Social Influence

• Conformity


  When we adjust our behaviours or opinions to match more closely to the behaviours/opinions of a majority group.
• Internalisation


  A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to a permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent.
• Identification


  A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don't necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.
• Compliance


  A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.
• Informational Social Influence (ISI)


  Who has the right/better information?

  • Follow majority because we believe it is correct.
  • Believe it because we also want to be correct.
  • May lead to internalisation.
  • Cognitive process.
• Normative Social Influence (NSI)


  Agree with majority for social approval.

  • May lead to compliance.
  • Emotional process.
  • Situations of fear or rejection.
  • Follow norms of society.
• Jenness (1932)


  Aim - study conformity levels on a low-stakes task.

  Procedure - individuals asked to privately guess how many beans are in a jar. Next is a group discussion to make a unified estimate. Next private guess completed by individuals.

  Findings - initial guesses found to be mostly altered after the group discussion and were closer to the group estimate.

  Conclusion - levels of conformity increase in a group, as all participants seek the right information from the rest.
• Sherif (1935)


  Autokinetic effect experiment

  Aim - study conformity levels on an ambiguous task.

  Procedure - dot of light is projected on a screen in a dark room. The light appears to move (visual illusion). Participants guess the distance moved by the light individually, as a group, then individually again.

  Findings - 2nd phase participants guessed close to a common estimate. 3rd phase participants guessed closer to the group estimate than their initial estimates.

  Conclusion - conformity increases in group settings, participants seek right information from others.
• Asch (1951)


  Aim - investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority would influence an individual to conform.

  Procedure - Asch used a line judgement task in which participants had to state aloud which line matched the stimulus line. Seven confederates were present and gave wrong answers, along with one unaware participant.

  Findings - 75% of participants conformed to at least one trial. On average 36.8% went along with the incorrect majority.

  Conclusion - participants conformed due to fear of rejection by the group, while some genuinely believed the groups' answers.
• Lucas (2006)


  Aim - test conformity of students when faced with different difficulty maths questions.

  Procedure - students asked to give answers to easy and difficult mathematical problems.

  Findings - greater conformity to incorrect answers when the question was difficult than when it was easy. This was most true for those who rated their mathematical ability as poor.

  Conclusion - people are likely to conform when they don't know the answer and seek the correct information from others.
• Group Size - Asch's Study


  Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a certain point and the rate levelled off after 3 or more confederates.
• Unanimity - Asch's Study


  The genuine participants conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter (a non-conforming confederate). The conformity rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was to when the majority was unanimous. The dissenter made the naïve participant act more independently.
• Task Difficulty - Asch's Study


  Conformity increased when task difficulty increased as the situation became more ambiguous.
• Limitations of Asch's study


  • Tasks and situation were artificial, may have led to demand characteristics.
  • Lacks generalisability due to low ecological validity.
  • Lacks population validity as only American male university students were participants.
  • USA is an individualist culture, not generalisable.
  • Ethical considerations overlooked, participants were not protected from psychological harm as stress and pressure was mentioned in interviews following the experiment.
  • Naïve participant was deceived.
• Strengths of Asch's study


  • There is research support for task difficulty being an important factor in conformity.
  • Lucas (2006) gave difficult and easy maths questions to his participants. Higher conformity rates to incorrect answers as the problems became more ambiguous.
  • Lab experiment meant high control over variables giving high internal validity.
• Furman and Duke (1988)


  Aim - study how a lack of confidence in a given task may affect conformity.

  Procedure - students used as participants were either majoring in music or in another subject for their degree course. Students were asked to listen to two pieces of music and state their preference, individually then in the presence of confederates.

  Findings - Music majors were not influenced to change their preferences after the group discussion. Non-music majors were affected by the preferences of the confederates.

  Conclusion - confidence affects conformity.
• Perrin and Spencer (1980)


  Aim - study how confidence affects levels of conformity on an ambiguous task.

  Procedure - carried out an exact replication of the original Asch experiment using engineering, maths, and chemistry students as participants.

  Findings - only in one out of the 396 trials did an observer join the majority. They argue that a cultural change has taken place in the value placed on conformity and obedience.

  Conclusion - individuals with confidence in performing specific tasks will have lower rates of conformity.
• Zimbardo et al (1974)


  Aim - to see whether people will conform to new social roles.

  Procedure - male psychology students from Stanford university were used as participants, and randomly allocated roles of prisoners and guards. Guards told to keep prisoners under control. Prisoners were given a number, guards were given a uniform and sticks.

  Findings - experiment was called off after 6 days. Guards became brutal and two prisoners developed psychological problems.

