Social influence

What is conformity?

Real or imagined pressure by an individual or of a group of people.

What are Kelman’s three types of conformity?

1. compliance

2. internalisation

3. identification

What are the two explanations for conformity identified by Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

• NSI: Need to be liked/accepted by a group due to fear of rejection

• ISI: following behaviours of others because you want to be right

Research supporting NSI

• Asch’s study + variations

• high ecological validity: Schlutz et al, 25% reduction in the use of fresh towels in the rooms which displayed the sign compared to control condition

Research supporting ISI

• Lucas et al: ppts more likely to conform when math problems were harder. look to other people assuming they are right.

• Jenness (‘32): estimate num of beans in jar, second estimate closer to group

AO3 explanations of conformity: limitations

• Individual differences: explanations assume everyone is affected by ISI and NSI in the same way. Some people do not wish to fit in with a group, due to their personality- these explanations do not account for this.

• Testing: low mundane realism, most research is lab based and therefore is harder to generalise to real life

What was the aim of Asch’s line experiment

To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.

What was the procedure of Asch’s experiment?

Asked to match the length of lines to the one on the far left, confederates gave wrong answers

What was the sample of Asch’s line experiment?

• 123 male US students

• 6-8 confederates

• 18 trials

What was the results of Asch’s experiment?

• 75% conformed at least once

• 37% gave a wrong answer

• 25% never conformed

What were Asch’s variations?

• group size: 1 confederate = 3%, 3 confederates = 38.1%

• unanimity: confederates gave the right answer throughout = 5% conformity

• task difficulty: made answers more ambiguous = increased conformity, can be explained by ISI with the need to be right

AO3 of Asch’s line study: strengths

• Standardised procedure

  • study can be replicated = high reliability

AO3 of Asch’s study: Limitations

• Ethical issues

  • deception: vision test

  •  protection from harm: many of the ppts reporting feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority

• Biased Sample

  • only men tested, USA is individualistic = not generalisable

• Low ecological validity

  • artificial tasks don't reflect conformity in everyday life. unable to generalise the results to other real life situations.

Aim of Milgram’s research into obedience

To find out why Germans killed Jews in the holocaust

Procedure of Milgram’s research into obedience

Participants assigned roles via a rigged draw, have to administer shocks when the wrong answer is given

Sample of Milgram’s line experiment

40 males aged from 20-50, obtained via volunteer sampling

Results of Milgram’s research into obedience

• 65% went to 450

• 100% went to 300

Milgram’s variations

1. location - abandoned building: 47.5% to 450

2. proximity - over the phone: 20.5% to 450

3. uniform - plain clothes: 20%

Supporting evidence of Milgram’s research into obedience

• Hofling et al (1960): 21/22 nurses obeyed when asked to give double doses of morphine to patients over the phone from an unknown doctor

• Sheridan & King (1972): 100% females gave real shocks to puppies in comparison to 54% males. Showing gender differences which Milgram didn’t take into account

Situational variables effecting obedience : Milgram’s research into obedience

• Bickman (1974): showed the influence of uniform. Passerby’’s were asked to pick up litter by a confederate dressed as: milkman, security guard and a suit and tie. More obedience in the security guard condition, showing the effect of uniform

Limitations of Milgram’s research into obedience: AO3

• Culture bias

  • Australia, Kilham and Mann found that only 16% obeyed whilst

  • Mantell in Germany had 85%.

  • Miranda et al (1981), 90% of spanish students obeyed. 

• Ethical

  • Deception: roles assigned via a rigged draw

  • psychological harm inflicted

Aim of the Stanford prison experiment

Find out whether brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to sadistic personalities or the prison environment

Sample of the Stanford prison experiment

24 males given diagnostic interviews and personality tests

Procedure of the Stanford prison experiment

ppts randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard. Within hours guards harassed prisoners. 2 days in, prisoners rebelled and put beds near doors causing guards to use fire extinguishers. prisoners became more submissive as guards became more aggressive. 1 released on the 1st day, 2 released on 4th.

• study meant to last 2 weeks, stopped after 6 days. 

• Zimbardo concluded that the prison environment, rather than individual personality, was responsible for the participants' behaviour.

AO3: Strength of the Stanford prison experiment

Controlled environment

• high internal validity

• random allocation ensured individual differences didn’t confound results

• genuine mundane realism - quantitative data suggested most convos abt prison life were realistic to ppts

AO3: Ethical issues of the Stanford prison experiment

Ethical issues

• protection from harm: Zimbardo encouraged the guards to be oppressive causing both the guards and prisoners to suffer psychologically 

• Informed consent: arrested at night without prior knowledge

• did withdraw ppts

AO3: How did ppts act based on stereotypes - Stanford prison experiment

• Banuqziz + Mohavedi (1975): argued that prisoners acted based on stereotypes, they rioted as that’s what they thought prisoners did. Continually, it contains dispositional influences,

AO3: Role of dispositional influences in the Stanford prison experiment

• Fromm (1873): suggested that Zimbardo minimised personality factors when drawing his conclusions.

• only 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally and 1/3 applied the rules fairly. These differences show that not all guards conformed to their social roles showcasing individual differences

AO1: how do situational variables affect obedience

• Milgram’s Variations:

  1. proximity - instructions given by phone : 20.5% to 450

  2. location -  moved to rundown building: 47.5% to 450

  3. uniform - researchers wore plain clothes: 20% to 450

AO3: Research support for how situational variables affect obedience

• Bickman (‘74): confederate dressed as a security guard, milkman, suit asked ppl to pick up litter. There was more obedience in the security guard condition, showing the effect of uniform.

AO3: Cross cultural replication in how situational variables affect obedience

• perceiving authority as legitimate varies from culture:

•  Australia: Kilham and Mann - 16% obeyed 

• Span: Miranda et al - 90% obeyed

AO3: Lacks ecology validity - how situational variables affect obedience

• conducted in a lab with artificial tasks, may not reflect real-life obedience, making it harder to generalise findings to real-world situations like wartime atrocities.

AO3: Reductionist - how situational variables affect obedience

• dispositional explanation:

• Battalion 101 obeyed orders even though they were given the option to refuse showing that situational factors alone can’t explain obedience.