Social Influence

• Jenness (1932)


  1. Procedure - 101 male and female psychology students made private, independent estimations of the number of white beans in a jar

  2. Findings - Individuals' second private estimation moved closer to the group estimation

  3. Conclusions - Provides strong evidence for internalisation and informational social influence
• Jenness AO3 - Limitation: Low ecological validity


  Findings cannot be generalised to real-life settings
• Jenness AO3 - Limitation: Lack of informed consent


  Participants did not experience their right to be made fully aware of the research aims, procedures and anticipated findings
• Jenness AO3 - Limitation: Low population validity


  Findings cannot be generalised to wider populations
• Jenness AO3 - Limitation: Deception


  Participants were misled by the procedure of the study
• Asch (1951)


  1. Procedure - 123 American male student volunteer participants were tested in groups, with only one being a genuine participant and the others being confederates

  2. Findings - Participants conformed in 36.8% of critical trials

  3. Conclusions - Provides strong evidence for compliance and normative social influence
• Asch AO3 - Limitation: Affected by time period


  Conformity is not consistent over time and setting, more likely if the perceived costs of not conforming are high
• Asch AO3 - Limitation: Demand characteristics


  Participants are likely to perceive the demands of the study, decreasing internal validity
• Asch AO3 - Limitation: Low population validity


  Findings only apply to certain groups, lowering external validity
• Asch AO3 - Limitation: Deception


  Participants were misled by the procedure of the study
• Explanations for conformity AO3 - Strength of two-process model


  Strong research to support it, showing participants conform due to informational social influence or normative social influence
• Explanations for conformity AO3 - Limitation of two-process model


  Individual differences affect conformity, desire to be liked explains conformity in some people more than others
• Explanations for conformity AO3 - Further limitation of two-process model


  Overly simplistic, often both informational and normative social influence are involved
• Variables affecting conformity - Group size


  Conformity rates increased as the group size increased due to more social influence
• Variables affecting conformity - Supportive confederate


  Social influence experienced by the participant was reduced when the supportive confederate gave the correct answer
• Variables affecting conformity - Task ambiguity


  Participants experienced both informational and normative social influence, effectively doubling the social influence and increasing conformity
• Zimbardo


  1. Procedure - 24 male student participants were randomly allocated to the role of prisoner or guard, and went through a process of experiencing deindividuation

  2. Findings - Both prisoners and guards quickly conformed to their social roles
• Zimbardo's prison experiment


  • Participants were emotionally stable and without a criminal history
  • Guards and prisoners went through a process of experiencing deindividuation as they were given clothing and experiences that removed their personal identity
  • Guards wore uniforms, mirrored sunglasses and carried truncheons
  • Prisoners were 'arrested', stripped-searched and dressed in degrading smock uniforms
  • Prisoners were referred to by a number; not by their names and had 16 rules to follow which were enforced by the guards
  • Guards were instructed to keep prisoners under control without using physical violence
  • Guards had complete power over the prisoners, even deciding when they could go to the toilet
  • Zimbardo acted as the Head of the Prison, giving direction to the guards and managing prisoners
  • The observation was planned to run for 14 days
• Obedience


  Compliance with the orders of an authority figure, even when those orders conflict with personal moral standards
• Authoritarian personality


  Childhood experience gives them a strong respect for authority, which makes them more likely to obey
• Obedient participants in Milgram's experiment

  Scored more highly on the F-scale than those who were less obedient
• Obedient participants reported having a good relationship with their parents rather than them being overly strict
• There is a difference between having strict parents and having an authoritarian personality, suggesting one does not necessarily cause the other
• The F-scale is politically biased and measures tendency towards right wing ideology
• Extreme right wing and left wing philosophies have a lot in common, and both insist on complete obedience to political authority
• Adorno's theory is not a complete explanation for obedience to authority, as it does not explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism
• The F-scale can only establish a correlation, it is not possible to conclude that having an authoritarian personality causes high levels of obedience
• Less educated people are more consistently authoritarian and were more likely to obey to higher levels in Milgram's research
• Education could be an important factor that explains both authoritarianism and obedience
• The F-scale has low internal validity as the scale may simply measure participants' tendency to agree
• Researchers knew the participants' scores before follow up interviews, which may have unintentionally biased the data
• The research evidence and therefore Authoritarianism may not be a valid explanation of obedience
• Milgram's variations - what happened to the obedience rate?


  • Dropped to 40%
  • Dropped to 30%
  • Dropped to 20.5%
  • Dropped to 47.5%
  • Dropped to 20%
• Locus of control


  The extent to which individuals believe they can control events that affect them
• Participants with an internal locus of control


  37% did not continue to the highest shock level, compared to 23% of externals
• People have become more independent but also more external over time, challenging the link between internal locus of control and resistance to social influence
• Locus of control is only important in new situations, it has little influence in familiar situations where our previous experiences are more important
• Social support


  The presence of another person who is not conforming allows an individual to be free of group pressure
• 88% of participants rebelled when working in groups to produce evidence for a smear campaign, showing that support from peers is linked to greater resistance to obedience
• Moscovici's procedure


  1. Female participants recruited, placed in groups of 6 with 4 genuine participants and 2 confederates, shown blue slides and asked to state the colour

  2. Consistent minority condition - confederates called all slides green

  3. Inconsistent minority condition - confederates called 24/36 slides green

  4. Control condition - no confederates