Social Influence

• The three types of conformity are internalisation, identification and compliance.
• Identification is when we conform to the ideas of a group because there’s something about the group that we value. Identification leads us to publicly change our opinions/behaviours so we can be accepted by the group, but privately we still hold our original opinions/behaviours.
• Internalisation is when the person genuinely accepts the group’s ideas. This results in a private and public change in opinions/behaviours. This is usually permanent because the ideas become a part of how you think. This means the change in opinions/behaviours will persist even when the person is alone.
• Compliance is when the person ‘goes along with others’ in public, but privately doesn’t change their opinion/behaviours. The opinions/behaviours only lasts as long as the group pressure is there.
• Informational Social Influence (ISI) is about who you believe has the ‘better’ information- you or others. Often we are uncertain about what is right and wrong. E.g you may not know the answer to a question in class, but if most of the class gives one answer, you’re more likely to go along with them. This is because we are likely to think everyone else is right and we are wrong, and we want to be right. This is a cognitive process, and leads to a permanent change in opinions/behaviour.
• ISI is most likely to occur

  1. in new situations
  2. in situations where there is some ambiguity
  3. in crisis situations (where decisions have to be made quickly)
• Normative Social Influence (NSI) is about what is normal behaviour for a social group. Norms regulate the behaviour of groups, so it isn’t surprising that we pay attention to them because we don’t want to appear foolish. We want to gain social approval, and not be rejected. NSI is an emotional process, and leads to to a temporary change in opinions/behaviours.
• NSI is most likely to occur

  1. in situations with strangers because we may be afraid of rejection
  2. in situations with friends because we want their social approval
  3. in stressful situations because people have a greater need for social support
• The task in Asch’s 1951 Research:

  Participants were shown a standard line and three comparison lines, and asked to identify which comparison line was the same length as the standard line
• In 1951, Asch investigated 3 variables that could have an effect on conformity. These were:

  1. Group size
  2. Unanimity
  3. Task difficulty
• Findings of Asch’s group size study:

  Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rates. This allowed him to conclude that people are very sensitive to the views of others, because even just 1 or 2 confederates was enough to sway their opinions even a bit.

  
• How Asch manipulated group size in his conformity study: 

  He varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15. 
• How Asch manipulated unanimity in his conformity study: 

  He introduced a non-conforming confederate that would sometimes give the right answer and sometimes give the wrong answer.
• Findings of Asch’s unanimity study on conformity: 

  The participants conformed less often in the presence of a non-conforming confederate. This allowed him to conclude that cracks presented in the majority’s unanimous view free the participant to act more independently.
• How Asch manipulated task difficulty in his conformity study: 

  He made the comparison lines more similar in length to each other, so it was harder to tell which was the one that matched the stimulus line.
• Findings of Asch’s task difficulty study on conformity: 

  Conformity increased with a harder task. This is because when the task is harder, you’re more likely to look to others for guidance because you assume that they are more likely to be right and you are more likely to be wrong. (This is informational social influence)
• One limitation of Asch’s research is that the task and situation are artificial. The participants knew they were in a study, so demand-characteristics could’ve played a role. The task they were given was trivial, so there wasn’t a reason to conform. Fiske said the groups didn’t resemble groups in everyday life. Overall, Asch’s findings weren’t generalised, and had low ecological validity, especially in situations where the consequences of conformity might be important.
• A limitation of Asch’s research is its limited application. All of Asch’s participants were men. Research suggests that women are more worried about their social relationships and being accepted, so they’re more likely to conform, therefore Asch’s research may not apply to them. 
• A limitation of Asch’s research is its limited application. All of Asch’s participants were American. America has an individualist culture. This is different to other countries that could have a collectivist view (the group is more important than the individual), which may lead to higher conformity rates, therefore Asch’s research may not apply to other cultures.
• A strength of Asch’s research is that it is supported by other studies. Lucas-et-al-(2006) asked their participants to solve easy and hard maths problems. Participants were given 3 fake (and wrong) answers from fake students, and they found that participants conformed more often when problems were harder. However, they also found that those who were more confident in their maths abilities were less likely to conform on harder questions, which suggests an individual-level factor that Asch didn’t look into.
• Potential ethical issues of Asch’s conformity study: Asch’s study may progress research into avoiding mindless destructive conformity, but the participants in his study were deceived to think the confederates were normal participants. The ethical cost must be weighed against the potential benefits of this study.