social influence

• Conformity


  The act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms
• Asch's baseline procedure


  1. 123 American male participants

  2. Told they were participating in a vision perception study

  3. Tested individually in groups with 7-9 confederates

  4. 12 trials where confederated would all give the same wrong answer

  5. Participant gave their answer last or second to last
• The control group was 36 participants
• Asch's baseline study findings

  • 32% of participants conformed to the wrong answer
  • 25% of participants never conformed
• Variables investigated by Asch in 1955


  1. Group size

  2. Unanimity

  3. Task difficulty
• Findings on group size

  • Conformity increased up to 3 confederates to 31.8% conformity, 4+ made little difference
• Findings on unanimity


  • 1 dissenter giving a different wrong answer decreased conformity to less than 25%
• Findings on task difficulty


  • Conformity increased when the task was made more difficult
• This happens due to Informational social influence; we are unsure about an answer so we look to the group for guidance
• The influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous, and non-conformity is more likely when cracks are perceived in the majority's unanimous view
• Types of conformity


  Internalisation<|>Identification<|>Compliance
• Explanations of conformity


  Informational social influence<|>Normative social influence
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  We follow the behaviour of the group because we want to be right
• Normative social influence (NSI)


  We follow the 'normal' or typical behaviour of a social group as we do not want to appear foolish and prefer to be socially approved rather than rejected
• Schultz et al 2008 found they were able to change the behaviour of hotel guests by using printed messages encouraging them to save energy, and the message that suggested other guests were using fewer bath towels were the most successful
• Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment


  1. Zimbardo built a fake prison in the psychology department's basement at Stanford University

  2. 21 male student volunteers were randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards

  3. Prisoners were given a uniform and instructions to identify with their role

  4. Guards were given a uniform and instructions to exercise power over the prisoners
• Milgram's obedience study


  1. 40 American male participants

  2. Told they were participating in a study on the effect of punishment on memory and learning

  3. Participant was the 'teacher' who was to shock the 'learner' when they got an answer wrong, up to 450 volts

  4. The experimenter used 4 prods to encourage the participant to continue
• Jeu la Mort (the Game of Death)


  Study where participants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to another person in front of a studio audience
• 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock of 460v to an 'unconscious' man
• Participants' behaviour was almost identical to Milgram's participants
• Both laughed nervously, bit their nails and showed other signs of anxiety
• This supports Milgram's original finding about obedience to authority


  And demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances
• One limitation is that Milgram's procedure might not have been testing what he intended to
• 75% of Milgram's participants said they believed the shocks were genuine
• Orne and Holland 1968 argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn't believe in the set up so they were 'play-acting'
• Perrys 2013 research confirms this, she listened to tapes of Milgrams participants and reported only 1/2 of them believed the shocks were real
• 2/3 of these participants were disobedient
• This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics
• Another limitation is that Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
• Haslam et al 2014 showed Milgram's participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first three prods however every participant who was given the 4th prod disobeyed
• According to social identity theory


  Participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the aim of the research. When ordered to blindly obey, they refused
• This shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with the science' is a reason for obedience
• Proximity


  Decreasing proximity allows for psychologically distancing themselves from the consequence of their actions
• Baseline: Participant could hear but not see learner. Obedience 65%
• Proximity variation: Participant & learner in the same room. Obedience 40%
• Touch Proximity variation: Participant forced learner's hand onto an 'electroshock plate' when learner refused to answer questions. Obedience 30%
• Remote Instruction variation: Experimenter left the room and gave instruction via phone. Obedience 20.5% & participants frequently pretended to give shocks
• Location


  The prestigious university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority. Participants more obedient as they perceived the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and obedience was expected
• Baseline: Yale university
• Variation: run-down office block. Obedience 47.5%