Social influence bad

• Asch 1955


  Investigated group sizes affect on conformity, varied the number of confederates used (2-16 in total), found a curvilinear relationship since they increased with each other (conformity became 31.8%)
• Unanimity (non-conformer)


  Having someone disagree (right or wrong), conformity dropped to 5%
• Task difficulty


  Asch made the line length task vary from very easy to very complex, finding conformity increase thinking its because the participants are unsure and therefore agree to not be left out
• Lucas et al (2006)


  Supported Asch, testing with easy and hard math problems, conformed more when harder
• Naïve participants were deceived since the others were part of the experiment
• Artificial task, so they may have just gone along with whatever due to knowing it's a test
• Groups didn't resemble those in everyday life (Fiske 2014)
• American men (can't be generalised to other cultures and women (Bond and Smith 1996 and Neto 1995)
• Conformity is more complex to what Asch suggests (depended on the confidence of their maths abilities)
• Mind ethical costs
• Internalisation


  Genuinely accepts the groups norms, changing publicly and privately
• Identification


  Conforming because you value the group (like its cool) to be a part of it but stops outside of the group
• Compliance


  Only agreeing in public, and not changing in private
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  Believe it what the majority says due to believing they're right, following the behaviour of the majority, cognitive process, can lead to internalisation, in new or crisis situations
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  Conforming to fit in with the group to not appear foolish, emotional process, temporary change, occur when feeling concerned about rejection
• NSI


  Asch (1951) some conformed due to being self-conscious, when writing answers conformity fell to 12.5%
• ISI


  Lucas et al (2006) conformed more when the task was difficult
• Hard to separate NSI and ISI, since they're often used together in real world situations
• McGhee and Teevan (1967) students who wanted to be relatable (nAffiliators) were more likely to conform – NSI underlies conformity
• Stanford prison experiment


  21 participants since 3 dropped out, all male student volunteers, randomly assigned the role of a prison guard or prisoner, given uniforms for each, had to conform to their roles
• Stanford prison experiment


  1. Prisoners wore a loose smock and a cap, identified by numbers

  2. Guards wore a smart uniform to reflect status, hand cuffs, wooden club and shades

  3. Encouraged to feel their role, so prisoners could apply for parol and guards had complete control over the prisoners

  4. 2-days in there was rebellions by tearing uniforms and shouting/swearing

  5. 'Divide-and-rule' tactics were used with head counts, so they knew who was in charge

  6. Prisoners became depressed and anxious, some showing significant psychological distress (2 released on day 4), hunger strikes

  7. Guard became heavily involved in their role and were becoming aggressive and violent, enjoying the power over the prisoners

  8. Ended after 6 days, instead of the intended 14
• Stanford prison experiment


  • Internal validity since Zimbardo was in control of key variables – all emotionally-stable
  • McDermott (2019) behaved as if the prison was real – 90% of prisoners talked about prison life, some believed it was an undercover prison
  • Conforming to the role they were given was seen as 'natural/easy'
• Lacked realism of a real prison – Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued that they were just conforming to the role since their performance was based on stereotypes (films they watched)
• Fromm (1973) exaggerated social roles, 1/3 guards acted brutal, 1/3 were fair, 1/3 were trying to help the prisoners- Zimbardo overestimated their conformity to social roles due to the pity some guards took
• Reicher and Haslam (2006) says it doesn't account for the non-brutal guards who weren't conforming to their social role
• Milgrams experiment (1963)


  40 American male volunteers told it was a study on memory, rigged experiment where the confederates were the 'Learner' and the 'Experimenter' (dressed in a lab coat), and the participant was the 'Teacher', E ordered T (participant) to give an increasing shock to L in another room (15-450 volts) which were fake, Prods were used to keep T obedient, found that everyone put the volts to 300, 12.5% stopped there, 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts
• Used qualitative date along with observations; P were tense, and anxious with some having seizures
• 14 psych students predicted 3% going to 450V (unexpected results), with a debrief afterwards making sure their behaviour was normal, then followed up with a questionnaire
• Beauvois et al (2012)


  Replicated the findings in a french documentary, this showed that Milgrams findings were valid and not just from the circumstances
• Sheridan and King (1972)


  Used students shocking a puppy – 54% of men and 100% of women gave what was said to be a lethal shock , making mil grams study genuine since people were the same when the shocks were real
• Perry (2013) confirmed that only 2 anticipates believed the shocks were real, so the participants were responding to demand characteristics by trying to fulfil the aims of the experiment
• People only obeyed when they agreed with the prods and how they agreed with the study (refusing the 4th prod) due to the social identity theory (Haslam 2014)
• Participants were deceived since they ere told the allocation of roles were random when they were set, and that the shocks were real – milgram gave a debrief to deal with this
• Baumrind (1964) argues that deceiving participants has serious effects on the participants and researchers
• Proximity


  Lower proximity decreased the obedience due to the psychological distance between the participant and the learner, Higher proximity like L and T in the same room the obedience was 40% from 60%, T forcing Ls hand on the button made the toxicity 30%, instructions over the phone it went to 20.5%, Physical distance made T less aware of the damage they were causing so they were more obedient
• Location


  Milgrams experiment was performed in a Yale uni and was 65% obedient, then in a run-down office and became 47.5%, The location gave legitimacy, which was assumed to be shared with the experiment, Still high in the office due to participants believing in the 'scientific' nature of the experiment
• Uniform


  Grey lab coat wore in the original, which was perceived as authority, in a variation an 'ordinary member of the public' took over the experiment wearing casual clothes, making the obedience drop to 20%, People accept those in uniform having authority, and are therefore obedient to them, when it changed to someone casual, they are seen to not have the legitimacy therefore don't require their obedience
• Bickman (1974)


  Had people ask strangers for small tasks in different outfits/uniforms, higher obedience in the uniform
• Meeus and Raaijmaers (1986)


  Replicated milgrams study with Dutch participants, fond 90% obeyed
• Smith and Bond (1998) also replicated the experiment in India and Jordan and got very different results from the US