Social Influence

conformity

when a person changes their behaviour due to social pressure (there is no direct request for them to do so)

Who described different types of conformity and when

Kelman in 1958

types of conformity

compliance and internalisation

compliance 

type of conformity resulting from normative social influence- most superficial type adopted to gain approval or avoid embarrassment and will conform at a public but not private level

internalisation 

type of conformity resulting from informational social influence- deepest level of conformity is hen an individual fully accepts the groups views of behaviour as part of their own belief system and genuinely agrees

evidence for different types of conformity in asch’s experiment

he interviewed participants after the study to try determine why they conformed to a wrong answer and most said to avoid rejection from others around

when the group were given more difficult tasks they went along with the group because they believed the group was correct

asch’s experiment showing poor mundane realism

participants didn’t know the confederates and in most real life situations people conform to their friends behaviour rather strangers, task about line length is unlikely to make people conform

Asch’s experiment not generalisable

people from collectivist cultures(japan/china) more likely to conform than those from individualistic cultures (uk/usa) and more prone to internalisation

further supportive evidence for asch’s experiment

sheriff 1935 study into auto kinetic effect which is showed that as tasks become more difficult people conform more and internalise the answer

asch’s experiment aims and date

1951 to investigate whether participants will conform to an obviously wrong answer

asch’s experiment method

he asked participants to match one standard line with three possibilities, he asked which line is the same length as the standard line 

the confederates were instructed beforehand to give the same wrong answer 12/18 times in the critical trials making sure the naive participant was always last or penultimate

participants of asch’s experiment

50 male american (androcentric) undergraduate students tested in groups of 7/9 however 1 was the naive participant and the others were confederates

findings of asch’s experiment

26% didn’t conform on any critical trials

5% of participants confirmed on every critical trial

74% conformed at least once

32% trials ended in conformity

answer to participants being asked why they conformed Asch

most said they wanted to fit in with others even though they knew they were wrong and if they were asked to write their answer privately they showed very little conformity

conclusions of asch’s research

demonstration of normative social influence leading to compliance

strength of asch’s using highly controlled lab experiment

used standardised procedure (same instructions, confederate behaviour, same task) making it unlikely extraneous variables

so replicable enhancing reliability

smith and bond

proved cultural bias in 1996 analysed over 100 studies using asch type of procedure and found people in collectivist cultures conform more than in individualistic where it was carried out in

so lower conformity due to value of autonomy

application of asch’s experiment 

altered us that public voting can be affected by normative social influence leading

secret voting for jurors and private ballots for trade unions instead of show of hands

improves democratic processes 

asch’s experiment having poor temporal validity

conducted in 1950s when conformity was more valued in usa due to mccarthyism (campaign against communists in the us)

ethical concerns of asch’s experiment

asch deceived participants about the purpose of the test (told it was eye test) and confederates being true participants which may have caused stress or embarrassment increasing demand characteristics

Eagly and Carli

1981 in a meta analysis of 148 studies found women to have more conformity showing how asch’s study was limited and unrepresentative 

variables affecting conformity in asch’s experiment

ground size, unanimity, task difficulty

group size affecting conformity aim

whether conformity is affected by having more confederates giving the same answer

group size affecting conformity method 

he manipulated the size of the majority to record the effect it had on the participant, he baird the number of the confederates in the group (1,2,3,4,8,10,15) 

group size affecting conformity findings

conformity was only 3% when there was one confederate

it rose to 13% when 2 confederates

when 3 conformity increased to 32% and didn’t increase much past this regardless of number of confederates

in groups larger than 15 confederates conformity fell due to showing demand characteristics

group size affecting conformity conclusion

group size increases conformity up until a majority of 3

unanimity affecting conformity aim

asch wanted to see if one person dissenting from the majority would affect the likelihood of participant conforming

unanimity affecting conformity method

one confederate acted as an ally breaking the unanimity of the rest of the confederates to give either the other the wrong answer or correct

unanimity affecting conformity findings

when the confederate ally gave right answer conformity dropped to 5.5%

when they gave the wrong answer conformity dropped to 9%

unanimity affecting conformity conclusion

more important factor was the social support that the ally provided, this is more important than whether answer was correct as drops in conformity 26% and 23% are similar but significant reductions

difficulty of the task affecting conformity aim

whether conformity increases when the task becomes more difficult

difficulty of the task affecting conformity method

lines were more similar so harder to say which was the same 

difficulty of the task affecting conformity findings

when the lines were more similar conformity increased and the same answer was giving privately and publicly

they reported that they conformed as they believed the group was probably correct even if they thought different at first

difficulty of the task affecting conformity conclusion

supports the view conformity is more likely when the task is difficult

perrin and spencer disproving task difficulty and unanimity as a factor 

1980 conducted line length experiment in science and engineering students finding only one conforming response in 396 experiments 

