social influence

• Conformity


  A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
• Internalisation


  A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent.
• Identification


  A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we value it and want to be part of it. We don't necessarily agree with everything the group/majority believes.
• Compliance


  A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.
• Informational social influence (ISI)

  An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct/right. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation.
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance.
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  Leads to a permanent change in our behaviour (internalisation)
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  Results in a temporary change in our behaviour (compliance)
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  • Young people moving from school to university might redefine themselves as students (no longer pupils), and look to other students to learn what are acceptable ways of behaving (the norms) in this new situation.
• Normative social influence (NSI)


  • If you may not know what to wear for a party. However, because you want to fit in, you phone a friend to find out what they are going to wear, even though this might not be what you want wear.
• Research supports NSI (desire to be liked) as an explanation for conformity. Asch found that many participants went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did.
• NSI does not affect everyone's behaviour in the same way and we cannot predict conformity in every case.
• NSI and ISI have real life applications. They explain why people do conform in everyday life.
• ISI does not affect everyone's behaviour in the same way. Perrin and Spencer (1980) found very little conformity in science and engineering students who were confident estimating line lengths.
• Parvinder's behaviour shows compliance - a superficial and temporary type of conformity where she outwardly goes along with the serious police officer role, but privately disagrees with it.
• Yasmin's behaviour shows identification - a moderate type of conformity where she acts in the same way as the animal rights group because she values being part of it, even though she doesn't necessarily agree with everything they believe.
• Sam's behaviour shows compliance - a superficial and temporary type of conformity where he outwardly goes along with his colleagues' views on asylum seekers, but privately disagrees with them.
• Jim's behaviour shows informational social influence - he follows the group of students because he believes they know the right thing to do in the new situation.
• The behaviour of those who took part in the 2011 England riots can be explained by compliance - a superficial and temporary type of conformity where they outwardly went along with the rioting behaviour, but may have privately disagreed with it.
• Graham's behaviour is influenced by normative social influence - he laughs at his colleagues' jokes to be accepted and 'fit in' with the group.
• Joseph's behaviour is influenced by informational social influence - he closely watches his colleagues to learn the correct way to complete work and avoid mistakes.
• Jim's behaviour is not influenced by either normative or informational social influence. He prefers to learn through trial and error rather than conforming to the group.
• Participants were afraid of disapproval
• When Asch repeated his study but asked participants to write down their answers instead of saying them out loud


  Conformity rates fell to 12.5% as they felt less self-conscious (less of a need to fit in)
• Asch (1955) found that students were less conformist (28%) than other participants (38%)


  • Perrin and Spencer (1980) found very little conformity in a study involving science and engineering students
• It is appropriate behaviour in each role
• The specification requires that you know the following

  • Conforming to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo
• Volunteer Sampling is a research method
• Some prisoners became depressed and anxious; one prisoner had to be released after only one day. Two more prisoners had to be released on the fourth day. By day 6, prisoners were submissive to the guards
• Conforming behaviour of the participants


  • Stereotyped roles - People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of prison guards
  • Deindividuation - the loss of personal identity - The prisoners were de-individuated by being stripped of their individuality, their name, dress, appearance, behaviour style, and history
• A weakness of Zimbardo's prison experiment is that it lacks the realism of a true prison
• Because Zimbardo's study was a role-play, critics have put forward the argument that participants behaved in a way to support stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave and were simply 'play-acting'
• This lack of realism


  Suggests that the findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
• Strengths of the Stanford Prison Experiment

  • Zimbardo and his colleagues had high control over key variables
  • Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and were randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner
• The degree of control over variables

  Increased the internal validity (accuracy) of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of social roles on conformity
• A weakness of the experiment is there was researcher bias
• Researcher bias


  Zimbardo took on the role of prison superintendent as well as the researcher in charge. Instead of reviewing the data later, Zimbardo made himself an authority figure which meant he was part of the experiment. He became enmeshed in the roleplaying scenario just as much as the guards and prisoners
• Zimbardo's behaviour


  Had an impact on the real participants impacting the validity/accuracy of the study (it did not measure what it was supposed to)
• Ethical issues in Zimbardo's study

  • Lack of full informed consent - Participants did not know that they would be arrested at home
  • Lack of Protection from harm - The humiliation and distress experienced by those who acted as prisoners could have been long lasting
• These ethical concerns


  Undermine the credibility of psychological research