Social Influence

• What is 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
• What is internalisation?


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


  A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don't necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.
• What is 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.
• What is informational social influence?

  An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. May lead to internalisation.
• What is normative social influence?

  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. May lead to compliance.
• What is an example of informational social influence?


  Not knowing the answer to a question in class, but because most of the class agrees on one answer, you accept that answer because you feel they are likely right. Desire to be right; cognitive process
• What is an example of normative social influence?


  Emotional process; want to gain social approval rather than be rejected.
• What are the strengths of explanations for conformity?

  - Research support for ISI: Lucas et al. asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy or more difficult. Greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult. Most true for students who rated their maths ability poor. Study shows people conform when they don't know the answer.

  - Research support for NSI: Asch found that many of his pps went along with a clearly wrong answer just because others did. So he asked why they did this. Some of the pps said they felt self-conscious giving correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When Asch repeated study but asked pps to write answers down instead of saying out loud, conformity rates fell to 12.5%
• What are the limitations of explanations of conformity?

  X Individual differences in ISI: ISI doesn't affect everyone's behaviour in the same way. E.g Asch found that students were less conformist (28%) than other pps (37%). Perrin & Spencer conducted study involving science and engineering students and found very little conformity.
• What is group size?

  Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, levelling off when the majority was greater than three.
• What is unanimity?


  The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch's studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naive pps.
• What is task difficulty?


  Asch's line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increased because naive participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right.
• What was Asch's procedure?

  Showed two large white cards at a time; one had 'standard line' and the other there were three 'comparison lines'. One of the 3 lines were same length as standard and other two were always substantially different. Pp asked which of the 3 matched standard. Each naive pp tested individually with group of between 6 - 8 confederates, naive pp not aware the rest were confeds. On first few trials, all confeds gave right answers then starting making errors. All confeds instructed to give same wrong answer. Each pp in 18 trials and on 12 'critical trials' confeds gave wrong answer.
• What was Asch's sample?

  123 American male undergraduates
• What was Asch's findings?

  Naive pps gave wrong answer 36.8% of time. Overall 25% of pps didn't conform on any trials, means 75% conformed at least once. When pps interviewed after, most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
• What was Asch's variation of group size?

  Found that w/ 3 confeds conforming to wrong answer rose to 31.8%. Addition of further confeds made little diffs. Suggests small majority isn't sufficient for influence to be exerted but there's no need for majority more than 3.
• What was Asch's variation of unanimity?

  Introduced confed who disagreed w/ others - sometimes new confed gave correct answer and sometimes gave wrong one. Presence of dissenting confed meant conformity was reduced by 1/4 from the level it was when majority was unanimous. Presence of a dissenter enabled naive pp to behave more independently.
• What was Asch's variation of task difficulty?

  Made stimulus line + comparison lines more similar in length: found conformity increased. Suggest ISI plays greater role when task becomes harder.
• Weakness of Asch's study

  X Child of its time: Perrin+Spencer repeated study w/ UK engineering students. 1 student conformed in total of 396 trials. May have felt more confident about measuring lines than original sample = less conformist. Possible 50s were conformist times in America, made sense to conform to social norms. Society changed now, people less conformist now. Means Asch effect isn't consistent across situations and over time.
• Weakness of Asch's study

  X Artificial task: pps may have gone along w/ demands of situation (demand c's). Task of identifying lines was trivial and no reason to not conform. Fiske: "Asch's groups were not very groupy", means findings don't generalise to real life.
• Weakness of Asch's study

  X Limited application: only men tested. Other studies suggest women might be more conformist, possibly because more concerned about social relationships than men are (Neto). Men were from US, individualist. Similar studies in collectivists have found that conformity increased. Makes sense because such cultures are more orientated to group needs (Bond+Smith). Shows conformity levels are even higher than Asch found. Didn't take gender+culture diffs into account.
• What was Zimbardo's procedure?

  Mock prison in basement of psych department at Stanford uni (Haney et al.). Volunteer sample+selected 'emotionally stable' after psych testing. Students randomly assigned either guard or prisoner. Prisoners arrested at own homes by police+delivered to 'prison'. Blind-folded, strip-searched and issued no. and uniform. Social roles strictly divided. Prisoners daily routines heavily regulated. 16 rules had to follow, enforced by guards who worked in shifts, 3 at a time. Names never used, only numbers. Guards had own uniforms, wooden clubs, handcuffs and mirror shades.
• What were Zimbardo's findings?

  Guards took up roles w/ enthusiasm. Behaviour became a threat to prisoners psych and physical health, study stopped after 6 days instead of intended 14. In 2 days, prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment; ripped uniforms, swore at guards, retaliated w/ fire extinguishers. Guards constantly harassed prisoners to remind them they were watched all the time: conducted frequent head counts. After rebellion was put down, prisoners became subdued, depressed+anxious. 1 prisoner released on day 1, showed symptoms of psych disturbance. 2 more released on 4th day. 1 prisoner on hunger strike: guards attempted to force-feed him+punished him by putting him in 'hole', tiny closet. He was shunned by other prisoners. Guards identified closely w/ roles: became more aggressive.
• What was Zimbardo's conclusion?

