
 They wanted to “fit in” with the others
Some participants said it was because they
thought the others must have had better
eyesight or be better informed in some way

This is referred to as informational social
influence
 They
were basically utilizing others as a
source of information
Asch’s conclusions…conditions that
strengthen conformity

The following were influential insofar as
conformity was concerned...



Group size
Incompetent and insecure individuals
Group’s status and attractiveness
Group size

As the number of people increases so
does conformity…


Asch varied the size of his groups using 1 to
15 confederates in his many studies
Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the
amount of additional influence was negligible
Incompetent and insecure individuals

When one is made to feel incompetent or
insecure conformity is likely
Group’s status and attractiveness

Kind of goes without saying…if its a group
you want to be a part of – you will likely
conform to its opinions
Asch’s conclusions…conditions
that weaken conformity


Presence of an ally – the “true partner effect”
Independence
Presence of an ally


The presence of a true partner, who agreed with
the subject, reduced conformity by 80%
When we have an ally, we can diffuse the
pressure because we are not the only one
breaking the norm


Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s
convictions than when one is part of even a tiny
minority
Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to
conform
Independence


Some people care more about standing up
for their rights than being disliked
In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone
dissenter resisted the pressure to conform
Asch (1956)

Bottom-line Conclusion:


People faced with strong group consensus
sometimes go along even though they think
the others may be wrong
And these are strangers…what if they were
member’s of your own circle of friends?
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies

Sherif:


Because of ambiguity, participants turned to
each other for guidance
Asch:


Participants often found themselves in an
awkward position
It was obvious that group was wrong
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies

Sherif (moving light)

Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct answer
Reasonable to consider other’s views
 Participants later adopted social norms



Conformity leads to internalization
Asch (parallel lines)

Participants knew there was a correct
answer

Conformity does not lead to internalization
Types of Conformity

Private Conformity:


Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs
Public Conformity:

Superficial change in overt behavior only
Types of Conformity
CRUTCHFIELD (1955)

Studies of attitude
 “Free speech being a privilege rather than
a right, it is proper for a society to suspend
free speech when it feels threatened”
 19% agreed with statement in private
 58% agreed under pressure of group
influence
CRUTCHFIELD (1955)

Statement presented to Army leaders:
“I doubt whether I would make a good leader”




None agreed with statement in private
37% agreed under group pressure
BUT
When Ss were presented with judgements again
in private most reverted to their pre-group
answers
No permanent attitude change as result of
experiment
DEL MAR, California (March 26, 1997)


39 cult members were found dead in a
hilltop mansion
They apparently died in a carefully
orchestrated suicide that involved
sedatives, vodka and plastic bags possibly
used to suffocate
Together forever???


In 1994, members began
to talk more openly about
leaving Earth for what
they called "The Kingdom
Level Above Human,"
which they said was a
"real, physical" place
Pictured to the right is
their leader, Marshall
Applewhite
He got people to conform to his beliefs…




“Hale-Bopp's (comet) approach is the ‘marker’ we've
been waiting for -- the time for the arrival of the
spacecraft from the Level Above Human to take us home
to ‘Their World’ -- in the literal Heavens”
Our 22 years of classroom here on planet Earth is finally
coming to conclusion -- "graduation" from the Human
Evolutionary Level
They believed that a spaceship was following the comet
and they were happily prepared to leave
They committed the mass suicide so that their spirits
could board the ship
Other less extreme examples of
conformity…


TV comedies that use canned laughter –
research shows that it works
Bartenders and street musicians will often
place money in their tip jars or hats –
again research shows that this works