Brown (1996) criticised his work because the group only consisted of three people. He felt that three people weren’t a sufficient number to warrant being classed as a group. The three people probably didn’t even consider themselves to be a group. Also, there was no right or wrong answer, Asch criticised the way it was an ambiguous task, Sherif told them that he was going to move the light, so they were more likely to change their minds anyway. Asch believed this would make it very difficult to draw any definite conclusions about conformity. Conformity should be measured in terms of an individual’s tendency to agree with other group members who unanimously give the wrong answer to a task that’s outcome is obvious or unambiguous.
Solomon Asch thought he could improve on Sherif’s work and really demonstrate true conformity. Asch’s visual judgement experiment (1951) showed just how easy it is to influence someone into saying something blatantly wrong!
In Asch’s experiments participants were asked to match a standard line to one of three alternatives, a task all people with normal vision could do quite accurately. Tests were run using groups of seven to nine people who were asked to answer aloud. However, the experiment was rigged. Asch only used one guinea pig participant at any one time; the others were all confederates whose answers had been pre – determined. Each naïve participant was placed towards the end of the row so that the majority of the confederates’ responses were given first. Even though the correct answer would always be obvious, the naïve participant was found to conform to the group response on 32% of the trials, and 74% of the naïve subjects conformed at least once during the experiments. During the debriefing, the participants reported several conditions which caused compliance. The most obvious was because they didn’t want to feel to be the odd ones out and were overcome to ‘go with the flow.’ Distortion of judgement follow, the participants felt their perception was inaccurate causing distortion of perception. The participants actually perceived the wrong line as being correct, unaware that the majority had influenced them. From his research Asch concluded that conformity is a product of many factors, and cannot be explained only in terms of one. This was later confirmed by the variations of experiment, known as the Asch paradigm. He found that levels of conformity dropped dramatically when one of the other participants dissented from the majority, and supported the naïve participant. When the dissenter’s judgement was heard at the beginning of the group as opposed to at the end, there were lower levels of conformity. The size of majority was also found to affect outcome. When the majority was only two confederates the conformity responses dropped significantly. Optimum conformity affects were found when there was a majority of three confederates. If the majority was raised above this number, no significant increases were found. According to Asch ‘a unanimous majority of three is, under the given conditions, far more effective than a majority of containing one dissenter.’ Some critics thought the high levels of conformity found by Asch were a reflection of American 1950’s culture. Crutchfield quoted ‘ It was time - consuming and uneconomical and the tasks set were not like real life situations.’
Other research indicates that conformity varies depending on the consistency of the confederates’ judgements – the greater the consistency shown, the greater the conformity of the naïve participant and vice versa. Cultural factors also play a part. Research on conformity in different countries has found some variations but in general there are quite high levels of conformity wherever research is carried out.
After considering a fairly subtle approach to pressure, what exactly differs between conforming and obedience? There have been some controversial experiments on obedience and how people react to being given quite specific instructions. A famous example showing conformity and obedience was the experiment Zimbardo (1973) carried out at Stanford University. Zimbardo recruited male participants through a newspaper advertisement asking for student volunteers to participate in a two-week prison experiment. The aim of the experiment was to see the psychological effects of making an average person into a prisoner or guard. 24 male college students, found to be all mentally sound when tested and with no criminal record, were selected. Each student was paid $15 per day. The volunteers were divided into two groups, prisoners and guards. This was determined by simply flipping a coin. The prisoners were arrested at their homes and taken to the basement of the psychology department, which had been converted into a makeshift prison. From here on they were treated just like real prisoners. The students that were chosen to be guards were all given military style uniforms and tinted glasses. They were not given any specific rules to follow, only that under no circumstances was physical aggression allowed. The guards conformed to rule with such enthusiasm that the experiment had to be terminated after only six days. After less than 36 hours one of the prisoners had to be released from the experiment due to severe depression. Others who were acting as prisoners also showed signs of anxiety and depression. According to Zimbardo, these results showed how easily people could adapt to a new role in a new situation and behave out of character to fit that role. He quoted ‘ Note that anyone ever doubted the horrors of prison, but rather it had been assumed that it was the predispositions of the guards (sadistic) and the prisoners (sociapathic) that made prisons evil places. Our study holds constant and positive the dispositional alternative and reveals the power of social, institutionalised forces to make good men engage in evil deeds’. It was found that an average person given a role of power would become corrupted and power crazed, where as the ‘prisoner role’ would become weak and submissive.
