Social Influence

Conformity

A change in a person’s behaviour due to real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.

Asch’s Research (AO1)

Procedure:

• 123 American men were tested in a group with other apparent participants

• Each participant was show two large white cards, one with a standard line and the other with three comparison lines

• Participants had to say which comparison line was the same as the standard line

Findings:

• 36.8% of the participants agreed with the confederates wrong answers

• 25% never agreed

Variables:

Group Size -

• Varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15

• Curvilinear relationship - conformity increased but only up to a point

• 3 confederates = 31.8%, more confederates made little difference

Unanimity -

• Introduced a confederate who disagreed with other confederates

• Conformity decreased as dissenter appeared to free the participants to behave independently

Task Difficulty -

• Made the stimulus line and comparison line similar in length

• Conformity increased as the task was ambiguous

Asch’s Research (AO3)

Artificial task

• Participants knew they were in a study so portrayed demand characteristics

• Task was trivial so there was no reason not to conform

• Groups did not resemble those that we experience in everyday life

Limited Application

• Other studies suggest that women conform more because they are more concerned about social relationships

• US = individualistic, similar studies in collectivist cultures show high conformity rates

Research support

- Todd Lucas et al:

• Participants were asked to solve easy and hard math problems

• Participants conformed to incorrect answer more often when math problems were difficult

Types and Explanations (AO1)

Types of conformity:

- Internalisation

• Occurs when we genuinely accept group norms

• Private, public and permanent change in behaviour

• Change persists even in the absence of group members

- Identification

• We identify with a group and want to be a part of it

• Publicly agree even if we privately disagree

- Compliance

• Superficial agreement

• Particular behaviour stops with group pressure

Explanations of conformity:

- Informational Social Influence (ISI)

• Based on our belief that others are more informed than us (we want to be right)

• Unclear, ambiguous, stressful situations

• Cognitive process = internalisation

- Normative Social Influence (NSI)

• Temporary change in behaviour (we want to be liked and gain social approval)

• Stressful situations

• Emotional process = compliance

Types and Explanations (AO3)

Research support for NSI

• Asch interviewed his participants and some said that they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the right answer

• When participants were asked to write down their answers conformity fell to 12.5% because there was no normative group pressure

Research support for ISI

• Todd Lucas et al

• When problems were hard the situation was ambiguous and participants did not want to be wrong so relied on answers given

Individual difference in NSI

• nAffiliators are greatly concerned with being liked by others

• Studies show that students who are nAffiliators are more likely to confom

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (AO1)

Procedure:

• Set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University

• 21 men who were tested as ‘emotionally stable’ were selected and randomly assigned the role of a guard or prisoner

Uniform:

• Prisoners were given a loose smock and a cap to cover their heads and identified by numbers

• Guards were given wooden clubs, handcuffs and mirror shades

Findings:

• Guards treated prisoners harshly. Prisoners rebelled by ripping uniforms and swearing and shouting at the guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers

• Harassed prisoners and highlighted the difference in social roles

• Prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. One was released because he showed signs of psychological disturbance

• One went on a hunger strike and was force fed and put into a tiny dark closet.

• Zimbardo ended the experiment in six days instead of the intended 14

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (AO3)

Control

• Emotionally stable men were chosen and randomly assigned which ruled out individual differences

• Behaviour was due to the role so high internal validity

Lack of realism

• Participants were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to roles

• Performance was based on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave

• For example, one guard said his role as based on a character from Cool Hand Luke

Ethical issues

• Lack of informed consent due to deception required to avoid demand characteristics

• Psychological harm: participants were emotionally distressed, anxious and disturbed. One was released the first day and two the day after

Milgram’s Research (AO1)

Procedure: 40 American Men

• Drew lots to see who would be the learner and who would be the teacher (draw was fixed so participant was always the teacher)

• Experimenter asked the participant to give the learner shocks each time they answered incorrectly (15 volts to 450 volts)

Findings:

• Everybody gave all shocks until 300 volts. 12.5% stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to the highest 450 volts

• Sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, digging nails into their hands and 3 had seizures

Milgram’s research (AO3)

Research support

• Replicated in a French Documentary and 80% of the participants gave maximum shocks to an apparently unconscious man

• Similar behaviour to Milgram’s participants: nervous, biting nails

Low internal validity

• Milgram reported that 75% of the participants believed the shocks were real but it was argued that participants were play-acting

• Gina Perry reviewed the tapes of Milgram’s Experiment and found that only half of them believed the shocks were real

Ethical issues

• Psychological harm: similar to French Documentary suggesting that these behaviours were not due to participant variables

Milgram - Situational Variables (AO1)

Proximity

• Obedience decreased to 40% when teacher and learner were in the same room

• Touch proximity variation: obedience decreased to 30% when teacher was asked to force to learner’s hand onto the electroshock plate

• Remote instruction variation: obedience decreased to 20.5% when experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone

Location

• Conducted the experiment in a run-down office block where obedience decreased to 46.5%

Uniform

• Obedience decreased to 20% when experimenter was replaced by an ordinary member of the public

Milgram - Situational Variables (AO3)

Research support

• Bickman et al conducted a field experiment in New York where three confederates were dressed in: security guard uniform, milkman outfit or jacket and tie

• Asked people to perform tasks such as picking up the litter

• More likely to obey confederate in security guard uniform

Low internal validity

• Extra manipulation of variables, for example, when experiment was replaced by ordinary member of public

• Milgram recognised situation was contrived, participants responding to demand characteristics

Cross-cutltural replication

• Dutch participants asked to say stressful things in a job interview = 90% obeyed

• Proximity = when the person who gave the instructions was not present, obedience decreased

Agentic State (AO1)

Agentic State: A mental state in which we feel no responsibility for our actions because we believe ourselves to be acting for a figure of authority

Autonomous State: Behave freely according to our own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for our actions

Agentic Shift: Shift from autonomous to agentic state

Agentic State (AO3)

Research support

• Milgram’s participants resisted giving shocks and asked the Experimenter ‘Who is responsible if the learner is harmed?’

• When the Experimenter replied ‘I’m responsible’ the participants continued without further objection

Limited explanation

• In Rank and Jacobson’s study, 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient

• Doctor was a figure of authority but most nurses remained autonomous

Legitimacy of Authority (AO1)

• We are more likely to obey others who we perceive to have authority over us

• Authority is legitimate as it is agreed upon by society

• Justified by an individuals position within the social hierarchy

Legitimacy of Authority (AO3)

Explains cultural differences

• Countries differ in degrees to which people are obedient to authority

• 16% American women = 450 volts however 85% Germans

• In some countries authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate

Limited Explanation

• Rank and Jacobson

• Most were disobedient despite working in a hierarchical authority structure

• Milgram’s participants were disobedient despite recognising the Experimenter’s authority