Social Influence

• Variables (as investigated by Asch (1955)) that affect conformity are:

  • Group size - Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, levelling off when the majority reached 4.
  • Unanimity - The extent to which all the members of a group agree.
  • Task difficulty - Asch’s line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increased because naïve participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right.
• Outline of Asch’s baseline procedure (1951)- Standard and comparison lines


  -123 American men were tested, each one in a group with other apparent participants. -Each participant saw 2 large white cards on each trial. -The line X on one card is the standard line. On the other card, the lines A, B and C are the 3 comparison lines. 1 of the comparison lines is always the same length as X, the other 2 are clearly wrong. (See notes)

  -On each trial the participants had to say which of the comparison lines was the same length as X.
• Asch‘s baseline procedure (1951)- physical arrangement of the participants in the study 


  -The participants were tested in groups of 6 to 8. -Only one was a genuine (naïve) participant, always seated either last or next to the last in the group.

  -The others were all confederates of Asch-> they all gave the same (incorrect) scripted answers each time.

  -The genuine participant did not know the others were ‘fake’ participants.
• Asch’s baseline procedure (1951)-the findings

  On average, the genuine participants agreed with confederate’s incorrect answers 36.8% of the time (i.e. they conformed about a third of the time). There were also individual differences, 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer (i.e. never conformed).
• Internalisation -This occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results in a private as well as a public change of opinions/behaviour. This change is usually permanent because attitudes have been internalised, i.e. become part of the way the person thinks. The change in opinions/behaviour persists even in the absence of other group members.
• Herbert Kelman (1958) suggested that there are three ways in which people conform to the opinion of a majority: Internalisation, Identification & compliance.
• Identification

  Sometimes we conform to the opinions/behaviour of a group because there is something about that group we value. We identify with the group, so we want to be part of it. This identification may mean we publicly chang our opinions/behaviour to be accepted by the group, even if we don't privately agree with everything the group stands for.
• Compliance

  This type of conformity involves simply going along with others' in public, but privately not changing personal opinions and or behaviour. Compliance results in only a superficial change. It also means that particular behaviour of opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops.
• Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory, arguing that there are two main reasons people conform. They are based on two central human needs: the need to be right (ISI), and the need to be liked (NSI).
• Informational social influence (ISI)

  Often we are uncertain about what behaviours or beliefs are right or wrong. We follow the behaviour of the group because we want to be right. ISI is a cognitive process because it is to do with what you think. It leads to a permanent change in opinion/behaviour (internalisation). ISI is most likely to occur in unfamiliar situations (so you don't know what is right) or where there is some ambiguity (so it’s not clear what is right). It also occurs in crisis situations where choices have to be made fast & we assume that the group is more likely to be right.
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  NSI is about norms i.e. typical behaviour for a social group. People don’t like to seem foolish & prefer to ‘fit in’ rather than be rejected. So NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process. It leads to a temporary change in opinions/behaviour (compliance). NSI is likely to occur in situations with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection. It may also occur with people you know, as we are most concerned about the social approval of our friends. It may be more apparent in stressful situations where people have more need for social support.
• Social Roles

  The 'parts' people play as members of various social groups. Everyday examples include parent, child, student, passenger and so on. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role, for example caring, obedient, industrious, etc.
• Stanford Prison experiment

  Zimbardo et al. (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. They selected 24 men (student volunteers) who tested as 'emotionally stable. The students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner. Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour.
• Stanford Prison Experiment- Uniform.

  -The prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair, and they were identified by number (their names were never used). -The guards had their own uniform reflecting the status of their role, with wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades. -These uniforms created a loss of personal identity (called de-individuation), and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role.
• Stanford Prison Experiment- Instructions about behaviour

  -The prisoners were further encouraged to identify with their role by several procedures. For example rather than leaving the study early, prisoners could 'apply for parole. -The guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners.
• Stanford Prison Experiment-Findings related to social roles 1

  The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled. They ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers.
• Stanford Prison experiment -Findings related to social roles 2

  The guards used 'divide-and-rule tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other. They harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them of the powerlessness of their role. For example they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes at night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers. The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments.
• Stanford Prison Experiment- Findings related to social roles 3

  After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. One was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. Two more were released on the fourth day. One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in 'the hole', a tiny dark closet.
• Stanford prison experiment- Findings related to social roles 4

  The guards identified more and more closely with their role. Their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners. Zimbardo ended the study after six days instead of the intended 14.
• Stanford prison experiment- Conclusion related to social roles

  Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive. Such roles were very easily taken on by all participants. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (such as the 'prison chaplain) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than in a psychological study.
• Obedience

  A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming.
• Stanley Milgram (1963) designed a baseline procedure that could be used to assess obedience levels. 1


