Social Influence

• What is Social influence? Give an example


  A term that refers to how people can influence each other's behaviour, attitudes and values.

  
  

  Conformity and obedience are an example of social influence.
• What is Conformity?


  Conformity occurs when an individual or small group of people change their behaviour, attitudes and values to fit in with the view of the majority group they have been exposed to, even if it goes against their own personal judgement.

  
  

  For example, a person who alters their behaviour merely to fit in with a peer group is said to be conforming.
• What are the three types of conformity?

  Psychologists, such as Herbert Kelman (1958), have identified three different types of conformity to the majority.

  
  

  They are compliance, identification and internalisation.
• What is compliance? 4 points

  Compliance occurs when an individual changes their behaviour, attitude or opinion to that of the majority group.

  
  

  They do this in order to 'fit in' with the group because they want to avoid disapproval or gain approval.

  
  

  Compliance involves publicly conforming to group norms while privately holding differing opinions, without genuine attitude change. This superficial behaviour tends to last only under group influence and fades when that pressure is removed.

  
  

  Compliance tends to be the result of normative social influence.
• Give an example of compliance


  An example of compliance could be a student who disagrees with a dress code at school but follows it anyway because they want to avoid getting in trouble with teachers or being ostracised by their peers.
• What is identification?


  Identification occurs when individuals adjust their behaviour or opinions to those of a group, because they want to be like them.

  
  

  This is a stronger type of conformity than compliance as it involves adjusting both public behaviour and private opinions.

  
  

  However, these changes are generally temporary and fade once individuals leave the group, such as when they finish school.
• Give an example of identification

  A student at university adopts the beliefs of their flatmates (e.g. being vegetarian or holding certain political beliefs), but on leaving university life, they adopt new behaviours and opinions again, for example, eating meat.
• What is internalisation?


  Internalisation happens when individuals genuinely adopt the behavior, attitude, or opinions of the majority group because they believe the group is correct.

  
  

  This acceptance can stem from the individual's values aligning with the majority's position or being persuaded that they were wrong and the majority is right.

  
  

  Internalisation leads to both public and private acceptance of the majority view.

  
  

  It persists even when the group influence is removed, making it the most permanent form of conformity, typically resulting from informational social influence.
• Give an example of internalisation

  A person who takes on a new religious faith will accept, both publically and privately, the values and norms of the religious group and will continue to accept these, regardless of whether the group is there to influence the individual or not.
• What are the two explanations for conformity?

  According to Deutsch and Gerard (1955), there are two main explanations of why individuals conform to the majority -informational social influence and normative social influence.
• What is Informational social influence (ISI)?

  Informational social influence (ISI) is when a person conforms to the behaviour or opinion of the majority because they see others as a source of the correct information and use this to guide their personal decisions.

  
  

  This tends to happen in ambiguous situations when individuals are uncertain and look to others for guidance, believing the majority to be correct.

  
  

  An example would be an individual who has started a new job and the fire alarm goes off and the individual watches their colleague's behaviour to see how they should behave.

  
  

  Therefore, ISI conformity is due to cognitive reasons rather than emotional reasons.

  
  

  ISI leads to internalisation.
• What is Normative social influence (NSI)?


  Normative social influence (NSI) is when a person changes their behaviour or opinion to that of the majority in order to be liked and accepted by the group and avoid the group's disapproval.

  
  

  Therefore, NSI is often due to emotional reasons rather than a cognitive process.

  
  

  Although the individual may publicly change their behaviour/views (i.e. showing 'public conformity'), in private they may not agree.

  
  

  This type of conformity is also known as compliance.
• Give an example of NSI

  An example would be a teenage girl who conforms to deviant behaviour (e.g. shoplifting) with her friends, so she can fit in, but privately she knows this is wrong.
• A03 ISI: Strength- Research support for ISI

  P: A strength of ISI as an explanation of conformity is that there is supporting research evidence.

  
  

  E: Jenness (1932) studied 101 American students to see if group discussion influenced their estimates of jellybeans in a jar. First, participants estimated privately, then discussed in groups, and finally estimated again individually.

  
  

  E: Jenness found that private second estimates were closer to the group decision than the initial estimates.

  
  

  L: This showed that individual judgements were affected by the majority opinion, especially in an ambiguous situation, and thus people were more likely to conform due to ISI.
• A03 ISI- Limitation: Social identities can influence ISI

  P: A limitation of ISI as an explanation of social influence is that the theory cannot be replicated reliably.