  Revealed power of situation to influence people's behaviour. Guards, prisoners+researchers all conformed to roles: easily taken on by pps.
• Strength of Zimbardo's study

  / Control: selection of pps; emotionally stable chosen+randomly assigned roles. Rules all personality individual diffs. If guards+prisoners behaved v diff then their behaviour must've been due to pressures of situation. Increases internal validity.
• Weakness of Zimbardo's study

  X Lack of realism: Banuazizi+Mohavedi argued pps were play acting rather than conforming. Performances were based on stereotypes of how prisoners+guards are supposed to behave. E.g one of the guards claimed he'd based role on brutal character from film Cool Hand Luke. Explains why prisoners rioted - thought this was what real prisoners did. 90% of prisoners convo's were about prison life. 'Prisoner 416' expressed view that the prison was a real one, but ran by psychologists rather than government. Seemed real to pps = internal v.
• Weakness of Zimbardo's study

  X Ethical issues: Zimbardo's dual roles in study. E.g on one occasion a student who wanted to leave study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as superintendent. Whole convo was conducted on basis that the student was a prisoner in a prison, asking to be 'released'. Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher w/ responsibilities towards his pps.
• What was Milgram's aim?

  Answer q why such high proportions of German people supported Hitler's plan to slaughter over 6m Jews in holocaust + 5 mil Romani, homosexuals.
• What was Milgram's procedure?

  40 male pps recruited via news ads+flyers in post. Ad said looking for pps for study about memory. Aged 20-50, jobs ranged from unskilled - professional, offered $4.50 take part. When arrived at lab, paid money+ rigged draw for role. Confed 'Mr Wallace' always 'learner' while true pp was 'teacher'. Also an 'experimenter' (confed) in lab coat, played by actor. Pps told they could leave at any time. Learner strapped in chair in another room+wired w/ electrodes. Teacher required to give learner increasing severe electric shocks each time learner made mistake on learning task (word pairs). Shocks were demonstrated to teacher. Shocks weren't real. Shocks started at 15 and rose 30 levels to 450V. When teacher got to 300V, learner pounded on wall+gave no response to next q. After 315V, learner pounded on wall again, then no further response from learner. When teacher turned to experimenter for guidance, experimenter gave standard instruction 'An absence of response should be treated as wrong answer'. If teacher felt unsure, experimenter used sequence of 4 standard 'prods'.
• What were the 'prods'?

  Prod 1 - 'Please continue' or 'Please go on'

  Prod 2 - 'The experiment requires that you continue'

  Prod 3 - 'It's absolutely essential that you continue'

  Prod 4 - 'You have no other choice, you must go on
• What were Milgram's findings?

  No pps stopped below 300V, 12.5% (5 pps) stopped at 300V, 65% continued to 450V. Many pps seen to 'sweat, tremble, stutter, bite lips, groan'. 3 had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'. Prior to study, asked 14 psych students to predict pps behaviour. Estimated no more than 3% of pps would continue to 450V. All pps were debriefed, and assured their behaviour was normal. Sent follow up questionnaire; 84% said glad they participated.
• Strength of Milgram's study

  / Good external validity: central feature was relationship between authority (experimenter) + pps. Milgram argued lab environment reflected wider authority relationships in real life. Hofling et al. studied nurses on hospital ward + found levels of obedience to unjustified demand by doctors were very high (21/22 obeying). Generalisable
• Strength of Milgram's study


  / Replication: Game of Death is doc about reality TV, presented on French TV (2010): replication of Milgram's. Pps believed they were contestants in pilot ep for new game show La Zone Xtreme. Paid to give (fake) electric shocks - when ordered to by presenter - to other pps, who were fake actors, in front of studio audience. 80% of pps delivered max shock of 460V to apparently unconscious man. Behaviour almost identical to Milgram's pps - nervous laughter, nail biting. Supports original conclusions about obedience to authority, demonstrates findings weren't just one off occurence.
• Weakness of Milgram's study

  X Low internal v: Orne+Holland argued pps didn't believe in the set-up, guessed it wasn't real electric shocks. Perry listened to tapes of Milgram's pps + reported many of them expressed doubts about shocks. Sheridan+King conducted a similar study where real shocks given to puppy. Despite the real shocks, 54% of male pps + 100% of females delivered what they thought was fatal shock. Suggests effects in Milgram's were genuine because people behaved same way w/ real shocks. Milgram reported 70% of pps said believed shocks genuine.
• Weakness of Milgram's study

  X Ethical issues: Baumrind was v critical of ways Milgram deceived his pps. Milgram led pps to believe that the allocation of roles as 'teacher' and 'learner' was random, but it in fact was fixed. Perhaps the most significant deception involved the pps believing the electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected because she saw deception as a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of psychologists+their research.
• What was proximity in Milgram's variation?

  In the same room (teacher+learner). Obedience dropped from baseline 65% to 40%. In more dramatic variation, teacher forced learner's hand onto 'electroshock plate' when refused to answer question: obedience dropped further to 30%. Third condition, experimenter left room+gave teacher instructions by phone. Time proximity was reduced, obedience dropped to 20.5%. Pps frequently pretended to give shocks.
• What was location in Milgram's variation?

  Run-down building rather than uni setting than before, experimenter had less authority, obedience fell to 47.5%.
• What was uniform in Milgram's variation?

  Original study, experimenter wore grey lab coat. Variation where experimenter was called away because of phone call at the start of procedure. Role of experimenter taken over by 'ordinary member of public' (confed) in everyday clothes. Obedience = 20%.
• Strength of variations


  / Research support: field experiment in NYC, Bickman had 3 confeds dress in - jacket+tie, milkmans outfit and security guard. Stood in street and asked passers-by to pick up litter or giving confed a coin for parking meter. Twice as likely to obey assistant dressed as security than jacket+tie. Supports Milgram's conclusion.