  40 American men volunteered to take part in a study, supposedly on memory. When each volunteer arrived at Milgram's lab he was introduced to another participant (a confederate of Milgram's). They drew lots to see who would be the 'Teacher' (T) and who would be the 'Learner' (L). The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the Teacher. An 'Experimenter' (E) was also involved (also a confederate, dressed in a grey lab coat).
• Milgram’s baseline research (1963)


  Milgram’s participants were men (aged 20-50 years who came from the area around New Haven, Connecticut, USA. They were volunteers recruited through a newspaper advert or mailshot, and were paid $4.50 for participating. The Learner (called 'Mr Wallace') was strapped into a chair and wired up with electrodes. The Teacher (the real participant) was given a small shock to experience for themselves. This was the only genuine shock in the procedure.
• Milgram’s Baseline Procedure (1963) pt2.


  The Learner had to remember pairs of words. Each time he made an error, the Teacher delivered a stronger (fake) 'electric shock' by pressing switches on a shock machine. The switches were labelled from 'slight shock' through intense shock' to 'danger - severe shock. When the Teacher got to 300 volts the Learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. At 315 volts he again pounded on the wall but was then silent for the rest of the procedure.
• Milgram’s Baseline procedure (1963). 


  The four standard 'prods' the Experimenter used to order the Teacher to continue were: Prod 1 - 'Please continue' or 'Please go on.' Prod 2 - ‘The experiment requires that you continue.' Prod 3 - 'It is absolutely essential that you continue.' Prod 4 - ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
• Milgram’s Baseline Procedure (1963)- Baseline Findings

  Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts. 12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts (intense shock) and 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts, i.e. they were fully obedient. Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as: the participants showed signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to 'sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands; three even had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures’.
• Milgram‘s Baseline Procedure (1963)-Other data

  Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants' behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the findings were unexpected - the students underestimated how obedient people actually are. All participants in the baseline study were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire - 84% said they were glad to have participated.
• Milgram‘s Baseline Procedure (1963)- Conclusions

  Milgram concluded that German people are not 'different. The American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person. He suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these.
• Strengths of Asch’s research

  -Other research has supported Asch’s findings. E.g. Lucas et Al. (2006). Participants were asked to solve easy and hard maths questions. Participants conformed more when the questions were hard.
• Limitations of Asch’s research

  -The task was artificial . Therefore the results are not generalisable.

  -Participants knew they were in a study therefore they may have just gone along with what was expected. Known as demand characteristics.

  -All participants were American men. Research suggests women are generally more conformist (this is known as gender bias). Also America is an individualist society, so similar studies should be carried out in more collectivist culture e.g. China found higher levels of conformity (this is known as cultural bias).
• Ethical issues of Asch’s research

  -The participant didn’t know the confederates were part of the experiment. This is known as deception.
• Research support for Informational social influence

  -Lucas et al. (2006) found that participants were more likely to conform when the task difficulty increased. This proves that people are likely to conform in order to be right.
• Research support for normative social influence

  -When Asch (1951) interviews his participants they said they conformed because they felt self-conscious i.e. they wanted to fit in.
• Limitations for NSI and ISI

  -It’s unclear whether conformity is due to ISI or NSI.

  -Another limitation is that NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case. Some people are more concerned with being liked: these people are known as nAffiliators
• Strengths of Zimbardo’s research

  -It was quite scientific because Zimbardo had a lot of control over the variables e.g. the selection of the participants. This increases the confidence we have in the conclusions known as internal validity.
• Limitations of Zimbardo’s research

  -Lack if realism. It wasn't a real prison and participants were just ‘playing a role’: could have resulted in demand characteristics

  -Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social influence e.g. only 1/3 of the guards behaved in a brutal manner.

  -Cultural bias -> They’re all US students (individualistic culture)

  -Gender bias -> 24 male students can this be generalised to females?)
• Strengths of Milgram’s research

  -Milgram's findings have been replicated by other research. Beauvois at al (2012) participants believed they were participants in a pilot for a new show and were paid to give electric shocks to other participants. 80% were fully obedient.
• Limitations for Milgram’s research

  -Milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what it was supposed to. This is called low internal validity. Orne and Holland (1968) argued that many of the participants didn’t believe the shocks were real. This suggests many participants were just doing what they thought they out to do, known as demand characteristics.
• Limitations for Milgram’s research, pt2.

  -People obeyed on the first 3 verbal prods but no-one obeyed on the fourth social prod (‘you have no other choice, you must continue). This suggests they only obeyed when they thought it was for the benefit of a scientific experiment, and weren’t in blind obedience as Milgram suggested.
• Ethical issues of Milgram’s experiment

  -The participants in the experiment were deceived. They believed that the allocation of T and L was random when it was fixed, and that the shocks were real when they were actually fake.

  -Also they were not provided with fully informed consent.