  
  

  E: Abrams et al. (1990) demonstrated that in ambiguous situations, individuals are prone to conform more with their "in-group" than with their "out-group," defined by shared social identities such as friends, ethnicity, or religion.

  
  

  E: This in-group bias (a tendency to favour one's in-group over an out-group) fostesr conformity by internalising the opinions of friends rather than strangers.

  
  

  L: This shows that the processes that determine informational influence are much more complex, suggesting that ISI as an explanation is over-simplified.
• A03 NSI- Strength: Research support for NSI

  P: A strength of NSI as an explanation of conformity is that there is supporting research evidence that people conform as a result of NSI.

  
  

  E: Asch (1956) conducted an experiment with 7-9 American male participants, each seated around a table to assess three vertical lines (A, B, and C) by identifying which matched a 'standard line' in length. Each group included just one genuine participant (the naive participant), while the rest were confederates aware of the experiment's aims and instructed to provide incorrect answers.

  
  

  E: Asch found on average about 32% of the naive participants conformed to the incorrect majority answer and about 75% of the naive participants conformed at least once.

  
  

  L: This is a strength, as the study showed that conformity displayed by individuals can be explained by NSI. Even when the correct answer is obvious, people often conform to the majority view under group pressure to avoid ridicule.
• A03 NSI- Limitation: Individual differences

  P: A limitation of NSl as an explanation for conformity is that it does not consider individual differences.

  
  

  E: For example, individuals who highly value others' approval, known as nAffiliators, are more susceptible to NSI.

  
  

  E: McGhee and Teevan (196) found that students who identified as nAffiliators were more likely to conform, suggesting that the need to be liked varies among people.

  
  

  L: This shows that NSl as an explanation does not cover the fact there are differences in people, which may influence why they conform.
• What was Asch's aim (1956)?


  To see whether people's behaviour is influenced by the majority view even when the answer to an experimental task is unambiguous.
• What was Asch's procedure (1956)?

  The study included a sample of 123 American male university students, with groups of 7-9 seated in a classroom for a purported vision test. Only one student per group was a genuine participant (naive participant), while the others were confederates aware of the experiment's real purpose and instructed accordingly.

  
  

  The task required participants to compare a single vertical line on one card to three differently sized lines labeled A, B, and C on another card, identifying which matched the 'standard line'. The correct answer was always obvious. The naive participant, seated last or second to last, called out their answer after the others.

  
  

  Each line test, called a 'trial,' totaled 18 in the study. Confederates gave the correct answer in six 'neutral trials' and the incorrect answer in twelve 'critical trials.
• What were Asch's findings (1956)?


  Asch found that in the 12 critical trials, the naive participants conformed to the incorrect answer 32% of the time. This is significant; if we compare this against the neutral trials (with no confederates giving the wrong answer), the participants answered incorrectly 0.7% of the time.

  
  

  Asch also found that 75% of the participants conformed at least once to the wrong answer, indicating that 25% of the participants never conformed, consistently providing the correct answer throughout all critical trials.
• What did Asch conclude from the study (1956)?


  The study illustrated that conformity in individuals can be explained by normative social influence.

  
  

  Even in situations with obvious answers, people often conform to the majority under group pressure to avoid ridicule.
• A03 Asch's Line study- Limitation: Biased sample


  P: A limitation of Asch's study is that it was based on a biased sample of people - male university students from the USA.

  
  

  E: The findings are limited to American males. Replications of Asch's experiment, like those by Eagly and Carli (1978), show that women may conform more than men, possibly due to a greater concern for social relationships and acceptance, as suggested by Neto (1995).

  
  

  E: Furthermore, conformity also differs across cultural contexts. Smith et al. (2006) found a higher conformity rate in collectivist cultures (37%) compared to individualist cultures (25%). This difference is attributed to the collective focus on group needs in societies like China, compared to the individualistic emphasis on personal freedom seen in the USA and UK.

  
  

  L: These findings suggest that conformity varies by culture and gender, limiting the applicability of Asch's conclusions beyond his sample demographic.
• A03 Asch's Line study- Limitation: Artificial task

  P: Another limitation of Asch's study concerns the experimental setting used to investigate conformity.

  
  

  E: Critics argue that the artificial task of judging line lengths lacks mundane realism, as it is an unlikely real-life activity to do with strangers.

