social influence

• What is conformity, and what is it also known as?

  Conformity - when people adopt the behaviour, attitudes or values of the majority after being exposed to their values or behaviour.

  
  

  Also known as majority influence.
• What are the 3 types of conformity?

  Compliance, internalisation and identification.
• Define compliance (types of conformity)

  Accepting the views of the majority, but not really agreeing with them. As the majority influence is superficial, compliance stops when there are no group pressures to conform to.
• Define internalisation (types of conformity)

  aka. acceptance. Shows majority influence because they believe the values of the majority. No external pressures to conform. Personal opinion changes because the new norms are internalised.
• Define identification (types of conformity)

  When someone conforms to the demands of a given social role in society, even if privately they don't agree with everything the group stands for and there is no change to personal opinion.

  e.g, teacher, policeman, politician.
• What are the two main reasons why people conform?

  Normative social influence

  Informational social influence
• What is normative social influence?

  Majority exerts (peer) pressure on other group members, making it difficult to deviate from the majority pov. Individual publicly conforms to avoid rejection or to gain reward, but privately disagrees - conformity compliance (superficial).
• What is informational social influence?

  Individual conforms to group norms because they don't know how to act and so looks to the group for guidance, as they believe them to be experts. Usually occurs in ambiguous situations.
• What are the 2 real-life examples of normative social influence?

  Smoking -Linkenbach and Perkins (2003)

  Conservation behaviour -Schultz et al. (2008)
• Explain Linkenbach and Perkins' (2003) research into normative social influence.

  Used campaign aimed at 12-17 yr olds in Montana, USA. Only 10% of non-smokers took up smoking following exposure to message saying people their age don't smoke, compared to 17% in places where the campaign didn't run.
• Explain Schultz et al's (2008) research into normative social influence.

  Gathered data from 132 hotels and 794 hotel rooms. Guests who received a message containing normative information about other guests ("75% of guests choose to reuse their towels each day") reduced their need for fresh towels by 25%.
• What are the 2 real-life examples of informational social influence?

  Development of social stereotypes -Wittenbrink and Henly (1966)

  Mass psychogenic illness -Jones et al. (2000)
• Explain Wittenbrink and Henly's (1966) research into informational social influence.

  Found that participants exposed to negative comparison info about African-Americans, that was said to be the beliefs of the majority, later reported more negative beliefs about a black target individual.
• Explain Jones et al's (2000) research into informational social influence.


  Documented case of mass psychogenic illness in a Tennessee school in 1998. Teacher noticed smell in her classroom and complained of a headache, nausea, shortness of breath, and dizziness. 80 students and 19 staff members went to A&E, complaining of the same symptoms. No physical cause for their illness was found - can be explained in terms of informational influence.
• What is the core study on conformity, and what was its aim?

  Asch's (1951) Three Line Study.

  Aimed to see if people would conform to the majority in unambiguous situations.
• What was the procedure of Asch's (1951) Three Line Study?

  Used sample of 123 male American undergraduates. Showed ppts. (in groups of 7-9) the three lines. Asked to say of the three was the same length as the standard line shown on the left.

  All of the ppts. in a group bar one were confederates. Asch had briefed them beforehand about what answer to give.

  Confederates were asked to give the incorrect answer 12/18 times.

  Naive ppt was always last/2nd last to answer.
• What controls did Asch use in his 1951 Three Line Study?

  On the first two trials, the accomplices gave the correct answer. On the third trial, all the accomplices gave the same wrong answer. Control trial confirmed that the stimulus lines were unambiguous. Found that people only made genuine mistakes 1% of the time - couldn't be reason for any conformity.
• What were the findings of Asch's (1951) Three Line Study?

  Naive ppt gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time. 75% conformed at least once over all trials.
• What can be concluded from Asch's (1951) Three Line Study?

  Shows the impact that a majority can have on the individual. Conformity can be influenced by a need to fit in - most people said they conformed to avoid rejection. Majority doesn't have same impact on everyone.
• What is the Asch effect?

  The extent to which participants conform, even when the situation is unambiguous.
• What type of social influence did Asch's study demonstrate?

  Normative social influence. Task was unambiguous - no need to seek guidance or believe others to be experts.

  Majority of participants who conformed did so publicly, but not privately (compliance).
• What are the 4 evaluation points for Asch's (1951) Three Line Study?

  ❌Historical validity.

  • Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch's experiment with UK engineering students.

  • 1 student conformed in a total of 396 trials.

  • Possible that the 1950s were an especially conformist time in America.

  • Society has now changed - become less conformist.

  • Significant as shows that Asch effect is not consistent across time - not a fundamental feature of human nature.

  BUT - limited sample, only UK engineering students

  ❌Artificial situation and task.

  • Demand characteristics - knew they were in a research study.

  • Task was trivial - no reason not to conform.

  • Group didn't resemble groups we are part of in everyday life.

  • Significant - findings don't generalise to everyday situations.

  ❌Limited application of findings.

