psychology assignment

Gail Rudge

Describe and criticise two studies from psychological research on either conformity or obedience

Conformity involves a change in behaviour or opinion in order to fit in with a group. This may be family or peers (a membership group) or it may be pop and sports stars (a reference group). This group can be either a majority or a minority group. (S-cool Student Site)

Two processes have been identified in causing people to conform (Deutsch and Gerard (1955)), these are normative influence which often comes from peer pressure such as fear of rejection and wanting approval and informational influence which is the fear of looking unintelligent and believing others know better especially with something unfamiliar or difficult.

There have been many studies done by psychologists into why people conform two examples of which are Zimbardo et al (1973) and Moscovici et al (1969) which are described as follows:

Zimbardos aim in his Stamford prison experiment was to examine conformity to social roles and expectations in other words to see the effect of making ‘good’, ‘normal’ people into prisoners and prison guards.

The procedure for the experiment was that twenty-four middle class male students who were mentally sound in tests and without any criminal convictions were paid fifteen dollars a day and divided into prisoners or guards by the flip of a coin.

The prisoners were arrested at their homes, blindfolded and taken to the psychology Department of Stanford University that had been converted into a realistic prison. From there the prison regime was established, the three guards were given khaki uniforms dark glasses and wooden batons, the prisoners were issued uniforms and put into cells. They were informed that no physical aggression was permitted. The participants were then left to their roles of either prison guard or prisoner.

The findings of the study were that the prison guards became more and more verbally and physically aggressive. The prisoners rebelled against the guards after only one day and fire extinguishers were used to control the prisoners. The prisoners became depersonalised and suffered emotional depression, one prisoner had to be released after only one day and two more on the fourth day. The study was abandoned after only six days instead of the planned fourteen.

Zimbardo believes that the study demonstrated the powerful effect roles could have on people’s behaviour. The participants were ‘playing the role’ that they ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Zimbardo believes that the study demonstrated the powerful effect roles could have on people’s behaviour. The participants were ‘playing the role’ that they thought was expected of them in particular the stereotyped view of how prison guards behave. In other words they were conforming to an ‘unofficial script’. The prison environment played an important part in how the guards behaved as none had shown sadistic tendencies before the study.

The study has been criticized because of the lack of informed consent the participants had and the humiliation and distress experienced by the prisoners. Zimbardo was also criticised for acting the role of ‘prison superintendent’. In Zimbardos defence he only found out himself late on that he had the backing of the police to do the arrest and there was no time to tell the participants. He also couldn’t really tell them what was going to happen without it becoming unrealistic. The study was stopped early and the participants had no lasting effects from the study, after extensive debriefing and follow-ups years later. Infact they revealed they had learned an important lesson in that we can all be overwhelmed by social influences. Zimbardo himself now acknowledges that he shouldn’t of acted the role of superintendent but still believes that there should still be an independent monitor in this sort of research so that not only are the participants protected valuable information can also be acquired.

Moscovicis aim of his study was to investigate minority influence and examine whether a minority are most likely to influence a majority if they are consistent in their views.

He proceeded with his study by testing his 172 participants to make sure they weren’t colour blind. The participants were asked six at a time (two of which were confederates) to estimate the colour of thirty-six slides, the slides were all coloured blue but different in brightness. There were two conditions, consistent were the confederates called the slide green everytime and inconsistent were the confederates called the slides green twenty-four times and blue twelve times.

The experiment was first done with a control group with all pressures to conform removed. In this only 0.25% of the answers were green. In the experimental group were the confederates were inconsistent the percentage rose to 1.25% of green replies.

When the confederates were consistent with their replies the conformity rate rose to 8.42%. (Queen Elizabeth 6th Form College Website)

The conclusion of this study was that a minority has the power to influence a majority. However they are more influential when they are consistent in their views, when they were inconsistent they were largely ignored.

Criticisms of this study have been that it lacked external validity in that the task was unlikely to occur in real-life therefore the results cannot be generalised. Also it lacked validity because they were not real groups and did not have the power and status that groups in the real world have. However in fairness the minority has swayed people when they have remained consistent such as the suffragette movement, apartheid in South Africa and animal and gay rights.

It is fair to say that both of the studies give evidence that people do conform for different reasons. Moscovici’s shows that minorities can have an influence on the majority although later studies did show that minorities must also avoid appearing rigidly inflexible. Zimbardo’s experiment is interesting in that it shows conformity to a wider

society and not to just those in a room, and has been compared to the Abu Gharib prison, where because the guards were hardly trained they fell into stereotypical roles.

There have been criticisms of both studies in that they were both done in America in the late sixties and early seventies that were still considered to be very conformist times. However similarities with the studies findings in real life have become apparent over the years. Moscovici is supported by Baron and Byrne (1991) who argue, “Minorities often have appear to have deep convictions because they often take unusual stands. This makes others take them seriously”(Minority Influence Class Handout (14.10.04))

Further studies into other areas of social influence such as obedience, examples being Milgram and Hofling have demonstrated that as well as being ‘swung’ by minority and majority influence, authoritarian figures can also play a part too.

It is fair to say that psychological studies are as important today as they were thirty odd years ago into giving us some insight into the various aspects of social influence and how it effects us, not only as individuals but society as a whole.