social influence

conformity

A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined group pressure from a person or group of people.

Asch’s study procedure (NSI)

• Participants: 123 American male students.

• Each participant was in a group with 6–8 confederates (actors who knew the real aim).

• They were shown a standard line and three comparison lines, and asked to say aloud which line matched the standard.

• The real participant answered second to last.

• On 12 of 18 trials, confederates gave the same wrong answer to see if the real participant would conform to the group's incorrect response.

Asch’s findings

• On the critical trials, participants conformed 32% of the time.

• 75% conformed at least once.

• When interviewed, many said they conformed to avoid rejection, even though they knew the answer was wrong

Variables investigated by Asch

Group size	Conformity increased up to 3 confederates, then levelled off.
Unanimity	When one confederate disagreed, conformity dropped to ~5%.
Task difficulty	Harder tasks increased conformity (informational social influence).

strengths of Asch’s study

+Highly controlled lab experiment: easy to replicate.

• Results highlighted the power of conformity in group settings, providing valuable insights into social influence.

• Clearly demonstrated normative social influence.

weaknesses of Asch’s study

-Artificial setting may limit ecological validity.

• May have caused demand characteristics as participants knew they were in a study and may have gone along with what they expected

• Ethical concerns regarding deception of participants.

• Do not generalise to real world situations

-Limited application

• The participants were all American men

• Other research suggests women may be more conformist, possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted

• Similarly in collectivist cultures (China) where the social group

Types of conformity

• internalisation

• identification

• complaince

internalisaion

• a deep type of conformity where we take on the majority belief because we accept it

• permenant

• public and private

identification

• a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we value it and want to be a part of it

• we don’t necessarily agree with everything the group believe

• want acceptance

compliance

• A type of conformity that involves simply going along with others in public

• But privately not changing personal opinions and behaviours

• behaviour stops as soo as group pressure stops

expalanations for conformity

Deutsch and Gerald developed a two process model arguing that there are two main types of reasons people conform

• informational social influnce

• normative social influence

informational socal influence

• conform when we are uncertain about what behaviour are right/wrong

• conform because of superior knowledge of others because we want to be right

• likely to happen in ambigious and new situations

• cognitive process

• leads to internalisation

normative social influence

• conform because we want to avoid being rejected

• a need for companionship

• occurs because we want to be liked by others and gain social approval

• likely to occur with strngers

• emotional process

• leads to companionship

strengths of the explanations of conformity

+RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NSI

• When Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval

• however when participants wrote their answers down conformity fell to 12.5%

• this is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure

• this shows that atleast some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them

+RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR ISI

• Lucas found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult

• this is because when the problems were easy the participant knew in their mind but when the problems were difficult the situation became unclear

• the Pps did not want to be wrong so they relied on the answers that were given

• this shows ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict

weaknesses for explanations of conformity

-DOES NOT TAKE INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT

• Some people are greatly concerned with being liked than others

• such people are nAffiliators, Mcghee et al found those students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform

• This shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others

• there are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures

Zimbado’s prison study aim

To investigate how people conform to social roles, especially the roles of prisoner and guard

Zimbardo’s procedure

• Conducted at Stanford University.

• 24 psychologically healthy male volunteers were randomly assigned to the roles of guards or prisoners.

• A mock prison was set up in the university basement.

• Guards were given uniforms, batons, and sunglasses. Prisoners were arrested at home and given numbers instead of names.

Zimbardo’s findings

• The study had to be stopped after 6 days (planned for 2 weeks).

• Guards became increasingly abusive and authoritarian.

• Prisoners became passive, depressed, and anxious.

• Both groups quickly conformed to their assigned roles.

strengths of zimbardo’s study

+CONTROL OVER KEY VARIABLES

• The study was a lab experiment with careful control of variables:

  • Participants were randomly assigned to roles (guard or prisoner), reducing individual personality differences.

• This increased the internal validity of the study — we can be more confident that behaviour was due to the situation (social roles), not personality

+RWA

• The study has been used to explain real-life examples of how people conform to social roles, such as:

  • Abu Ghraib prison abuse (US military prison in Iraq), where soldiers abused prisoners under similar role pressures.

• It helped highlight the dangers of unchecked authority and the importance of ethical treatment in institutions like prisons

Weaknesses of Zimbado’s study

-MAJOR ETHICAL ISSUES

• Participants were subjected to psychological and emotional harm:

  • Some prisoners showed signs of extreme stress, anxiety, and depression.

  • Zimbardo himself acted as the prison superintendent and failed to protect participants properly.

• There was inadequate informed consent — participants weren’t fully aware of how distressing the study would be.

• Right to withdraw was unclear due to the immersive nature of the experiment.

-LACKS POPULATION VALIDITY

• All participants were young, male, American college students.

• The results may not generalise to:

  • Females

  • Older people

  • Other cultures

• This limits the external validity of the findings.

Obedience

• an individual follows a direct order

• the person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming

Aim of milgram’s study

to investigate how far people would go in obeying an authority figure, even if it meant harming another person.

procedure of milgrams study

• Participants were told they were part of a study on learning.

• They were assigned the role of "teacher" and instructed to give electric shocks to a "learner" (actually an actor) for every wrong answer.

• Shocks increased in voltage up to 450 volts.

• The learner (out of sight) pretended to be in pain and eventually stopped responding.

• If participants hesitated, the experimenter (authority figure) encouraged them to continue

findings of milgrams study

• all went up to 300v

• 12.5% stopped at 300v

• 65% went all the way up to 450v

• many Pps were showing signs of stress

• CONCLUDED that American people were not different to German people

Strengths of milgram’s study

+PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

• Helped shape policies and training in areas such as the military, law enforcement, and medical ethics (e.g., understanding when professionals might follow harmful orders blindly).

+RESEARCH TO SUPPORT

• Many replications (e.g., Burger, 2009) found similar obedience rates, suggesting the findings are robust and reliable.

• Cross-cultural replications (e.g., in Germany, Australia) also support his conclusions, though rates vary slightly

• Replicable with consistent results

• supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority and demonstrates the findings were not just due to special circumstances

Weaknesses of Milgram’s study

-LACK ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

• The artificial lab setting and the task (delivering fake electric shocks) don’t reflect real-life situations.

• Some argue participants may have guessed the shocks weren’t real, which could reduce the study’s validity (demand characteristics)

-SAMPLE BIAS

• Participants were all male, aged 20–50, and recruited via newspaper ads in the U.S.

• This limits generalisability, especially to women, different age groups, and non-Western cultures.