  • Sample only men - Neto (1996) suggests that women may be more conformist as they are more concerned about social relationships & acceptance than men are.

  • Also only US ppts. Individualist culture - collectivist cultures more likely to conform as they are more orientated to group needs (Bond and Smith).

  ✔️Supporting Research

  • Mori and Arai (2010) - same levels of conformity as Asch

  • Jenness (1932) - jellybean jar

  • Sherif (1935) - autokinetic

  - (in following flashcards)
• What are other two studies into conformity? (not asch)

  Jenness (1932) and Sherif (1935)
• What was Jenness' (1932) aim and procedure?

  Aim: To investigate the effect of discussion on the accuracy of individual judgements

  Procedure: As individuals, participants estimated the number of jellybeans in a jar. They then discussed their estimates in either large or small groups - found that estimates widely varied. Group estimates chosen, and individuals then made a second, post-group individual estimate.
• What did Jenness (1932) find, and what can be concluded from these findings?

  Findings: Typicality of opinion was increased. When asked as individuals to make a second estimate, there was a significant convergence towards the group estimate. Average change of opinion was greater among women.

  Conclusions: Judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions, especially in ambiguous or uncertain situations - Internalisation conformity.
• What was Sherif's (1935) aim and procedure?

  Aim: To demonstrate that people conform to group norms when they are put in ambiguous situations.

  Procedure: Used auto-kinetic effect - small spot of light appears to move, but doesn't. Asked participants for an individual estimate of how far the light moved. Then put into groups of three - 2 similar estimate, 1 not. Had discussion, then asked to provide individual estimates again.
• What were Sherif's (1935) findings, and what can be concluded from these?

  Findings: Groups converged to a common estimate. Person whose estimate was different conformed to the view of the other two.

  Conclusions: When in an ambiguous situation, a person will look to others for guidance - Internalisation conformity. Group norms are established through interaction of individuals & the levelling-off of extreme opinions. Result is a consensus agreement.
• What was Mori and Arai's (2010) aim and procedure?

  Aim: Replication of Asch

  Procedure: Used MORI technique - ppts wore glasses that let them view the same stimuli, but each see something different. In each group of 4, 3 ppts wore identical glasses, and 1 wore a different set - caused them to observe a different comparison line. Said which line was closest to comparison line. Asked to complete questionnaire afterwards to assess level of conformity. Both male and female ppts.
• What were Mori and Arai's (2010) findings, and what can be concluded from these?

  Findings: Levels of conformity for women were 1/3.

  Groups that all knew each other - high levels of conformity.

  Men and groups of strangers had low levels of conformity.

  Conclusions: Conformity takes places among "acquainted persons".
• What did Mori and Arai (2010) consider that Asch didn't in his original experiment?

  Role that confederates play in the outcome of the experiment - Mori and Arai didn't use confederates.

  Role of bias, used balanced sample.

  Carried out in Japan - collectivist.
• What are the 3 variables that influence conformity in Asch's variations?

  Size of group- increased to 16 confederates against one ppt.

  Social support- when one other person in the group also gave a different answer from the others.

  Difficulty of task- lines closer in length.
• What affect did the group size in Asch's variations have on conformity, and why?

  Increased conformity, but addition of more than 3 ppts made little difference. Still higher pressure to conform with larger group of people.
• What affect did social support in Asch's variations have on conformity, and why?

  Decreased conformity rates by 25%, on average. Dissenter enabled ppt to behave more independently - act as model for behaviour.
• What affect did the difficulty of the task in Asch's variations have on conformity, and why?

  Increased conformity. Informational social influence plays a greater role when the task becomes harder. Situation is more ambiguous - more likely to look to others for guidance or assume they're right.
• What are social roles?

  The 'parts' people play as members of various social groups, e.g parent, child, student. Roles accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour.
• What is the key study for conformity to social roles?

  Zimbardo (1973)
• What was Zimbardo's (1973) aim?

  Wanted to investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
• What was Zimbardo's (1973) procedure?

  Converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. Advertised for male students to play the roles of prisoner and guard for a fortnight. Ppts were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard. Prisoners issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only. Guards issued a khaki uniform, whistle, handcuffs, and dark glasses to make eye contact impossible. Guards worked shifts of 8 hours each, and no physical violence was permitted. Zimbardo observed the behaviour, and also acted as prison warden.
• What were Zimbardo's (1973) findings? (3 key things)

  • Within a very short time, both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles. Within hours, some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner. Other guards joined in, and other prisoners were also tormented.

  
  

  • Prisoners also adopted prisoner-like behaviour; talked about prison issues, snitched on each other to the guards, took rules seriously and some began siding with the guards against prisoners who disobeyed. Some rebelled.

  
  

  • As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more assertive and aggressive. Demanded obedience.
• What can be concluded from Zimbardo's (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment?

  Conclusions: Revealed the power of the situations to influence people's behaviour. Guards, prisoners and researchers all easily conformed to their roles within the prison.