social influence

• definition - conformity


  a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of a real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people
• conformity - nature or nurture


  conformity is a nurture technique meaning we conform due to interactions based on socialisation, our environment and dispositions.

  Examples of these interactions may be role models, culture, religion, social media and situational factors
• who suggested the three types of conformity


  Kelman
• internalisation


  this is the deepest level of conformity which occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms which results in a private and public change in disposition

  usually a permanent change due to internalisation of attitudes and exists even when members of group are absent
• identification


  conforming to opinions of group because there is something about the group we value - membership

  publically change our behaviours to be accepted by group, although may not agree privately

  temporary change to increase social identity
• compliance


  shallowest level of conformity which involved going along with other in public to remove anxiety, but privately not changing personal opinions

  temporary/superficial change and means that a particular opinion stops as soon as pressure is relieved
• explanations for conformity

  1 ) informational social influence is about who has better information so we follow the majority because we want to be right - answer is ambiguous. It is a cognitive process because it is to do with what you think, and leads to internalisation

  2 ) normative social influence is about the norms which regulate behaviours in groups or individuals. People want to gain social approval and remove anxiety, so is a more emotional motivation. This process is used to avoid rejection and boost self esteem - temporary change and leads to compliance and obedience
• who developed the explanations for conformity


  Deutsch and Gerard stated their were two main reasons people conform
• what research support is there for NSI


  evidence supports that NSI is a valid explanation for conformity. In Asch’s research, pp had an interview afterwards where they stated their thoughts and behaviours on the study. Some pp explained they felt self conscious selecting the correct answer as they were afraid of disapproval. When pp wrote down their answers, conformity fell to 12.5% because answering privately meant there was no normative group pressure. This shows that at last some conformity is due to the desire of not being rejected by a group because you disagreed with them.
• research support for ISI


  There was evidence supporting ISI from Lucas. He found that pp conformed more often to incorrect answers when the maths problems were more difficult as didn’t want to be wrong, so relied on answer they were given. When the maths questions solutions were unambiguous they ‘knew their own mind’. This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results of Lucas’ research is what the theory would predict.
• limitation of NSI


  Everyone has individual differences, so NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case. Some people are known as nAffiliators, and they have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ and are greatly concerned about being liked by others (need to gain social approval). McGhee and Teevan did a study which provided evidence that nAffiliators are more likely to conform. This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others so it cant be generalised.
• limitation of ISI


  It is often unclear whether the ISI or NSI are at work in real life. Asch found that conformity is reduced when there is a dissenting pp who may either provide social support (reduce power of NSI) or provides an alternative source of social information (reduce power of ISI). Therefore it is had to separate ISI and NSI; both processes operate together in most real-world conformity situations.
• IV, DV, experiment type + level of measurement of data - Asch’s research


  IV - group size, unanimity, task difficulty

  DV - level of conformity (number of incorrect answers / 12 in a %)

  experiment type - lab

  level of measurement of darya - nominal
• definition - baseline study


  all later studies are late compared against the baseline study
• aim - Asch’s study


  asses to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is unambiguous
• Asch’s baseline procedure


  123 american male took part in 18 trials; 12 of which were critical. They were read standardised instructions and then saw two large which cards on each trial. The line X was shown to compare against lines A,B and C where the pp had to correctly state out loud which line was the same length as X. The pp was tested in groups of 6-8 where the genuine pp was seated last or second to last in the group. The confederates were all gave incorrect standardised scripted answers to read aloud. On average, the genuine pp conformed 36.8% of the time.
• statistics in Asch’s research

  36.8% - average conformity rate

  25% - pp that never conformed

  5% - pp that always conformed

  31.8% - conformity rate with three confederates

  123 - american male pp

  75% - conformed at least once

  5% - when dissenting confederate was present
• how does group size affect conformity


  Asch varies the number of confederates from 1 to 15 to find out whether group size affects conformity rate. He found a curvilinear relationship meaning conformity increased with group size but only up to a certain point. With three confederates, conformity to the incorrect answer rose to 31.8%, but with the presence of more confederates it plateaued. This suggests most people are sensitive to the views of others because just one or two confederates was enough to sway opinions.
• What did Asch do to pp after the study


  Asch interviewed the pp after the study and many showed signs of NSI because they stated they didn’t want to be rejected by the group when they said correct answer. They also said that when the task got more difficult, they thought others had better information so went along with their answers. This is known as ISI.
• how does unanimity affect conformity rate


  Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the majority to find out whether the presence of a non-conforming person would affect conformity rate. In one variation, the dissenter gave the correct answer and in the other they gave another incorrect answer. The genuine pp conformed less with the presence of the dissenter because they allowed them to behave more independently. Conformity rate fell to 5% when there was a dissenting pp and this shows that the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous.
• how does task difficulty affect conformity rate

  Asch increased difficulty of the line-judging task by making the stimulus and comparison lines more similar in length. Conformity increased because the situation was more ambiguous so it was natural to look for guidance and assume the majority was right and had better information (ISI).
• limitation of Asch’s research