There have been many critisicisms levelled at his study, Savin 1973 argues that the prisoners did not give fully informed consent; they didn’t really know what was going to happen to them. They were humiliated and dehumanised by the procedure when reaching the prison (strip searched and deloused). Savin also argued the point the ends did not justify the means. The study had become ‘too real’ and should never have been carried out.
Stanley Milgram carried out a series of studies in 1963 and 1973, which also related to obedience and authority. His studies have again been viewed as controversial, mainly due to the ethical issues raised. Stanley Milgram was from a Jewish background, he was intent on seeing how easily ordinary people could be influenced or pressurised into committing acts atrocities like those committed by the Germans in World War 2. He decided to test ordinary Americans from various backgrounds. Subjects were told the researcher was interested in the effects of punishment learning and memory. The participants were told they would be playing the role of a teacher and, as such, would be trying to increase the learning capacity of their students by applying electric shocks to increase their willingness to learn. His ‘teacher’ participants were told to deliver electric shocks of increasing intensity when the ‘learner’ subject who was out of sight in another room, made an error in a task. Shocks would range form 15-450 volts. The shock buttons were labelled from ‘slight shock’ up to ‘danger: severe shock ‘ at the top of the scale. The learner, who was actually an actor confederate of the experimenter - Milgram, behaved as if he actually received the shocks, of course he did not, and would be heard crying out as increasing shocks were applied. The true aim of the experiment was to explore the extent of the ‘teacher’ participants’ obedience to the instructions. The results were shocking, even Migram underestimated the power of obedience, two thirds of the men obeyed the instructions, delivering shocks up to the danger zone, even though they showed distress. Some even pleaded with Milgram to stop the study, but because he refused and persuaded the participant teacher that he would be responsible for any consequences, the participants carried on.
The power of the experimenter is extraordinary; obedience to authority seemed to override humane considerations. Stanley Milgrams experiments revealed to us the power of an authority figure, in this case the experimenter. This person is seen as a professional, carrying out important research. The participants thought that it was a valuable experiment if it helped us develop better learning and memory skills. An authority figure, someone who we may see as having legitimate power, can make us feel unable to question what is required of us. This could possibly help explain the recent atrocities such as those in Bosnia or Kosovo.
Milgrams work has been criticised both on ethical and methodological grounds. Baumrind (1964) believed that Milgram showed insufficient respect for his participants, there were insufficient steps taken to protect them, and his procedures could have long term effects on the participants. Orne and Holland (1968) argued that the participants did not believe they were giving electric shocks and they were just playing along with their role in the study.
It is of some comfort to report that studies of the Milgram type have been carried out in other parts of the world with some quite different results. They have shown that obedience, in certain conditions, can be minimal. The main factor that enabled the individual to resist is if he had an experimental accomplice who refused to obey instructions as well. Just like in the Asch study if there is support from another individual, it can make a crucial difference.
Conformity and obedience represents a form of social influence in which our peers or an authority figure steers us. What people can learn from all of this is pressure to conform or obey is not easy. Standing alone in social groups or cultures is a very difficult thing for most people. If there is no support, we need to look for it This seems to provide the strength to resist those in authority or group pressure if we are encouraged to question the motives of those who are steering us.
Bibliography
Psychology for A Level - Mike Cardwell, Liz Clark and Claire Meldrum.
Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour, Fourth Edition – Richard Gross.
Internet Resources –
Informational handouts from psychology lessons.
THE CONCEPTS OF
CONFORMITY
AND OBEDIENCE
IN
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
DEBRA FITZPATRICK
FURNESS COLLEGE
CHANNELSIDE
BARROW IN FURNESS
TUTORS P DALY
R WALTERS
