Psycholgy - Social Influence

Conformity

Is a change in our behaviour or attitudes due to real or imagined group pressure

What are the two types of conformity

Compliance and internalisation

Internalisation

A form of conformity where the person genuinely accepts the group norms, both in public and in private. This change is usually permanent.

Compliance

A form of conformity where you only go along with the group norms in public but not in private. This change stops when the group pressure stops

Why do people conform

Deutsch and Gerald (1955) developed informational social influence (ISI) where you conform to be factually correct and look to the group for answers AND normative social influence (NSI) where you conform to be liked and fit in

Research support for ISI?

Lucas et al (2006) asked participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ math problems with fake answers from confederates in front of them. Participants mostly turned to the fake answers when the questions were difficult.

Limitations of ISI and NSI?

It is hard to separate them in real life as seen in Asch’s study (1955) where he found that conformity is reduced when there is a dissenting participant. This may be by providing social support (NSI) or by providing an alternative source of information (ISI). NSI also doesn’t affect everyone the same, personality is key.

What was Asch’s Baseline Study (1955)

Asch had two cards: one with a standard line on it and another with three comparison lines on it where two were clearly of a different length. The participant was placed in a group of 6 - 8 confederates who gave wrong answers and was then asked to give their answer last. All 123 participants were American undergraduate males.

What did Asch find in his baseline study?

The participant conformed 36.8% of the time. 75% of participants conformed at least once. Most participants said they conformed to avoid social rejection (NSI)

What were the three factors affecting conformity found by Asch is his variations? (1955)

Group size - when adding confederates, three was the most efficient at an increase of 31.8%. Onwards from there there is little effect

Unanimity - the presence of a dissenting confederate reduced conformity to a quarter of what it was even if the confederate gave a different WRONG answer. The only thing that mattered was that the confederate didn’t conform with the group.

Task difficulty - harder tasks increased conformity

Limitations of Asch’s research

Demand characteristics may have played a part in results

Trivial task meant no reason to not conform

Participant was amongst an unknown group so may have felt shyer than usual

Asch used all men but women are expected to conform more

The US is an individualistic society so less likely to conform than communal society’s like China

Ethical issues of deceiving the participant, they thought the test was on vision

Strengths of Asch’s study

Research support from Wijenayake et al (2020) got similar conformity results of 78% compared to Ash’s 75%.

What is obedience

Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order, the person giving the order is usually an authoritive figure with the power to punish

What was the baseline study’s participants like?

40 male participants, age 20-50 and a variety of professions. The naive participant was told the trial was about memory (a lie) and given $4.50 upfront.

What were Milgram’s baseline results?

-Every participant delivered all the shocks to 300V

-5 participants stopped at 300V (labelled intense shock)

-26 participants (65%) continued to the highest level (450V)

-Milgram also collected qualitative data such as nail biting, trembling, groaning and sweating and even three seizures

Why were Milgram’s baseline findings a shock?

Students at a university predicted no more than 3% would go the full 450V so the findings of 65% were very unexpected.

What are the strengths of Milgram’s baseline study?

It has high external validity:

• Burger (2009) used an obedience lite to avoid ethical issues by stopping at 150V (and assuming them fully obedient if they reached this point) and got similar results

• Tomaz Grzyb (2023) used this procedure again and 90% of 40 people obeyed again

• Sheridan and King (1972) gave real shocks to puppies: 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock to the puppy. This supports Milgram

What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s baseline study?

Milgram reported that 25% of participants said they thought the shocks were fake

Orne and Holland (1968) said they were playing up to demand characteristics

Perry (2013) showed that about only half of participants thought the shocks were genuine

What is social identity theory (SIT) in relation to Milgram’s study?

It explains that if you the naive participant identified more with the science than to Mr Wallace, they were more obedient. It was found that the fourth prod “you have no choice you must go on” actually made people quit whereas the experiment based prods made people continue

What were Milgram’s situational variables?

Proximity Variations:

• teacher and learner in the same room - obedience dropped to 40%

• Touch proximity variation where the teacher had to hold learner’s hand onto a sheet - obedience dropped to 30%

• Remote instruction variation where the experimenter gave instructions over phone - obedience dropped to 20.5%

Locations Variations:

• He conducted the same study in a run down office building - obedience dropped to 47.5%

Uniform Variations:

• Instead of the usual lab coat, Milgram got a confederate to dress as a member of the public and give orders - obedience dropped to 20% THE LOWEST

What were the strengths of Milgram’s situational variables ?

Research Support:

• a field experiment in NYC conducted by Bickman (1974) had three confederates dressed in a jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit and security guard’s uniform. Each of these confederates would ask a member of public to do something.

Guard - 89% obeyed

Milkman - 57% obeyed

Jacket and tie - 33% obeyed

Limitations of Milgram’s work?

Smith and Bond (1998) identified just two replications in culturally different places (India and Jordan) but all others were Western cultures. This means the results cannot be generalised to the whole population.