  
  

  E: Williams and Soon (1984) expanded on this by demonstrating that conformity levels are higher among friends than strangers, highlighting how relationship dynamics influence conformity.

  
  

  L: This suggests that Asch's study may have limited ecological validity, as the findings might not accurately reflect how people behave in more naturalistic social settings.
• A03 Asch's Line study- Limitation: Explanation for the high level of conformity found in Asch studies.


  P: A limitation of Asch's findings is that they may be specific to the historical context of 1950s America, particularly the McCarthy era.

  
  

  E: During the McCarthyism period, heightened anti-communist sentiment made Americans wary of expressing dissenting views for fear of being labeled communist sympathizers. This environment likely encouraged higher levels of conformity as a means of safety and solidarity.

  
  

  E: Conversely, Perrin and Spencer (1980) found minimal conformity in their UK replication years later, suggesting that conformity levels can vary significantly with changes in social attitudes over time.

  
  

  L: This indicates that Asch's findings might lack temporal validity, suggesting that conformity behaviour is influenced by specific historical and social contexts and is not a permanent trait of human behaviour.
• What are situational variables?

  Situational variables are aspects of the environment that can influence an individual's behaviour.

  
  

  In further research based on his original study, Asch tested several variations of his procedure of the line judgement task, in order to determine which factors influenced conformity levels.
• What were the 3 different variations of Asch's procedure?

  - Group size (number of people in a social group)

  
  

  - Unanimity (to what degree the group of people are in agreement with each other)

  
  

  - Task difficulty (how obvious the correct answer was when regarding a task)
• Outline the group size variation

  Asch found there was very little conformity when the majority consisted of one or two confederates—3% with one, and 13% with two. However, conformity rose to 32% with three confederates.

  
  

  Further increases in group size did not significantly raise conformity, indicating that the influence of group size on conformity plateaus, with three confederates being as influential as larger groups.
• Outline the unanimity variation

  Research indicates that conformity decreases when the majority is not unanimous.

  
  

  Asch (1956) found that if one confederate gave the correct answer before the genuine participants, conformity dropped significantly from 32% (original study) to 5.5%.

  
  

  This effect was also noted when a dissenting confederate gave a different incorrect answer, with conformity decreasing to 9%.

  
  

  Asch concluded that breaking the group's unanimity was crucial in reducing conformity.
• Outline the task difficulty variation

  Greater conformity rates are seen when task difficulty increases, as the correct answer becomes less obvious. This means that individuals will look to others for guidance in making the correct response.

  
  

  In one experimental test, the line-judgment task was made more difficult by reducing the differences between line lengths, resulting in higher conformity as participants were more likely to follow incorrect answers.

  
  

  This rise in conformity due to increased task ambiguity is linked to informational social influence, where individuals look to others for guidance to ensure correctness.
• A03 Group size- Limitation: Who's in the group is just as important.


  P: A limitation of research into group size on conformity is that conformity also depends on who is in the majority group, as well as how many are in the group.

  
  

  E: Abrams et al. (1990) found that, in ambiguous situations, we are more likely to be influenced by other people's opinions when we feel we share a common social identity with them, than by those with whom we do not share a common social identity.

  
  

  E: This produces an in-group bias, tendency to favour one's in-group over the out-group.

  
  

  L: As a result, people are more likely to internalise the opinions and views of friends, and thus show conformity, and less likely to internalise a stranger's views.
• A03 Unanimity- Limitation: Social characteristics of the supporter


  P: A limitation of research into 'unanimity' on the effects of conformity is that it ignores the effects of the social characteristics of the supporter (dissenter in the group).

  
  

  E: For example, Melamed and Savage (2013), found that the education, race and sex of the 'supporter' can influence whether a person will resist conforming to the group or not.

  
  

  E: If the 'supporter' is perceived to be different (e.g. education or class), then they are less likely to have an effect.

  
  

  L: This suggests that conformity depends on the characteristics of the supporter rather than simply on her/his presence.
• A03 Task difficulty- Limitation: Ignores individual differences


  P: A limitation of research into 'task difficulty' on the effects of conformity is that it ignores the role of individual differences.

  
  

  E: For example, Lucas et al. (2006) found that the influence of task difficulty was affected by the individual's confidence in their own abilities (i.e. their self-efficacy). They found that participants with high self-efficacy remained more independent in their judgements, showing less conformity than participants with low self-efficacy, even under conditions

  of high task difficulty.

