Examine Sherif's Conformity (Social Influence) Experiment

by thundergem2gmailcom (student)

Conformity

Conformity is type of social influence that causes one to change their beliefs, attitudes or behaviour in order to suit a particular reference group.

Sherif (1935, cited in McLeod, 2016) conducted a lab experiment using the auto-kinetic effect to investigate how people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous situations.

The participant’s answers converged to one group answer throughout the experiment they experienced Informational social influence (ISI) mainly because they were faced with ambiguity. ISI is the need that one may feel to be certain, and as they were placed in an ambiguous situation, the participants conformed because of this need. Internalisation is the change of both behaviour and opinion. During the experiment their answers converged into one, within the trials, the person whose estimate of movement was significantly different from the other two in the group, conformed to the view of the other two. their judgments had changed and so they internalised with the group estimate. (Deutsch and Gerard ,1955, cited in Hill, 2009)

Asch argued that nothing could be concluded from Sherif’s study as there was ambiguity involved; it could not define the real reason for why people conform. Asch (1956, cited in Cardwell, Meldrum and Clark, 2000) was interested in perceptual conformity and so he conducted a lab experiment, asking one naïve participant to compare the length of a group of lines to one single line in a room of confederates. This was to investigate how social pressure from a majority group could make people conform. Fifty male students were studied in the first initial experiments. Asch instructed the confederates to give the same wrong answer in 12 out of 18 trials. Asch wanted to see how many participant would conform to the group even though the answer was clearly obvious.

When all confederates gave a unanimous answer, 32% of the time the naïve participant conformed. 74% of naïve participants conformed at least once. When interviewing the conforming participants after the experiment, the majority had agreed that they did not believe in their conforming answers, but they had chosen it due to fear of being ridiculed by the group. So they complied due in relation to normative social influence (NSI). NSI is the conflict one faces between their own and others opinion which makes them feel the need to be accepted by that particular society. Depending on these conditions, Deutsch and Gerard ,1955 (cited in Hill, 2009) found that one might feel positively reinforced into agreeing with the public, whilst hiding their own views, which is what leads them to comply.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Both Sherif and Asch’s experiments produced different understandings of conformity but were still relative. This is because Sherif was measuring norm formation, (conformity via ISI). When an experiment similar to Sherif’s was conducted, by telling the participants that the auto-kinetic effect was an illusion, norm formation ceases as did convergence. The participants were no longer uncertain so they did not internalise and no longer experience ISI. (Sperling, 1946 cited in Gross, 2010).

Sherif’s study’s internal validity was challenged by Asch but was still relatively good as his conclusion was relevant to the hypothesis. Asch’s had very good internal ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Sherif’s study’s internal validity was challenged by Asch but was still relatively good as his conclusion was relevant to the hypothesis. Asch’s had very good internal validity as he controlled extraneous variables such as ambiguity and gender and he conducted his experiment in many different settings, manipulating independent variables; i.e. group size, difficulty of task in order to see how they influenced the dependant variable (percentage of conforming participants). (McLeod, 2016) Asch also had very good reliability as results were measured many times and consistency was found. Although, both experiments lacked ecologically validity as the experiments were conducted in a lab which was very controlled and unrealistic. However, as previously mentioned, the control was needed to strengthen the internal validity. Both experiments were androcentric and had low population validity as only young American students were involved, so results cannot be generalised to other cultures, ages and females. They had also crossed ethical boundaries, such as deception. Asch told the participants that the test was on visual perception and Sherif asked to measure distance when there wasn’t any. However, without deception results could be invalidated as participant will form biased judgments by not wanting to conform, some argue that it was justified. Participants during the interviews of Asch’s experiments reported signs of stress and suffered from low self-esteem. (Asch 1956, cited in Cardwell, Meldrum and Clark, 2000) This proves that they were not protected from harm. However It also may be true that this stress factor may be a driving agent of conformity, can it really be eradicated during a conformity study?

Referent informational influence is another reason for why people conform. They acknowledge themselves as being a member of a group (I.e. Students, work colleagues) and try to act accordingly, by adopting the group’s values and social norms; they identify with the group. Stanford Prison Experiment ‘SPE’ (1974, cited in Cardwell, Meldrum and Clark, 2000) was a field study conducted by Zimbardo himself to investigate how people conform to new social roles. This simulated prison set-up was conducted with male psychology students that were randomly selected to be either a prison mate or guard. The experiment was called off after 6 days as the guards played the parts zealously, even to the extent were they ill-treated and dehumanised the prisoners.

One explanation to this study for why the participants behaved in such a way is that they experienced Deindividuation due to adopting new social norms. Deindividuation is the state where one becomes so immersed in the norms of the group that they lose their sense of identity and personal responsibility. (McLeod, 2016)

The experiment is said to have a reasonable amount of ecological validity as Zimbardo went to extreme lengths to make sure that it did. Prisoners were arrested and taken from their homes, the university basement was redesigned to resemble a prison, and prisoners were addressed by numbers and so on. However it can never compare to reality, as they were not criminals and they were no aspects such as violence involved as there would be in a real prison. (Cardwell, Meldrum and Clark, 2000)

It is also criticised for having low population validity, as the study only included male psychology students particularly from a white middle class background, ethical issues as participants did not give informed consent, and were humiliated and dehumanised. Do the ends really justify the means? (Savin 1973, Cardwell, Meldrum and Clark, 2000) This can be compared against the ‘BBC Prison Study’ conducted by Haslam and Reicher (2006, cited in Hill,2009). This experimental case study is similar to SPE although its findings differ considerably. The aim of the study was to investigate the interaction between two groups of unequal power, understand the conditions that one experiences deindividuation and so on. Their findings was that guards did not internalise their role or experience deindividuation nor did the prisoners, they acted according to their own personal interests.

Comparing these two studies, two things can be concluded, one being that the SPE may lack internal validity, was the effect of conforming to social roles really being examined or was it an example of authoritarianism dictated by Zimbardo himself? Or that the BBC prison study had good population validity as there sample included volunteers recruited through advertisement, which would make the study generalizable, but however seems to lacks internal and ecological validity due to focussing on the ethics and structure of the experiment and the internal validity may be questions as conformity was not observed among the participants, so was it really a test on conformity?

There are many reasons for why we conform. We don’t always conform due to ISI and NSI sometimes they can work as one, as Insko et al’s study suggests, as the determined condition produced greater conformity in both private and public conditions, due to the effect of both ISI an NSI. It is also true that one may conform due to their sense of belongingness to a group and Crutchfeild’s theory concluded that individual differences is also a factor of conformity, as he found that certain personalities were more likely to conform than others, I.e. lack of intelligence or having less ego strength can make a person more likely to conform due to lack of competency or confidence. (Crutchfield 1955, cited in Hill, 2009) By taking into consideration all these factors, it can be concluded that conformity is ambiguous and cannot be defined on its own.

Bibliography:

Bbcprisonstudy.org, (2016). The Study - The BBC Prison Study. [online] Available at: http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/bbc-prison-study.php [Accessed 11 Jan. 2016].

Cardwell, M., Meldrum, C. and Clark, L. (2000). Psychology for A-level. London: Collins.

Gross, R. D. (2010) Psychology: the science of the mind and behaviour. 6th edn. London: Oxford University Press

Hill, G.(2009) AS and Alevel psychology through diagrams (oxford revision guides). Oxford: Oxford university Press

McLeod, S. (2016). Stanford Prison Experiment | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html [Accessed 24 Feb. 2016].

McLeod, S. (2016). What is Conformity? | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html [Accessed 5 Jan. 2016].