4.8 Evaluate research on conformity to group norms

4.8 Evaluate research on conformity to group norms

Sherif (1936)

Sherif used the autokinetic effect (an optical illusion where a fixed pinpoint of light in a completely dark room appears to move because of the eye movements). Half of the participants first watched the light alone and gave a verbal estimate of how much and in what direction the light moved. Sherif found that after a number of trials, participants began to estimate based on their own frame of reference. Then, the experiment continued in groups with three to four participants who took turns to estimate in random order. The participants now used each other’s estimates as a frame of reference and these converged into more or less identical estimates. A group norm had developed, which participants conformed to once it had been established. Then, the other half of the participants performed the estimation task alone. Sherif found that participants continued to estimate based on the group norm when they did the task alone. The results showed that social norms emerge to guide behaviour when people find themselves in uncertain situations.

Strengths

• Sherif’s study is one of the most influential experiments in social psychology as it has generated a large amount of research.
• The study demonstrates how a group norm can be established and continue to influence a person’s judgement even when the social influence is no longer present

Limitations

• The experiment was conducted in a laboratory. The task was artificial and ambiguous and this could influence the results.
• Ethics: the participants were not informed about the purpose of the experiment (informed consent) but this was not the norm at the time of Sherif’s experiment.

Asch (1951)

Aim: To investigate whether perceived group pressure by a majority can influence a minority in an experimental setup that is not ambiguous.

Procedure: Seven male college students were placed around two white cards. One card had three lines (A, B, C) and another had one line. They had to say out loud which of the three lines on the right had the same length as the line on the left. There was one real participant (naive participant) in the experimental setup and six were confederates who were instructed to give nanimous wrong answers. This was done during 12 of the 18 trials in the experiment. A control group of 37 participants made the estimates alone for comparison.

Results: In the control group, 35 participants did not make a single error so in total 0.7% errors were made compared to 37% errors in the experimental group.

Strengths:

• A high degree of control ensures that a cause-effect relationship can be established between variables.
• Asch’s results have been replicated several times so the results are reliable.
• The results of the experiment in terms of conformity rates can, to some extent, explain why people conform to social and cultural norms in real life.
• Conformity may be universal to some degree but conformity rates vary cross-culturally.

Limitations

• Laboratory experiments are artificial and somewhat difficult to generalize to real life (issues of ecological validity).
• The experiment was conducted in the USA with male students as participants so this affects generalization.
• The results can only explain how a majority may influence a minority but not the other way round.
• The participants were deceived about the purpose of the experiment and they were exposed to embarrassing procedures, this raises ethical issues.

Can conformity research reveal anything about conformity in real life?

Moghaddam et al. (1993) argue that the research may have a social and cultural bias. First, Sherif’s  study was conducted in the USA in a time when conformity was the norm and this may have changed since. Nicholson et al. (1985) suggest that participants now tend to conform less in Asch-like experiments. This could indicate that levels of conformity are context-dependent and may change over time. Second, conformity patterns may be different in other cultures. Moscovici (1976) argues that traditional conformity research cannot explain the minority influences on the majority, which have been observed in real life. Research shows that in-group minorities have a greater chance of exerting influence than out-group minorities.