Social Influence

• Conformity is a form of social influence whereby a person follows the majority.
• Compliance is publicly, but not privately, going along with the majority to gain approval. For example, a person might laugh at the joke the others are laughing at while privately not finding it very funny.
• Identification is publicly and privately accepting the majority in order to gain group acceptance. For example, a person might support a new football team every time they move to a new town.
• Internalisation is public and private acceptance of majority influence, through adoption of the majority belief system because it is a view consistent with their own. For example, a person may become a Christian after sharing a flat with a group of Christian’s at university as they share similar values.
• Deutsch and Gerard distinguished between informational social influence and normative social influence. He suggested there are different reasons for why we conform, and this can vary depending on the situation we are in.
• Normative social influence is a form of social influence where we conform to the majority to gain social approval or to avoid social disapproval. In other words we do something in order to be liked. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we agree with everyone else.
• Informational social influence is a form of social influence which suggests that we have the need to be right. When the situation is uncertain or ambiguous, we look to others to know what to do. We also sometimes follow what others do if we assume, they might be an expert.
• Jenness (1932) - AIM


  To investigate whether individual judgements of jellybeans in a jar was influenced by group decision.
• Jenness (1932) - PROCEDURE


  Participants made individual estimates of the number of jelly beans in a jar.

  Group estimates were then created.

  Participants made another individual estimate.
• Jenness (1932) - FINDINGS


  They found that estimates tended to move towards the group estimate after the estimates were discussed.
• Jenness (1932) - CONCLUSION


  The judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinion, especially in ambiguous or unfamiliar situations.
• Strengths of types and explanations of conformity:

  • There is research to support the role played by normative social influence in affecting people’s behaviour.
  • There is research to support informational social influence in affecting people’s behaviour.
• Weaknesses of types and explanations of conformity:

  • One problem is that it can be difficult to distinguish between compliance and identification.
  • Informational social influence is mediated by the type of task and there is research to support this.
• Asch - AIM


  To investigate the degree to which people conform in different situations.
• Asch - SAMPLE

  123 American male student volunteers took part in what they thought was a visual perception task and therefore were deceived about the true aim. The experiment was carried out in a lab using an independent groups design where each group was made up of between seven and nine confederates and one participant.
• Asch - METHOD

  Each person in the group was asked to decide which comparison line matched the standard line. The lines were made obviously different from one another. On 12 out of 18 trials the confederates gave the wrong answer, this was standardised. The participants was always last or second to last to answer, so they were able to hear the confederate’s views first and therefore measure the influence of the majority. There was also a control group where they were asked to complete the task alone, deciding for themselves which comparison line matched the standard line.
• Asch - RESULTS

  Participants gave the wrong answer 33% of the time, with 75% conforming to at least one wrong answer. In comparison a control group had an error rate of 0.04%. This was to check the ambiguity of the task. Post event interviews showed three reasons for conformity:

  1. distortion of action
  2. distortion of perception
  3. distortion of judgement
• Distortion of action is where the majority of participants who conformed di do publicly, not privately.
• Distortion of perception is where some participant’s believed their perception might be wrong.
• Distortion of judgement is where some participant’s had doubts concerning their accuracy of judgements.
• Asch - CONCLUSION

  People conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group and because they believe the group is better informed than they are.
• Strengths of Asch’s Study:

  • One strength of Asch’s experiment was that the variables were highly controlled.
• Weaknesses of Asch’s Study:

  • An issue with Asch’s study is that the research may be of its time.
  • There have been shown to be cultural differences in levels of conformity.
  • Another issue with Asch’s study is that the confederates were argued to not have been convincing enough.
• Situational factors are anything in the environment that affects someone’s behaviour. In this case Asch changed specific parts of his experiment from the original to test what affect these factors would have on conformity levels.
• Group Size:

