Social Influence (up to Zimbardo)

Explanations of Conformity: Key Concepts

Conformity

Dual Process Model
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)

Informational Social Influence
Ambiguity

Normative Social Influence
Belonging to a group

Types of Conformity: Key Concepts

Compliance
Go along for approval
(NSI)

Identification
Accepts attitude as true in order to be accepted
Temporary

Internalisation
Accepts views
Can lead to true conformity
(ISI)

Explanations of Conformity: Evaluation

+ Research supporting NSI, people shaping behaviour to fit in (Asch)

+ Research supporting ISI (Todd Lucas et al)
H Unclear whether NSI or ISI at work (Asch dissenter study)

I/D: Nomothetic, general laws
H Doesn’t account for individual differences (nAffiliators)

Conformity Research

Asch (1951)

123 male undergrad ppts

Estimate which of 3 lines was closest to a comparison line

Groups 7-9 only one real ppts, rest confederates

33% conformity

Individual differences: ¼ conformed in none, 50% conformed in half, 1 in 20 conformed in all 12

Conformity Research: Evaluation

- Lacks ecological validity
May experience demand characteristics, trivial so no reason not to conform
Susan Fiske (2014): Doesn’t resemble real world groups

- Gender/culture bias
Only male and white ppts so no insight into women or other cultures

- Ethics of deceiving
H Low ethical cost is outweighed by benefits

Variables Affecting Conformity: Key Concepts and Stats

Unanimity
One confederate gave right answer → from 33% to 5.5%
One confederate gave diff wrong answer → from 33% to 9%

Difficulty - becomes ISI
More ambiguous task → more conformity

Group size
Little conformity when majority is 1-2 people
3 majority - 30%
Only important up to optimal 3-4 people

Variables Affecting Conformity: Evaluation

- Gender/Culture Bias
Other research has found that individualist cultures are less likely to conform

+ High control and scientific
Standardised
- Ecological validity
Doesn’t represent less controlled environment eg when there are consequences to conformity

I/D Nomothetic rules
H Doesn’t account for individual differences

Stanford Prison Experiment: Key Concepts

Conforming to Social Roles (Zimbardo)

21(24) male uni students, randomly allocated prisoner or guard

Guards given uniform and sunglasses and set up prison, keep order but no rules
Prisoners arrested at home and had smock dress, flip flops and stocking cap

Guards began to harrass and behave in sadistic manner
Prisoners adopted submissive prisoner like behaviour, ‘told tales’ and discussed prison issues a lot

1 prisoner released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable emotional outbursts
3 released in next few days after signs of emotional disorders

Shut down on day 6 due to danger of lasting harm

Stanford Prison Experiment: Evaluation

- Lacks ecological validity
Other researchers argued it was a response to extreme demand characteristics

- Ethical issues
Even though they volunteering, psychological and physical harm
Sparked debate and led to reform

- Culture and gender bias

I/D: Nomothetic approach
Assumes all conformity to social roles occurs same way

Obedience to Authority: Study

Milgram

Electric shocks

Milgram’s Study: Procedure

40 males (age 20-30) from New Haven, representative of diff occupations
Paid £4.50 no matter what

At Yale Uni in elegent interaction lab

Teacher, learner, experimenter

Sample shock of 45V

Shocks went up in 15V increments (15-450V)

Experimenter gave standardised prompts

Milgram’s Study: Findings

Predicted 1.2% go up to 450V

0 stopped below 300V

4 stopped at 315V (learner stopped answering)

26 continued to 450V (65%)

Extreme tension observed:
Stuttering, trembling
Nervous laughter or smiling

Milgram: Evaluation

+ Research Support (Hofling) with ecological validity

- Ethical Objections
Diana Baumrind (1964) criticised deceoption in psychological studies
H 1 year follow up found no harm, only 1.3% sorry to be in study

- Lacks internal validity
Whilst Milgram reported 75% believed genuine, (Orne & Holland) and (Gina Perry) argued otherwise
May be demand characteristics
H Counter study with real shocks (Sheridan & King)