Social Influence

• Conformity


  A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group
• Internalisation


  • When a person genuinely accepts the group norms.
  • Results in a private and public change of opinion/behaviour
  • Can also mean changing our public opinions and behaviour permanently, becoming internalised
• Identification


  • Sometimes there is something about a group we value, so we conform to their opinions/behaviour
  • It could also mean changing our public opinions and behaviour, while privately we may not agree
• Compliance


  • Simply going along with others in public, while privately not changing any opinions or behaviour
  • As soon as pressure stops, so does behaviour
• Explanations for conformity


  • Informational social influence (ISI)
  • Normative social influence (NSI)
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  • About who has the better information when you are unsure about something
  • If the majority of the group all say the same thing, you tend to accept that answer because you feel they are likely to be right
  • Most likely to happen in situations new to a person, where it isn't clear what is right, in crisis where decisions are made quickly or when one person is regarded as more of an expert
• Normative social influence (NSI)


  • Emotional process, about the "norms".
  • People enjoy social acceptance rather than rejection
  • Most likely to occur with strangers when fearing rejection and even with friends where we seek approval
• Conformity: Asch's research


  • Asch developed a procedure to assess how much people will conform to the opinion of others even when the answer is certain
  • The research supports normative social influence
• Conformity: Asch's research

  Method

  • 8 participants judge the length of a line by saying out loud which comparison line matched the standard
  • Each group only contained one participant
• Conformity: Asch's research

  Results

  • In control trials, 0.7% of the answers were incorrect
  • In critical trials, 37% of the answers were incorrect
  • 75% of participants conformed at least once
• Conformity: Asch's research

  Conclusion

  • The control shows that the task was easy to get right
  • The critical trials show conformity due to normative social influence
• Conformity: Asch's research

  Evaluation- lack of consistency

  • A limitation of Asch's research is that other, more recent studies have not shown the same findings
  • Perrin and Spencer repeated the study with engineering students in the UK
  • Only 1/396 students conformed, showing different results to Asch
  • This is a limitation as it shows that the effect is not consistent across all situations and time periods, so cannot be used to explain all conformity
• Conformity: alternative research


  • Sherif (1935) - conformity and the autokinetic effect
  • Asch's variations
• Sherif (1935)

  Method

  • Sherif used a visual illusion where a spot of light in a dark room appeared to move
  • Participants were told the light would move and they would have to estimate how far the spot moved
• Sherif (1935)

  Results

  • When alone, participants would develop personal norms (estimates are representative of the participants' beliefs)
  • Once in a group, estimates tend to converge
  • When retested alone, estimates were more similar to group estimates than personal norms
• Sherif (1935)

  Conclusion

  A group norm was developed, supportive of informational social influence
• Variations of Asch's experiment


  • Group size
  • Unanimity
  • Task difficulty
• Variations of Asch's experiment

  Group size


  • Findings - increases until 3 confederates
  • Explanation - when 3 people have a different answer, it is enough to conform. Any more will have no effect
• Variations of Asch's experiment

  Unanimity

  • Findings - decrease
  • Explanation - loss of a majority leaves the participant more confident in not conforming
• Variations of Asch's experiment

  Task difficulty


  • Findings - increase
  • Explanation - participants will rely more on others when they are not sure themselves
• Evaluation of conformity

  Research support


  • Explanations for conformity are supported by research
  • Asch's research supports normative social influence as participants feel pressured by the group to give the wrong answer so they can fit in
  • This is a strength of the theory because it means that people can rely on Asch's research as valid evidence for conformity
• Evaluation of conformity

  Doesn't account for behaviour in all individuals

  • A limitation of the normative social influence explanation is that it does not account for behaviour in all individuals
  • Sherif's research supports informational social influence as participants relied on others for the correct answer, while others are not as eager to please others
  • This is a limitation because it proves that not all people will conform just to please others
• Social roles


  A set of behaviours which are thought to be appropriate to a person in a particular situation
• Social roles: Zimbardo (1973)


  • The Stanford Prison Experiment
  • Following reports of brutality by guards in prisons across America in the 1960s, Zimbardo wanted to see if prison guards have sadistic personalities or if the situation creates the behaviour
• Social roles: Zimbardo (1973)