  In Asch’s original study there were between 7-9 confederates. In his variation, he wanted to see the minimum amount you need to make people conform. He found that the minimum needed to elicit conformity was three (about 32% conformed). He found that further increases did not have a major influence on conformity levels. Therefore he concluded that the larger the group size, the more likely conformity will occur, up to a point.
• Unanimity of the majority:

  In Asch’s original study all confederates gave the wrong answer, they were unanimous in their decision. When the participant was given the support of another participant or confederate conformity dropped from 33% to 5%. Therefore he concluded that when a group disagrees with each other, others are less likely to conform to the majority.
• Difficulty of the Task:

  In Asch’s original study, the differences between each line was large and so the answers were obvious. In the variation, he made the lines less distinguishable from each other, so the task was harder to complete. Under these circumstances, conformity increased. Therefore Asch can conclude that the harder the task is, the more likely people are to conform as the answer is more ambiguous.
• Weaknesses of Asch’s variations:

  • One problem with Asch’s results into the impact of group size on conformity is that there are problems determining the extent of the effects.
  • Conformity on a difficult task can also be mediated by other factors such as self-efficacy.
  • The support for the group size effect on conformity may be limited.
• Zimbardo - AIM


  To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison environment.
• Zimbardo - PROCEDURE


  The basement of Stanford university was converted into a mock prison and prisoners were arrested from their homes without their knowledge by the county police. When they arrived, they were stripped and deloused. They were also given to wear: a smock, a number, ball and chain whilst the guards wore: reflective sunglasses, khaki uniform, whistle and a baton. The guards and prisoners were randomly assigned to their roles.
• Zimbardo - SAMPLE


  75 male university students responded to an ad in the newspaper asking for volunteers for a prison study paying $15 per day. 24 students rated the most physically and mentally stable were chosen.
• Zimbardo - RESULTS


  Most of the data was qualitative. All participants settled into their roles. The guards created several rules and games such as pretending to have a gay marriage. The prisoners reported feeling stressed and dehumanised. A rebellion by the prisoners occurred because they weren’t allowed to leave the prison. After 48 hours, one prisoner had to be released as he had a mental breakdown. The experiment ended after 6 days. Quantitative data showed that 90% of the conversations were about the prison life. This shows the prisoners fully immersed themselves into their role.
• Zimbardo - CONCLUSION

  To conclude, the study showed that participants conformed to their social roles of prisoners and guards and started to become deindividuated. (They lost their personal identity and took on the identity of the group.)
• Strengths of Zimbardo’s study:

  • There is evidence to suggest that participants reacted as if it were real.
  • It has altered the way that US prisons are run.
• Weaknesses of Zimbardo’s study:

  • The main weakness with the experiment was that the Stanford Prison Experiment broke several ethical guidelines.
  • Another weakness of the experiment was that Zimbardo did not control for an observer bias. He became a participant in the experiment by allocating himself the role of prison warden.
• Obedience can be defined as complying to the instructions of an authority figure.
• Milgram - AIM


  To investigate if ordinary citizens would obey an authority figure and inflict pain on another person.
• Milgram - PROCEDURE

  40 male participants volunteered and were paid $4.50. It was carried out in a laboratory at Yale university. The participant met 2 confederates, the experimenter and the learner. The participant was always assigned the ‘teacher’ role. They were told to administer shocks every time the learner made a mistake, it increased each time. At 180 volts, the learner complained of a weak heart. At 300 volts, he became silent. The experiment continued until the ‘teacher’ refused to continue, or 450 volts was reached.
• Proximity variations of Milgram’s study:

  • when the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience decreased from 65% to 40%
  • when the teacher was forced to put the learner hand on a metal plate which would electrocute him, obedience decreased from 65% to 30%
  • when the teacher and the experimenter were in a different room, obedience decreased from 65% to 21%
• Proximity:

  Therefore Milgram can conclude the closer the teacher was to the learner, the less likely he was to continue the shocks (reduced obedience). The closer the teacher was to the experimenter, the more likely he was to obey.