Psychology- social influence

• Asch- Baseline procedure


  123 men judged line lengths. Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers.
• Asch- Findings

  Naive participants conformed on 36.8% of trials. 25% never conformed.
• Asch- Variation


  Group sizeAsch varied group size from two to 16. Conformity increased up to three, then levelled off.
• Asch- Variation


  UnanimityAsch placed a dissenter (confederate) in the group. Conformity rate reduced.
• Asch- Variation


  Task difficultyAsch made line lengths more similar. Conformity increased when task was harder (ISI).
• Asch- Evaluation

  Artificial situation and task:Participants knew this was a study so they just played along with a trivial task (demand characteristics).Limited application:Asch's research only conducted on American men.
• Asch- Evaluation


  Research support:Lucas et al. found more conformity when maths problems were harder.
• Asch- Evaluation


  Counterpoint - conformity more complex, confident participants were less conforming (individual factor)
• Asch- Evaluation


  Evaluation extra: Ethical issuesResearch may help avoid mindless conformity, but participants were deceived.
• Types of conformity:

  Internalisation:Private and public acceptance of group norms.Identification:Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with, may change privately too.Compliance:Go along with group publicly but no private change.
• Reason for conformity

  Informational social influence (ISI):Conform to be right. Assume group knows better than us.Normative social influence (NSI):Conform to be liked or accepted by group.
• Conformity- Evaluation

  Research support for NSI:When no normative group pressure (wrote answers), conformity down to 12.5% (Asch).Research support for ISI:Participants relied on other people's answers to hard maths problems (Lucas et al.).
• Conformity- Evaluation


  Counterpoint - cannot usually separate ISI and NSI, a dissenter may reduce power of NSI or ISI.
• Conformity- Evaluation

  Individual differences in NSI-nAffiliators want to be liked more, so conform more (McGhee and Teevan).Evaluation extra: Is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?NSI/ISI distinction may not be useful but Asch's research supports both.
• Conformity to social roles- Zimbardo's research

  The Stanford prison experiment (SPE):Mock prison with 21 student volunteers, randomly assigned as guards or prisoners.Conformity to social roles created through uniforms eg. loose smocks, carrying wooden club) and instructions about behaviour (e.g guards have power)
• Conformity to social roles- Zimbardo's research


  Findings related to social roles:Guards became increasingly brutal, prisoners' rebellion put down and prisoners became depressed.Study stopped after 6 days.
• Conformity to social roles- Zimbardo's research


  Conclusions related to social roles:Participants strongly conformed to their social roles.
• Evaluation- Zimbardo's study

  Control:Random assignment to roles increased internal validity.
• Evaluation- Zimbardo's study

  Lack of realism:Participants play-acted their roles according to media-derived stereotypes (Banuazizi and Movahedi).
• Evaluation- Zimbardo's study


  Counterpoint - evidence that prisoners thought the prison was real to them e.g. 90% of conversations about prison (McDermott).
• Evaluation- Zimbardo's study

  Exaggerates the power of roles:Only one-third of guards were brutal so conclusions exaggerated (Fromm).Evaluation extra: Alternative explanation:Social identity theory suggests taking on roles due to active identification, not automatic (Haslam and Reicher).
• Milgram's research- Baseline procedure


  Baseline procedure:American men gave fake electric shocks to a 'Learner' in response to instructions (prods) from an Experimenter'.
• Milgram's research- Baseline findings

  Baseline findings:65% gave highest shock of 450 V.100% gave shocks up to 300 V.Many showed signs of anxiety e.g. sweating.
• Evaluation- Milgram study


  Research support:French TV documentary/game show found 80% gave maximum shock, plus similar behaviour to Milgram's participants (Beauvois et al.).
• Evaluation- Milgram study


  Low internal validity:Participants realised shocks were fake, so 'play-acting' (Orne and Holland). Supported by Perry - tapes of participants showed only 50% believed shocks real.
• Evaluation- Milgram study


  Counterpoint - participants did give real shocks to a puppy (Sheridan and King).
• Evaluation- Milgram study


  Alternative interpretation of findings-Haslam et al. found participants didn't obey Prod 4. Participants identified with scientific aims (social identity) - not blind obedience.
• Evaluation- Milgram study

  Evaluation extra: Ethical issuesDeception meant participants could not properly consent (Baumrind). May be balanced by benefits of the research.
• Milgram situation variable

  Proximity:Obedience 40% with T and L in same room, 30% for touch proximity.Psychological distance affects obedience.
• Milgram situation variable

  Location:Obedience 47.5% in run-down office building.University's prestige gave authority.
• Milgram situation variable


  Uniform:Obedience 20% when Experimenter was 'member of the public'.Uniform is symbol of legitimate authority.
• Situational variables- Evaluation


  Research support:Bickman showed power of uniform in field experiment.
• Situational variables- Evaluation


  Cross-cultural replications:Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee, decreased proximity led to decreased obedience (Meeus and Raaijmakers).
• Situational variables- Evaluation


  Counterpoint - but most studies in countries similar to US, so not generalisable (Smith and Bond).
• Situational variables- Evaluation


  Low internal validitySome of Milgram's procedures in the variations were especially contrived, so not genuine obedience (Orne and Holland).
• Situational variables- Evaluation


  Evaluation extra: The danger of the situational perspectiveGives obedience alibi for destructive behaviour (Mandel).
• Agentic state


  Acting as an agent of another person
• Autonomous state


  Free to act according to conscience.
• Agentic shift


  Switching between the two - agentic shift
• Agentic state

  Binding factors:Allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour, reducing moral strain.