social influence

types of conformity: internalisation

when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. private and public changes of opinions/behaviour. change is usually permanent as the attitudes have been internalised

types of conformity: identification

conforming to a group as there’s a trait that you value. Identifying with the group so want to be a part of it therefore publicly change opinions/behaviours accepted by the group even if don’t agree in private

types of conformity: compliance

going along with others in public but not privately changing opinions/behaviour. changes as soon as group pressure stops

explanations for conformity: Informational social influence

conforming as we believe the opinion/behaviour is correct so therefore also want to be correct

cognitive process

leads to permanent change

likely in new situations

explanations for conformity: normative social influence

conforms to the opinion/behaviour in order to gain social approval and to be liked

emotional process

leads to temporary change

likely in most situations

NSI strength - research support

• evidence supports as an explanation.

• Asch interviewed some participants who said they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer.

• Conformity decreases when they wrote down their answer rather than saying aloud - no normative group pressure.

• Therefore least some conformity is due to desire not to be rejected bye group by disagreeing

ISI strength - research support

• Todd Lucas found more incorrect answers when maths problems were difficult as the participant didn’t want to be wrong so they relied on answers given

• therefore shows ISI is a valid explanation of conformity

NSI/ISI limitation - unclear

• unclear if its NSI or ISI.

• Asch found conformity reduces when there’s another dissenting participant as they reduce the power of NSI (social support) or ISI (alternate source of information)

• therefore hard to separate ISI and NSI as they probably operate together in real-world conformity situations

NSI limitation - individual differences

• can’t predict conformity in every case.

• some people are more concerned with being liked by others and want to relate to others so are more likely to conform

• therefore NSI underlies conformity for some more than others and that there are individual difference that can affect it

variables investigated by Asch 1955: group size

varied the number of confederates. conformity increased with group size but only up to a point as conformity rate soon levelled off

suggests people are sensitive to views of others as just 1 or 2 confederates was enough to sway opinion

variables investigated by Asch 1955: unanimity

introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates. Participant conformed less in their presence even if they said a different answer

suggests the influence of majority depends to a large extent on being unanimous, conformity less likely when there’s cracks in majority view

variables investigated by Asch 1955: task difficulty

increased difficulty of task which made it harder to genuine participants to see difference between lines which increased conformity. may be down to information social influence as they’re less sure of the real answer

Asch’s research limitation: artificial situation and task

• participants knew they were in a research study so demand characteristics were likely.

• Task is not representative of everyday of conformity and the groups were not diverse

• Therefore findings cant be generalised to real world situations

Asch’s research limitation: application

• participants were all American men.

• Men may conform less and US is an individualist culture so may conform less.

• Similar studies in collectivist cultures found conformity higher

• therefore Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and other cultures

Asch’s research strength: research support

• support from other studies on task difficulty.

• Todd Lucas asked participants to solve easy/hard maths problems.

• Conformity increased as questions got more difficult.

• Therefore Asch was correct claiming task difficulty affects conformity

Asch’s research limitation: complex

• Lucas et al’s study found conformity is more complex than Asch implied as participants confidence in their maths abilities will also affect their conformity.

• Shows that individual factors can influence conformity by interacting with situation variables (Asch didn’t research this)

Asch’s research limitation: ethics

• study helped increase knowledge of why people conform

• however participants were deceived and they may have felt embarrassment.

• Ethical cost needs to be weighed up against the benefits gained from the study

Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment

• 1973 mock prison in basement of Stanford University.

• 21 male volunteers tested as ‘emotionally stable’ randomly assigned role or prisoner/guard.

• Encouraged to conform to social roles through uniforms and instructions about behaviour.

Stanford prison experiment - uniforms

prisoners - loose smock to wear and cap to cover hair, identified by numbers not names

guards - guard uniform, wooden club, handcuffs, mirror shades

created loss of personal identity (de-individuation), more likely to conform to perceived social role

Stanford prison experiment - instructions about behaviour

prisoners - encouraged to identify with role eg instead of leaving study early they had to ‘apply for parole’

guards - reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners

Stanford prison experiments - arrests

• participants arrested as if it was real from their homes - not told

• taken to police station

• finger printed + photographed + booked

• blindfolded on the way to prison

Stanford prison experiment - findings social roles - guards

treated prisoners harshly, harassed them, reminded them of their power, frequent headcounts (some at night) prisoners call our numbers, identified more closely with role, behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, some enjoyed the power

Stanford prison experiment - findings social roles - prisonersrs

rebelled within 2 days, ripped uniforms and swore at guards, after guards shut down rebellion they became subdued, depressed and anxious, 1 released as he showed psychological disturbance, 2 released on fourth day, 1 went on hunger strike (guards tried force-feeding then forcing him into a tiny dark closet

Stanford prison experiment - conclusions related to social roles

social role have strong influence on individuals behaviour - guards become brutal, prisoners became submissive. Roles were easily taken on by all participants, behaving like there were really in a prison rather than a psychological study

SPE strength - control over variables

• selection of emotionally stable individuals and randomly assigned roles rules out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings

• behaviour must’ve been due to role itself.

• Therefore internal validity so can draw conclusions from the study

SPE limitation - lack of realism

• not realistic to a real prison.

• Banuazizi and Movahedi argue that behaviour of participants was play-acting and baes on stereotypes.

• 1 guard said he based off a movie character.

• Explains why prisoners rioted - thought thats what real prisoners did

• therefore findings may tell little about conformity in real prisons

SPE strength - realism

• McDermott argues that the prisoners did behave as if the prison was real.

• 90% of their conversations were about prion life - talked about how they could leave till their sentence ended.

• 1 said he believed it was a real one run by psychologist instead of government

• therefore SPE did replicate social roles of prisoner/guards so increased internal validity

SPE limitation - exaggeration

• Zimbardo may have exaggerated power of social roles on behaviour.

• only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally, 1/3 were fair and 1/3 tried to help prisoners (sympathised, offered cigarettes etc).

• Most guards would resist the situational pressures to be brutal.

• suggests Zimbardo overstated his view on social roles power on conformity

Milgram’s experiment

• 1963 40 American male volunteers in lab experiment.

• Introduced to another participant (confederate) who is ‘randomly’ selected was the learner and the participant as the teacher.

• Learner had memory test and teacher had to give a (fake) electric shock if they got it wrong, increasing each time.

• At 300 volts the learner would bang on wall then again at 315 then silent for rest of procedure

Milgram - findings

• every participant went up to 300 volts, 12.5% stopped there

• 65% went to the highest.

• They showed signs of extreme tension - stutter, sweat, bite lips, groan, did fingernails into hands, 3 had ‘uncontrollable seizures’

Milgram - student prediction + debrief after experiment

• 14 psychology students predicted no more than 3% would go to 450 volts - underestimated how obedient people are.

• Participants were debriefed and reassured o their behaviour, sent follow up questionnaire - 84% glad to participate

Milgram - reason for study + conclusion

reason - wanted to know why the German’s obeyed hitler even if they knew it was wrong, maybe Germans were different/more obedient than other countries

conclusion - Germans we’re different. Americans in his study were willing to even if it harmed someone

Milgram strength - research support

• findings replicated in French documentary about reality TV

• participants believed they were part of a new game show

• paid to give (fake) shocks to actors in front of live audience

• 80% went to highest shock

• similar traits to Milgrams eg. nail biting, anxiety, nervous laughter

• supports Milgrams findings

Milgram evaluation - internal validity

Milgram evaluation - alternative interpretation

Milgram evaluation - ethics