may be due to expertise un line length judgment or original study had poor temporal validity

deutsch and gerard

1955 argued that there are two reasons why people conform either due to informational social influence or normative social influence

informational social influence

we conform in order to be right, more likely to occur in ambiguous situations when the correct way to behave in unclear

more likely to result in internalisation and permanent change in behaviour

internalisation 

person who is conforming takes the values behind the behaviour as their own

normative social influence

we conform to be liked or fit in, most likely to result in compliance and short term change

compliance

change our public behaviour for period of time where we are with a group but maintain our own private beliefs

mcghee and teevan proved individual differences too

1967 found that student who had higher need for affiliation (to be liked and accepted) more likely to conform so NSU doesn’t affect all individuals equally

not universally applicable

lucas et al corroborating evidence 

2006 found more conformity when students given hard not easy math problems and rated themselves poor at maths

original idea from deutsch and gerrard

people either conform due to ISI or NSI

lab experiment

researchers can control the environment and vary their independent variable while controlling other variables

more expensive reducing extraneous variables but have low external validity

field experiment 

happens in a real life environment

standardisation

lab studies can be heavily controlled including confederates behaviour, methods for each participant etc to remove extraneous variables

extraneous variables

nuisance variables, changes other than independent variables affecting the dependant variables

naive participants

real participants who don’t know the others are actors

confederates

actors who do what experimenters ask to do 

mundane realism

exactly the sort of task people do in real life

poor mundane realism

tasks are artificial so we can’t take findings and realistically expect this to tell us about real every day life

validity

whether the results are true

internal validity

extent to which the IV actually affected the DV or whether a confounding variable has changed data (issue of acu

types of extraneous variables (DEEP)

D- demand characteristics

external validity

do research findings represent behaviours outside research environment

types of external validity (PET)

P- population (is sample representative of wider populations)

E- ecological (does it reflect the way people behave in the real world in regards to setting)

T- temporal (does time period results differ to modern society)

retrospective consent

consent to be told the true aims of the experiment after

attrition

dropping out of the experiment

reliability

how consistent results of research are, can only be assessed if studies are replicated, can only be replicated if standardised procedures

collectivist cultures

emphasise common goals, family and community loyalty over personal desires e.g japan china india

individualistic cultures

emphasise personal goals autonomy e.g us uk australia

demand characteristics 

behaviour shown by participants who guessed the research’s aim and change behaviour as a result of this

good participant who acts the way they think the researcher wants them to or sabotage

rules to be ethical (DRIPP)

D- deception (don’t lie or need to at least debrief)

R- right to withdraw (at any time)

I- informed consent (fully aware what they agree to)

P- protection from harm (physical, psychological)

P- privacy (not asking personal questions or recording data when unaware of being observed) 

why shouldn’t we break ethical guidelines

care about people, guilty of malpractice, higher rate of demand characteristics in the future as expected to be deceived, reputations damage t

how aschers experiment showed high internal validity

controlled environment, standardised procedure e.g 12/18 critical trials kept the same, amound of confeds kept the same, demand characteristics= unambiguous task, with the control group <1% incorrect

how aschers experiment showed low external validity

ecological validity= lab setting, not real life, low mundane realism= task doesn’t reflect real life, low temporal validity= 1951, low population validity= 50 males from US and individualistic culture

milgram background information

• jewish and deeply affected by the holocaust

• 1961 eichmann was tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity but he said he was just following orders milgram was interested in his defence

• in us popular idea emerged that germans had unique psychological disposition making them highly obedient

• he studied obedience

milgram’s experiment date and aims

1963, was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person, his research aimed to test the belief that germans are different to ordinary americans

he suspected that in the right circumstances anyone is capable of performing an evil act even an ordinary american

milgrams experiment procedure

• volunteers were recruited for a study through a newspaper advert, told it was an investigation of the effects of punishment on learning

• initially introduced to the experimenter, actually a confederate and to another participant who was also a confederate

• the 2 participants drew straws to determine who was learner or teacher but fixed so confederate was always a learner (mr wallace)

• mr wallace taken to adjoining room, strapped to chair with electrodes for electric shock 

• he mentioned he has heart problems and shocks would be dangerous, experimenter says “while the shocks may be painful, they are not dangerous”

• experimenter and naive move to next room with shock generator and experimenter gives them small electric shock of 45 volts (only real shock) 

• then learner given memory test (which words paired together) and naive had to give shock for every wrong answer (incl. none) 

• shock levels went 15-450 volts (going up in 15’s) with scary warnings e.g at 375 danger severe shock

• Mr wallace played a pre-recoded response at specific points

• if naive participant hesitated, experimenter gave 4 standardised prods

milgrams experiment results

• all 40 participants in original study obeyed up to 300V

• 65% gave shocks up to 450V (obeyed) and 35% stopped sometime before 450V

• many participants showed signs of nervousness and tension including trembling and even 3 seizures