  
  

  E: Task difficulty also depends on the skills and abilities of the participants, rather than the difficulty of the task itself. For example, a given problem in mathematics might prove hard for most people but not for an expert.

  
  

  L: This suggests situational differences (task difficulty) and individual differences (e.g. self-efficacy, skills) are both important in determining conformity.
• What were Zimbardo's aims in the Stanford prison experiment (SPE)?

  • To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing simulation of prison life.

  
  

  • To test the dispositional versus situational hypotheses that saw prison violence as either due to the sadistic personalities of guards and prisoners or the brutal conditions of the prison environment.
• Outline the procedure of Zimbardo's SPE: Participants

  Zimbardo established a simulated prison in the basement of Stanford University's psychology department.

  
  

  The study recruited 24 male students who were deemed psychologically healthy through tests and advertised via newspapers.

  
  

  These participants were randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or a guard and dressed accordingly. Zimbardo took on the role of the prison 'superintendent' to enhance realism.

  
  

  To make the experience as realistic as possible, the prisoners were arrested at their homes by the real local police and delivered to the 'prison' here they were blindfolded, fingerprinted, stripped and deloused.
• Outline the procedure of Zimbardo's SPE: Setting

  Once the participants were in the mock prison setting, dehumanisation took place.

  
  

  Prisoners were made to wear garments marked with ID numbers, replacing their names, and were given nylon stocking caps to mimic shaved heads, along with a chain around one ankle. Guards dressed in khaki uniforms and wore reflective sunglasses to avoid eye contact; they were also equipped with handcuffs, keys, whistles, and truncheons, though they were not allowed to use physical punishment.

  
  

  The daily routines of the prisoners were strictly controlled, including scheduled mealtimes, toilet breaks and visiting hours, all intended to mirror actual prison conditions. The experiment was initially planned to last two weeks.
• What did Zimbardo find?

  Both guards and prisoners settled quickly into their social roles. However, within the first two days, Zimbardo observed that the guards grew increasingly tyrannical and abusive toward the prisoners. The prisoners rebelled against their treatment.

  
  

  After the rebellion was put down, the prisoners were showing signs of anxiety and depression. They also showed signs of passiveness, an acceptance of their lowly position, whilst the guards progressively increased their brutality and aggression every day.

  
  

  Five prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance (crying, rage and acute anxiety) and one prisoner went on hunger strike.

  
  

  The study had to be stopped after six days rather than the planned 14 days, due to threat to the prisoners mental and physical health.
• What did Zimbardo conclude?

  The situational hypothesis is favoured over the dispositional hypothesis, meaning that the power of the situation can influence people's behaviour. The environment of the mock prison and the social roles it demanded the participants play, led to their uncharacteristic behaviour.

  
  

  Individuals conform quite readily to the social roles that are demanded by the situation, even when such roles override an individual's values and moral beliefs.
• A03 Zimbardo's SPE- Strength: Control over variables

  P: A strength of the SPE is that the methodology allowed Zimbardo to have control over many variables of the experimental situation.

  
  

  E: For example, by recruiting 'emotionally' stable participants who were then randomly assigned either as the role of guard or prisoner. The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance. .

  
  

  E: This eliminates the possibility of the participants personality being the cause of their behaviour. This means their behaviour was due to the pressures of the situation and not their personalities.

  
  

  L: Control increases the study's internal validity meaning that we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influences of social roles on behaviour.
• A03 Zimbardo's SPE- Limitation: SPE lacks realism


  P: A limitation of the SPE is a lack of realism.

  
  

  E: Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggested that participants were play-acting - a case of demand characteristics. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. One guard based his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke.

  
  

  E: Prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did, and not because of the environmental conditions being tested.

  
  

  L: If demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study, this means the study has low ecological validity and therefore we cannot generalise the findings to real-life prison settings.
• A03 Zimbardo's SPE- Limitation: Sample bias


  P: The study can also be criticised for sample bias.

  
  

  E: Zimbardo's experiment involved 24 normal, healthy, male, American college students who were predominantly middle-class and white. This demographic does not represent the global population.

  
  

  E: Given that America is characterised by individualistic cultural values, which generally encourage less conformity, the findings might differ significantly in collectivist cultures, such as those in communist countries, where group cohesion and conformity may be more pronounced.

  
  

  L: Consequently, we must be careful generalising the study's findings beyond the sample, to female prisons or those from other countries.