Social influence - important studies

• Asch(1951): procedure 


  50 male American students were put into groups with 6-8 confederates who were part of the experiment but that pp's thought were other pp's. The participants were sat last in the order. They were then shown a card with an original line on and a card with 3 comparison lines and asked to pick which line was the same length as the original. Confederates would eventually give unanimously give incorrect and answers and all answers were given out loud.
• Asch's variations:


  1)Group size= he varied the number of P's in each study between 1 - 15 and found that if there were 2 confederates then conformity was 13.6%, 3 confederates was 31.8% and anything above three levels off conformity rates. +

  2)Unanimity= he introduced a dissenting confederate who would randomly give correct and incorrect answers- he found that with a dissenter conformity reduced on average to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous+

  3)Task difficulty= he made the line judging harder and found that conformity increased significantly
• Evidence supporting Asch- Lucas et al(2006)


  Asked participants to solve 'easy' and 'hard' math questions. Participants were given answers that (falsely) claimed to be from 3 other students. He found that they conformed more when given 'harder' questions
• Limitation of Asch- Fiske(2014)


  'Asch's groups weren't very groupy' and didn't reflect real life and P's knew that they were in a research study causing demand characteristics - findings do not generalize to everyday life.
• Support for explanations of conformity- Asch(1951)

  He found that participants conformed because they were afraid of disapproval and when they wrote down the answers instead conformity fell to 12.5%
• Support for explanations of conformity- Lucas et al (2006)


  Support for ISI - found participants conformed when task was harder so relied on others knowing more than them
• Limitation of explanations of conformity - Lucas et al(2006)


  His study shows that the distinction between NSI and ISI may not be useful because it is impossible to know which one is operating.
• Zimbardo(1973): procedure


  21 volunteer male American Stamford University students who were randomly allocated into groups as either guards or prisoners - guards were (falsely) told that they were chosen due to their 'emotional stability'

  Prisoners were strip-searched, given uniform and a number, guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs ect.

  Prisoners were told they could not leave and had to ask for parole, guards were told they had complete control over the prisoners but could not be physically violent towards them
• Guards


  Played roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
• Prisoner rebellion


  1. Prisoners rebelled within two days

  2. Ripped uniform and swore at guards

  3. Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed prisoners

  4. Prisoners reminded of their powerless role (frequent headcounts, even at night)
• Guards' behavior


  Threatened prisoners' psychological and physical health
• After rebellion was shut down


  • Prisoners became subdued and depressed
  • 3 were released early due to signs of psychological disturbance
  • 1 went on a hunger strike causing guards to force feed him and put him into a closet
• Zimbardo (1973): findings
• Limitation of Zimbardo's study- Banuazizi + Mohavedi(1975)


  Suggested that P's were 'play-acting' and their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.

  One guards based his role on a character from the film 'cool hand Luke'
• Milgram(1963)- procedure 


  40 American male participants +

  Each P arrived and drew lots form their role - a confederate was always the 'learner' and the true P was the 'teacher' and an 'experimenter' wore a lab coat in the same room as the 'teacher' +

  The teacher gave the learner an increasingly severe shock when they made a mistake on a task increasing in 15 steps to 450 volts+

  The shock were fake but the P believed they were real and if the teacher wished to stop the 'experimenter' gave a verbal 'prod' to continue
• Milgram(1963): findings 


  100% of participants increased until 300 volts and 65% continued until 450 volts (the highest level)

  Participants showed signs of extreme tension - 3 had full blown uncontrollable seizures

  Before the study Milgram also asked 14 psychology students to predict how they thought participants would respond and they estimated that no more than 3% would reach 450 volts

  Afterward P's were debriefed and 84% said that they were glad that they participated