social influence studies

jenness — Jelly Beans Study

Jenness investigated conformity using an ambiguous task. Participants estimated the number of jelly beans in a jar individually, then in groups, then again individually. After group discussion, individual estimates shifted towards the group estimate. Shows informational social influence and internalisation.

Deutsch & Gerard — Dual Process Model

Proposed that conformity is caused by two processes:
• Normative Social Influence (NSI) — conforming to be liked
• Informational Social Influence (ISI) — conforming to be right
Explains compliance (NSI) and internalisation (ISI).

Latané — Social Impact Theory

Proposed that social influence depends on strength, immediacy, and number of people. Influence increases with group size but levels off. Explains why conformity rises with group size but not endlessly.

Asch — Conformity (Line Judgement Task)

Participants judged line lengths with confederates giving wrong answers. 75% conformed at least once; average conformity = 33%. Shows normative social influence and compliance.

Smith & Bond — Meta‑Analysis of Asch Studies

Reviewed Asch‑type studies across cultures. Found higher conformity in collectivist cultures and lower in individualist cultures. Shows culture affects conformity.

Burger & Cooper — Cartoons Study

Participants rated funniness of cartoons after seeing confederates’ ratings. High need‑for‑approval individuals conformed more. Shows personality differences in conformity.

Crutchfield — Conformity & Intelligence

Used an Asch‑type task without face‑to‑face pressure. Found less conformity in people with higher intelligence and leadership ability. Shows individual differences matter.

Milgram — Obedience (Electric Shocks)

Participants ordered to give shocks up to 450V. 65% obeyed to the maximum. Shows high obedience to authority and supports agentic state.

Milgram — Situational Variables

Manipulated proximity, location, and uniform. • Proximity ↓ → obedience ↓ • Location prestige ↓ → obedience ↓ • Uniform ↑ → obedience ↑ Shows situational factors strongly affect obedience.

Orne & Holland — Lack of Experimental Realism

Argued Milgram’s participants didn’t believe the shocks were real. Claimed obedience was lower in real‑life settings. Criticism: low realism

Orne & Holland — Demand Characteristics

Suggested participants obeyed because they guessed the aim and wanted to please the experimenter. Criticism: obedience may be artificial.

Hofling — Nurses Study

Nurses ordered by a doctor (on the phone) to give an overdose of an unauthorised drug. 21/22 obeyed. Shows obedience in real‑life settings and supports legitimacy of authority.

Bickman — Uniform Study

Confederates dressed as guard, milkman, or civilian gave orders in the street. Obedience highest for guard uniform. Shows uniform increases obedience.

Adorno et al. — Authoritarian Personality

Developed the F‑scale to measure authoritarian traits. Found authoritarian individuals show high obedience and prejudice. Supports dispositional explanation for obedience.

Mullen et al. — Jaywalking Study

Observed jaywalking behaviour. People were more likely to jaywalk when others did. Shows conformity to social norms in real life.

Rotter — Locus of Control

Proposed internal vs external LOC. Internals believe they control their actions → more resistance to social influence. Externals blame outside forces → more conformity/obedience.

Shute — Peer Pressure & LOC

Found students with internal LOC were less likely to conform to peer pressure about drug use. Supports LOC as resistance factor.

Williams & Warchal — LOC & Asch Task

Used Asch‑type tasks. Found those who resisted did not always have internal LOC, but were more assertive. Suggests LOC is not the only factor.

Twenge et al. — LOC Over Time

Found young people have become more external over time but also more resistant to authority. Suggests LOC may not predict resistance as strongly as once thought.

Moscovici — Minority Influence

Minority confederates called blue slides “green.” Consistent minority produced more conformity than inconsistent minority. Shows consistency is key.

Hogg & Vaughan — Minority Influence Theory

Argued minorities must be consistent, committed, and flexible. Explained how minorities create internalisation and social change.

Van Avermaet — Snowball Effect

Explained how minority influence starts small but grows until it becomes majority opinion. Key process in social change.