Social influence

• Social influence: conformity Types


  Kelman (1958) = 3 types
• Types of conformity


  • Compliance
  • Identification
  • Internalization
• Compliance


  Agree with group externally but not privately
• Identification


  Behaviour + values change only when group changes
• Internalization


  Personal opinions genuinely change
• Informational social influence


  We look to the majority for guidance on how to believe because we want to be correct (internalization)
• Normative social influence


  When the individual wants to appear likeable and be approved (compliance)
• Asch's confederate study proved NSI when participants were interviewed they suggested they conformed to avoid rejection
• Jenness (1932) individuals' second private guess about the amount in the jar was more closer to the truth, proving ISI
• There is evidence some people are more able to resist social pressure to conform (locus of control)
• In many real life cases, there is overlap between ISI and NSI
• Asch (1951) conducted a study where participants were asked to take part in a "usual perception task"
• Asch's study procedure


  1. 1 card had a control line, 2nd had 3 companion lines one the same as control

  2. 18 male participants

  3. 12 critical male confederates gave wrong answers

  4. Conformity was 32%
• 75% of participants conformed at least once
• 5% never conformed
• Group size


  • 3% conformity for 1 person, 13% for 2, 35% for 3
• Unanimity = conformity increases to 53.5%
• Task difficulty


  Faster conformity increases
• Perrin & Spencer (1980) found Asch's results had temporal validity
• Rosander (2012) found 52.6% conformity when online confederates gave wrong answers
• Asch's confederates were not actors, potential for demand characteristics from participants
• Only men were used, potential gender bias
• Artificial lab setting, results may not apply to everyday use
• Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment: 21 male students, 10 guards, 11 prisoners
• Zimbardo's study procedure


  1. Prisoners given realistic arrest, fingerprinted, shipped

  2. Prisoners and guards conformed to their roles quickly

  3. Experiment cancelled on day 6 due to ethical concerns
• Zimbardo's study showed how the prison environment had the power to change behaviour to conform to socially desired roles
• Reicher & Haslam (2011) could easily replicate the experiment, suggesting prisoners/guards may have been acting according to stereotypes
• The experiment was unethical, causing distress and harm to participants
• Zimbardo used the study to argue the prison situation caused guards to become aggressive, but only 1/3 were aggressive
• Kelman (1958) identified 3 types of conformity: compliance, identification, and internalisation
• Informational social influence


  Majority provide guidance on what is correct (internalisation)
• Normative social influence


  Desire to appear similar and be approved (compliance)
• Asch's study proved normative social influence when participants conformed to avoid rejection
• Jenness (1932) found individuals' private views moved closer to the group's
• Some people are more able to resist social pressures (locus of control)
• Agentic state


  Individual believes they don't have responsibility for their behaviour as they are the agent of an authority figure
• Legitimacy of authority


  Individual accepts that those higher in society should be obeyed, learned through socialisation
• Milgram's (1963) study supported the agentic state, with variables like no uniform and a "professor" increasing obedience
• Richmond (1974) demonstrated legitimacy of authority in the real world, with 39% picking up litter if held by a security guard vs 14% otherwise
• Authoritarian personality is associated with a tendency to look for and condemn those who violate conventional values