Social influence

ACSH

research into conformity

gathered 123 american male pp to match one of three different length lines with one presented on a board

confederates gave wrong answers purposefully and found that the naive pp would also conform and give the same wrong answer

the rate of conformity was 32%

variations - group size unanimity and task difficulty

curvelinear relationship between conformity and group size

past 7-9

Zimbardo

SPE

conformity to social roles

gathered 21 men to be either guard or prisoner

found that conformity begun just in the second day

this was an overegsageration as in reality most of the guards were kind toward the prisoners only 1/3 conformed

milgram

obedience

60 american males asked a ‘learner’ questions and if they would get it wrong they would get zapped with the voltage increasing every wrong answer

65% administered the full 450 volts

12.5% stopped after 300v

100% reached 300v

variations

proximity - fell to 20% when milgram wasnt in the room

uniform - also 20%

location- fell to 47%

Albrecht

social support

started a program for American pregnant adolescent teens to stop smoking

provided social support or otherwise known as a buddy

by the end those with a buddy were significantly less likely to smoke then those who didn’t have a buddy

moscovici

minority influence

the figure of agreement to minority influence was as low as 8% however when asked to write down their answer most people agreed with the minority influence showing compliance

hoffling

obedience in real life situations

level of nurses that would adminster lethal doses to patients when told to do so by a doctor when they know tis not good for the patient 22/23 nurses obeyed