  The study was extremely culturally and gender biased. This means that it was both androcentric and ethnocentric so cannot be generalised to other genders and cultures. America is a very individualist culture which may differ from a collectivist culture which is much more likely to conform due to pressures and expectations from their country (eg: China where social groups are much more important) Women are also much more likely to conform as are concerned about social relationships and being accepted.
• strength of Asch’s research

  The variables investigated by Asch provides support for NSI and ISI, meaning there is an increase of validity for the theory and explanations. There is also high ecological validity in some circumstances including the fact that there is a pressure to conform is high in court and juries, so the conformity results can be applied to these situations.
• limitations of Asch’s study - validity


  Asch’s research has low external validity because we cannot generalise the findings due to a low mundane realism. The task that the pp had to complete was meaningless, meaning there may be different results in rate of conformity when the situation is more anxiety inducing, and in some cases a matter of life or death. The study also has low temporal validity because the experiment was made 70 years ago; conformity levels and social influence may have changed since then due to new laws and individualism.
• IV, DV, experiment type + research methods of Zimbardo’s research


  IV - prisoners v guards

  DV - how much pp conformed + behaviour change

  experiment type - lab

  research methods - observations + recordings
• who was Zimbardo


  Zimbardo was a psychology professor at Stanford University in California who conducted an experiment to find out why prison guards behave brutally in the recent prison riots in America
• Stanford prison experiment overview


  Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of a psychology department in Stanford Uni where 21 American male students would be staying for an intended 14 days. These students were screened to be ‘emotionally stable’ and then were randomly assigned to play the roles of either the prisoner or guard. These students were payed $15 every day to take part in the study and were encouraged to conform to social roles through uniform and instructions about behaviour.
• uniform and behaviour for prisoners + guards - Zimbardo research 


  Prisoners wore a loose smock, shaved their heads, stripped of underwear and had a lock around ankles. The guards had their own identical uniforms to reflect status with a wooden club, mirror shades, keys, whistle and khaki clothing. Prisoners identified with their role through several procedures whereas guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded they had complete power.
• Extra information about Zimbardo’s study in relation to the students that took part


  The prisoners were arrested in their own homes so anxiety formed in family, themselves and neighbours. They also had a ‘visitation day’ where family members were allowed to visit them. Guards were deindividuated because they all had exactly the same uniform. This made them less likely to be able to regulate morality of their actions as they were a group member and weren’t going to be singles out. Prisoners were depersonalised as had removed sense of self to adopt prisoner role; stripped + wore smock.
• findings related to social roles with guards - Zimbardo

  * guards took roles with enthusiasm, treating prisoners badly until 2 days later where they rebelled (tore uniform, shouted + swore) + guards retaliated with fire extinguishes

  * guards conducted several headcounts in the middle of the night where prisoners lines up and had their numbers shouted

  * guards highlighted difference in social roles - took opportunities to administer punishments

  * guards became more aggressive - one associated role with brutal movie character
• findings related to social roles with prisoners - Zimbardo


  * one prisoner was released due to showing signs of psychological disturbance

  * two more prisoners were released on the 4th day

  * one prisoner went on hunger strike so the guards force fed him and put him in a tiny dark closet
• why did Zimbardo experiment end early


  The experiment ended early due to ethics as pp showed signs of high anxiety and depression aswell as the guards behaviour becoming inhumane. The study also venues far from reality because prisoners were deprived of basic human rights. Zimbardo was so immersed in the study as the prison superintendent meaning he loss objectivity and his wife had to remind him the aim of the investigation and shut down the study.
• how was internal validity increased v decreased - Zimbardo


  increase = prisoners stayed in prison for 24 hours where as the guards only stayed in prison for 8 hour shifts

  decrease = Zimbardo loss objectivity of investigation
• how long did Zimbardo study last for


  6 days
• situational explanation for Zimbardo‘s study


  The study shows the power of the prison environment as behaviours were changed due to role allocated because pp were tested stable before study began. This shows that the students became so immersed in their roles as they obtained high anxiety and showed signs of depression.
• state strengths of Zimbardo study


  1 ) control

  2 ) realism

  3 ) real life cases

  4 ) high reliability + ecological validity
• Zimbardo study strength - control


  Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables including selected emotionally stable individuals and randomly allocated them meaning they can rule out individual personality differences because behaviour must be a result of the role. This increases internal validity of the study meaning researchers were more confident drawing conclusions about influence of roles on conformity.
• Zimbardo study strength - realism


  McDermott argues that pp behaved as if the prison was real to them. He listened back to audio recordings and made note that 90% of prisoners discussions were about ‘prison life’. One prisoner even believed the prison was real but run by psychologists. This gives a high degree of internal validity to Zimbardo’s study.
• Zimbardo study limitation - lack of realism


  Banuazizi and Movahedi argued that the realism of the prison was poor, and the pp were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming as well as showing demand characteristics. One guard based his performance on a brutal movie character meaning the research tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
• Zimbardo study limitation - exaggerates power of roles


  One third of the guards behaved brutally, one third applied rules fairly and the other third supported prisoners. This shows that most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to brutal roles. This suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that the experiments pp were conforming to social roles and minimised influence of dispositional factors, reducing validity.