  Procedure

  Set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University

  • Advertised for students willing to volunteer and selected those deemed "emotionally stable" after extensive testing
  • Students randomly assigned to prisoner or guard roles
  • To heighten realism, prisoners were arrested in their homes and delivered to the prison
  • They were blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a uniform and number
  • Guards had their own uniform as well as wooden clubs, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades
• Social roles: Zimbardo (1973)

  Findings

  • Within two days, prisoners rebelled against the harsh treatment.
  • The guards then harassed the prisoners constantly, reminding them who was "in charge"
  • After the rebellion was shut down, the prisoners became depressed
  • One prisoner was released on the first day due to signs of psychological disturbance and two more on the fourth day
  • One prisoner went on a hunger strike and the guards force-fed him - he was shunned by other prisoners
  • The guards identified more and more closely with their role, becoming brutal and aggressive, even enjoying their power
• Social roles: Zimbardo (1973)

  Conclusion

  The power of the situation did influence people's behaviour

  • Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison
  • The roles were very easily taken on - people behaved as though they were in a real prison, not a psychological study
• Ethical issues

  • D - deception
  • R - right to withdraw
  • I - informed consent
  • P - protection from harm
  • P - privacy and confidentiality
• Evaluation of Stanford Prison Experiment

  Control


  • A strength of the experiment is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had some control over variables
  • An example of this was the selection of participants - emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to roles
  • Having such control increases the internal validity of the study, so we can be more confident in drawing conclusions
• Evaluation of Stanford Prison Experiment

  Lack of realism


  • It could be argued that the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role
  • For example, one of the participants said he had based his guard role off a film character
  • However, Zimbardo showed that the situation felt very real to the participants as quantitative data showed 90% of prisoners' conversations were about prison life
  • On balance, it seemed that the situation was real to the participants, which gives the study a high degree of internal validity
• Evaluation of Stanford Prison Experiment

  Role of dispositional influences


  • A weakness of the study is that Zimbardo was accused of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour
  • Only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner
  • This suggests that Zimbardo's conclusion of conformity within social roles may be over-stated
• Social roles: alternative research

  • Orlando (1973)
  • Reicher and Haslam (2006)
• Orlando (1973)

  Supporting research


  • Mock patients of this hospital conformed to their roles as psychiatric patients
  • Even started experiencing severe distress
  • Mirrors Zimbardo's study as the prisoners were truly convinced that they were unable to leave
• Reicher and Haslam (2006)

  Conflicting research


  • Mock patients of this prison rebelled and even took control of the prison
  • Subjected the guards to harassment
  • Opposes Zimbardo's study as the prisoners there conformed to the tyranny rather than assuming an authoritative role
• Obedience


  A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order
• Obedience: Milgram (1963)


  Sought an answer as to why such a high proportion of the German people supported Hitler during WW2
• Obedience: Milgram (1963)

  Procedure

  • 40 male participants aged 20-50, jobs ranging from unskilled to professional, recruited through an ad
  • Confederate learner and participant teacher as well as an experimenter dressed in a lab coat
  • Participants told they could leave at any time
  • Participant told to give the learner an increasingly severe "electric shock" (15-450V) if they answered wrong
  • No further response at 315V
  • Experimenter gave a standard response: "absence of response treated as a wrong answer"
  • Experimenter gave prods if participant was unsure about continuing
• Obedience: Milgram (1963)

  Evaluation - internal validity

  • Lacks internal validity
  • As soon as the participant realises the set up isn't real, Milgram wouldn't be testing what was intended
  • However, Sheridan and King (1972) administered real shocks to puppies but there was still a very high percentage of people that delivered the shocks
  • Suggests that Milgram's study was effective and genuine as people behaved the same way with real shocks
• Obedience: Milgram (1963)

  Evaluation - ecological validity

  • Lacks ecological validity as it was conducted in a lab
  • Means the situation is unnatural, so could cause invalidity
  • Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high
  • Suggests that processes of obedience in Milgram's study could have been more generalised
• Explanations for obedience

  • Situational variables
  • Psychological factors
  • Dispositional factors