Over the years there have been many studies on conformity.
Muzafer Sherif (1935) came up with the ‘Autokinetic effect’ – A spot of light which appears to move when in a darkened room. At first, participants were shown the light individually and were asked to estimate how far and in which direction it moved. Participants developed his/her personal norm. They were then tested in small groups and a group norm emerged.
The results of this study found that, when alone participants, estimated between 2 and 25 cms. When in groups, participant’s estimations became closer and closer until a group norm emerged. Afterwards, participants viewed the dots alone again; their estimates remained similar to the group norm. This suggests that the presence of others is enough to lead to norm formation. C Flanagan (1997) states, “This study shows the experimental creation of a social norm which then acts as a pressure towards conformity.” Sherif’s study shows the results of what would happen when the situation is ambiguous (unclear).
Another famous study on conformity was Asch’s Line Test, (1955). Asch wanted to determine if the majority could influence people’s behaviour, even when there is no doubt about the correct answer. He used male college students and they were tested in groups of seven to nine. All members of the group, except one, were confederates. The group was shown two pieces of card. One had a ‘standard’ line on it; the other card had three lines on it which were all different lengths. Each member of the group had to say aloud which line they believed to be the same length as the ‘standard’ line. The answer was obvious but the confederates all gave the wrong answer.
The results of this study showed that approximately 75% of the participants conformed at least once, 5% of the participants conformed all the time, 24% never conformed, and the average rate of participants conforming was 37%.
But why did participants give the wrong the answer? At the end of the experiment when the participants were debriefed, most participants said that they know they were giving the wrong answer, as they were giving it, but did not want to appear foolish by giving a different answer so they conformed.
Asch’s study involves factors of Normative Social Influence (i.e. the desire to be accepted in a group and not rejected.) The results of this study showed how much of an effect the majority can have on the minority, even when the answer is unambiguous (clear).
There were several criticisms of this study: -
- Ethical Issues – As the participants were not aware of the confederates, then they were mislead and had not given fully informed consent. Also they were placed in an uncomfortable and distressing (embarrassing) situation.
- Asch’s study only exams conformity amongst strangers.
- Asch’s original study took place in the 1950’s, therefore being individual and ‘doing-your-own-thing’ was not as socially acceptable as it is now.
Finally, Zimbardo’s Prison Simulation Study (1973). In the US, there had been many reports, alleging brutality against prisoners, from the guards. Zimbardo questioned if whether this behaviour was caused by the situation, or by the personality of the guards.
He used 24 male volunteers – who were all physically and mentally healthy – allocated at random to the role of either ‘prisoner’ or guard. Zimbardo intended the study to last for two weeks but had to stop after six days due to the level of emotional distress and disturbance displayed by the prisoners.
The results of this study were quite distressing. The participant became ‘too involved’ in their roles. The ‘guards’ would wake ‘prisoners’ in the night, lock them in closets and clean the toilets with their bare hands etc.
The ‘prisoners’ rebelled i.e. one went on a hunger strike, some ‘prisoners’ asked to be ‘paroled’ rather than ‘quit’ the experiment. On the 3rd day, one prisoner was released due to acute emotional disturbance etc. Although this study looks more at obedience, conformity factors are very much there because participants identified with their roles in such an extreme manner. They conformed to the characteristics expected of their roles.
This Study sparked a lot of criticism: -
- Ethical Issues – This study was extremely distressing. The ‘prisoners’ were treated poorly, and this caused them severe emotional upset.
- Artificial Setting – Wasn’t a real prison but a basement in the university
- Role playing – The ‘guards’ later admitted that they were influenced by the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’
Some of the criticisms that these studies have in common is ethics, but what are ethics? Eysenck (2005), pg 261 defines ethics by stating, “Ethics are a set of moral principles used to guide human behaviour.”
Some ethical guidelines to consider when planning research are:-
- Deception – Sometimes it is impossible to avoid some deception as it may bias behaviour during the experiment, if so then it is essential to thoroughly debrief the participants afterwards and to fully explain the nature of the research.
- Risk to Participants – Participants psychological, physical or emotional well-being should never be endangered
- Invasion of Privacy – The data protection act must be adhered to.
- Distress – Participants must never be upset, insulted, offended or angered.
- Stress – Participants should not be led to believe they have harmed or upset someone else.
These points are strongly emphasised in conformity studies.
To conclude, conformity is not necessarily a bad thing i.e. when driving a car, it is important to conform to driving on the correct side of the road etc. Conformity is only a problem if their consequences lead to harm.
References and Bibliography
Eysenck, M, (2005), Psychology for AS Level, 3rd edition, Psychology Press
Flanagan, C, (1997), Letts Study Guide, Psychology, 1st edition, Letts Educational