  Conclusion - extreme behaviours were due to conformity to social roles. Participants played roles by stereotypes.
• Deindividuation


  The state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.
• Strengths of the Stanford study


  • Good control of variables. Participants were selected well, all men were emotionally stable.
  • Participants reacted to the situation like it was real. 90% of the prisoners' conversations were on the prison conditions, the rest about their lives outside of prison. Guards rarely discussed personal issues, but talked about the behaviour of the prisoners.
• Limitations of the Stanford study


  • Poor ecological validity due to its artificial environment. Fake prison was held in the basement of the Stanford university.
  • Some argued that participants were play-acting rather than conforming, based on stereotypes of behaviours and roles such as film 'Cool Hand Luke.'
  • Only one third of the guards behaved brutally, another third tried to apply the rules fairly, the rest actively tried to help the prisoners.
  • Ethical issues, prisoners underwent psychological and physical harm. Participants were deceived.
  • Participants were paid.
• Reicher and Haslam (2006)


  • Replicated the Stanford Prison experiment and found contradicting results.
  • They criticised Zimbardo's explanation of conformity to social roles because it did not account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards.
  • Used Social Identity Theory (SIT) to argue that the guards had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did.
• Obedience


  Compliance with an order, request, law, or submission to another person's authority.
• Milgram (1974)


  Aim - test the 'Germans are different' hypothesis.

  Procedure - 40 male American volunteers paired with another person (secretly a confederate). Drew lots 'teacher' and 'learner.' Participants were always the teacher. Participants gave electric shocks to the 'learner' when incorrect answers were given during the recall task. Increase by 15 volts each time. Prompts told participants to continue.

  Findings - All participants shocked up to 300 volts, and 65% of participants went up to 450 volts.

  Conclusion - ordinary people will obey orders under the right circumstances.
• Proximity - Milgram's study


  • Proximity variation - 'teacher' and 'learner' were in the same room. Obedience rate reduced from 65% to 40%.
  • Touch proximity - 'teacher' had to force the 'learners' hand onto an electric shock plate when they refused to answer a question. Obedience rate reduced to 30%.
  • Remote instruction - experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the 'teacher' by telephone. Obedience rate reduced to 20.5%.
• Location - Milgram's study


  • Baseline study took place at Yale University.
  • Milgram changed the location to a run-down building.
  • Obedience rates reduced to 47.5%. The less scientific and professional location made the experiment less convincing for participants.
  • Participants don't identify with the scientific aims of a study in a non-professional environment.
• Uniform - Milgram's study


  • Baseline study - experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority.
  • Variation was carried out in which the researcher was replaced by an 'ordinary member of the public' (a confederate) in everyday clothes.
  • Obedience rate dropped to 20%.
  • Uniforms make people look highly educated and professional, giving them a sense of authority.
• Limitations of Milgram's study


  • Participants couldn't give informed consent because they were unaware of the actual aims of the study, and couldn't properly consent.
  • Deception - participants didn't know the shocks were fake and that their 'learner' was a confederate. They were mislead by screaming and begging heard from the 'learner.'
  • Participants weren't allowed to withdraw until all four prompts had played, and were not told how to withdraw.
  • Participants put under psychological harm such as stress and pressure. Three went under seizures.
  • Poor population validity - all male sample
• Strengths of Milgram's study


  • Laboratory experiment meant high internal validity due to control over extraneous variables.
  • Reliable findings due to further research support from Bickman (1974) investigating the power of uniforms.
  • Research support from Le Jeu De La Mort (The Game of Death)(2010) in which participants believed they were on a game show and were paid to administer electric shocks to other participants (confederates). 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
• Does Milgram's study have good internal validity?


  • Laboratory experiment meant good control over variables.
  • Orne and Holland (1968) argue that his participants didn't fully believe the shocks were real so they play-acted, responding to demand characteristics.
  • Gina Perry (2013) listened to recordings of Milgram's study and stated that only half of the participants thought the shocks were real.
• Social Identity Theory - Milgram's study


  • Suggested that participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research.
  • Participants refused when told to blindly obey an authority figure.
  • Milgram himself stated that "identifying with the science" is a reason for obedience.
• Bickman (1974)


  • Researchers were dressed in a suit and tie, milkman's uniform, and a guard's uniform.
  • They gave orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in New York.
  • Obedience rates of participants were 80% when ordered by the guard, and 40% when ordered by the milkman or civilian.
• Agentic state


  A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
• Legitimacy of authority


  An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.
• Binding factors


  Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging impact of their behaviour, reducing their moral strain. This often shifts the responsibility to the victim.
• Autonomous state


  A person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
• Agentic shift


  The shift from the autonomous state to the agentic state.
• Hofling et al (1966)


  • 22 nurses at a hospital given telephone instructions by Dr Smith (fake doctor, actually a confederate) to administer 20mg of a made up drug to a patient.
  • The label clearly stated 10mg was the maximum dosage.
  • 21 out of the 22 nurses complied without hesitation and 11 later said they noticed the dosage discrepancy.
• Rank and Jacobson (1977)


  • Replicated Hofling's study but the instruction was to administer Valium at three times the recommended level.
  • Telephone instruction came from a real, known doctor on the hospital staff.
  • Nurses were able to consult with other nurses before proceeding.
  • Under these conditions, only 2 out of 18 nurses prepared the medication.
• Sheridan and King (1972)


  • Students trained a puppy to learn a discrimination task by punishing it with increasingly severe real electric shocks when it made an error.
  • Participants could see and hear its squeals.
  • An odourless anaesthetic was released into the puppy's cage. Participants were reminded that failure to respond was a punishable error.
  • 75% of participants delivered the maximum shock. 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.