• 14/40 showed nervous laughter 

• 70% fully believed shocks were real and learner was either dead or unconscious

milgram’s experiment conclusions

• most ordinary people will follow orders given by an authority figure even to the extent of killing an innocent human beings

• obedience in situational

• germans not so different from rest of world

• not easy or comfortable obedience for participant but obedience to authority ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up

milgrams experiment post-evalutation

he debriefed his participants and assured them their behaviour had been normal and introduced them to mr wallace and many hugged him and cried

84% said they were glad and 74% said they had learned something of personal importance

In post experimental interview participants asked How painful to the learner were the last few shocks you administered to him, from 1-14 (extremely painful) modal response 14, mean was 13.42 

Less than 2% said they were sorry to have participated 

milgram’s experiment high internal validity

lab study and standardised procedure so differences in obedience levels were due to experimental conditions rather extraneous variables

so he could establish cause and effect relationship

milgrams experiment ethical issues

participants were deceived and showed psychological harm however milgram did debrief participants and majority reported they were glad to have taken part

prods made them feel unable to withdraw

sheridan and king supporting milgrams findings

1972 got participants to give real shocks to a puppy

54% of males, 100% of females gave shocks and participants thought they’d killed the puppy

hofling et al supporting milgrams findings

did a field experiment, female nurses given an instruction over the phone by random dr smith to give 20g astroten (fake drug) even though not on approved list, max dosage 10g, against hospital policy

95% of nurses complied yet similar group hypothetically asked at 31/33 refused

TV shows supporting milgrams findings

2006 uk derren brown did replication and found over 50% obedience but not peer reviewed and published study

still suggest good temporal validity and corroboration

orne and holland weakening milgrams experiment

1968 argued participants would have guessed shocks were fake and showed demand characteristics as the good participant

cultural bias of milgrams experiment 

american male sample yet conclusions generalised universally meaning also low population validity

situationally variables affecting obedience

proximity to victim, proximity to experimenter, location, uniform

milgrams obedience with proximity to victim aims

to see whether proximity to the victim affects obedience

milgrams obedience with proximity to victim methods

he varied the distance between mr wallace and participant from the next room to same room to having teacher press learners hand on shock plate

mr wallace acted as if he was receiving the shocks

milgrams obedience with proximity to victim results

• in og study teacher was next door resulting in 65% obedience 

• same room had 40% obedience

• teacher has to force learners hand into a shock plate had 30% obedience

milgrams obedience with proximity to victim conclusions

the more able a person is to avoid witnessing the consequences of their obedient behaviour, the more likely they are to obey, the closer a person is to seeing the suffering that results from their actions- the less likely they are to obey

milgrams obedience with proximity to experimenter aims

to see whether proximity to the experimenter who is giving orders has an effect on obedience

milgrams obedience with proximity to victim method

milgram varied the distance between naive participant and the experimenter, from the og in the same room to where the experimenter is called away by continues to supervise over the phone

milgrams obedience with proximity to victim results

in the og with teacher and experimenter in the same room had 65% obedience

experimenter called away and has to phone in had 21%

milgrams obedience with proximity to experimenter conclusion

the proximity of the person giving orders affects human obedience, when they are close by they are more likely to be obeyed than farther away

milgrams obedience with location aims

to investigate whether location had an effect on the DV (obedience levels)

milgrams obedience with location methods

milgrams original study was conducted at prestigious yale and in a variation it was in a rundown office block

milgrams obedience with location results

at yale in og= 65% obedience

in rundown office block= 48% obedience

milgrams obedience with location conclusion

if a location is prestigious and conveys legitimate authority then obedience will be high

milgrams obedience with uniform aims

investigate the effect of uniform on obedience

milgrams obedience with uniform method

milgram had experimenter (confederate) wear white lab coat in og

in variation experimenter was called away and an ordinary man (another confederate) wearing his own clothes was asked to step in and run the experiment

milgrams obedience with uniform results

in the og with experimenter in a white lab coat had 65% obedience

with an ordinary man in regular clothes had 20% obedience

milgrams obedience with uniform conclusion

uniform can give the impression of legitimate authority, obedience rates are likely higher in person giving orders is wearing uniform

Bickman uniform study aims and date

1974

to see how people in a real life environment behave in response to requests by a man wearing uniform 

Bickman uniform study method

field experiment in new york, the same confederates approached members of the public and gave simple commands e.g pick up that paper bag

Bickman uniform study 3 conditions of the independent variable

confederate gave command while wearing guards uniform, milk drivers uniform, civilian clothes

Bickman uniform study results

obedience in guard uniform was 76%

obedience in milk deliverer was 47%

obedience in civilian was 30%