Social influence
Specification:
1. Types of conformity: internalisation, identification, and compliance. Explanations for
conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables
affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by
Asch.
2. Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
3. Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational
variables affecting obedience including proximity and location, as investigated by Milgram,
and uniform. Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.
4. Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control.
5. Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility.
6. The role of social influence processes in social change.
1. Types of conformity: internalisation, identification, and compliance. Explanations for
conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables
affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by
Asch.
AO1 – types of conformity
Internalisation – permanent change in behaviour + belief, driven by the need for knowledge
+ certainty the individual is right.
Identification – conforming to requirements + expectations of a particular social group so a
temporary change in behaviour + belief.
Compliance – shallowest form of conformity – temporary change in behaviour only (+ only
when the influencing group is present.
AO1 – explanations for conformity
Normative social influence – driven by the need to fit in as humans are pack animals so
being ignored leads to stress + discomfort.
Conformity to social roles – driven by the need to conform to some groups to which the
individual belongs.
Informational social influence – driven by the need to be right. When an individual feels
they lack knowledge required to successfully complete a task, they look to more
knowledgeable people + imitate their behaviour.
AO3 – types of + explanations for conformity
Research support for NSI
- Asch’s interview – some said they were afraid of disapproval/ judgement.
- Conformity levels dropped to 12.5% when wrote their answers down.
Research support for ISI
- Lucas et al found ppts conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems
were difficult.
- Asch’s variation with line length.
, Is the distinction between NSI + ISI useful?
- Hard to tell which is operating + in most real-world scenarios probs a combination.
- E.g., group unanimity – possibility of rejection (NSI) or conveys the impression that
everyone else is ‘in the know’ (ISI).
AO1 – Asch
Procedure
- Showed 123 American male undergrads series of cards with lines on + asked them to
say which of the 3 lines presented matched the single comparison line
- 1 naïve ppt in each group seated in penultimate position + rest of group members =
confederates instructed to give the same wrong answer on 12 critical trials.
Findings
- Basic conformity rate on critical trials = 36.8%
- 75% of naïve ppts conformed at least once.
- In interview – some ppts said they gave wrong answer to fit in (NSI), some said they
thought they misunderstood (ISI), some said they acted how they thought the
experimenter wanted them to (demand characteristics).
Group size
- Asch – group size influenced tendency to conform but only to a majority of 3 (v little
conformity with 1 or 2 confederates but with 3, proportion of conforming responses
jumped to about 30%). Further increases in no. of confederates didn’t increase this
rate substantially.
- Bond supports Asch – found a weak positive correlation between group size +
conformity but only when reporting in public (NSI).
Unanimity
- With presence of a dissenting confederate giving the correct answer, conformity
dropped to 5.5% (NSI).
Task difficulty
- Increased similarity of line lengths which increased conformity (ISI).
AO3 – Asch
Compromised ecological validity.
- More trivial than agreeing to a crime – no serious implications on individual/ anyone
else, no moral consideration + less stress.
- Strangers in influencing group = rare in real life – conformity either higher (care
more about opinions) or lower (feel more comfortable/less afraid of rejection).
Ethical issues (deception).
- Deceived as they thought confederates were genuine ppts like themselves (discuss
deception in more detail).
- Benefits likely outweigh v limited harm caused by deception.
Population validity.
- Smith et al analysed Asch-type studies across a range of cultures – average
conformity rate for individualist cultures = 25% whereas collectivist = 37% (culture
bias).
- Variation w men same age but working since left school, conformity levels dropped.
Specification:
1. Types of conformity: internalisation, identification, and compliance. Explanations for
conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables
affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by
Asch.
2. Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
3. Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational
variables affecting obedience including proximity and location, as investigated by Milgram,
and uniform. Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.
4. Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control.
5. Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility.
6. The role of social influence processes in social change.
1. Types of conformity: internalisation, identification, and compliance. Explanations for
conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables
affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by
Asch.
AO1 – types of conformity
Internalisation – permanent change in behaviour + belief, driven by the need for knowledge
+ certainty the individual is right.
Identification – conforming to requirements + expectations of a particular social group so a
temporary change in behaviour + belief.
Compliance – shallowest form of conformity – temporary change in behaviour only (+ only
when the influencing group is present.
AO1 – explanations for conformity
Normative social influence – driven by the need to fit in as humans are pack animals so
being ignored leads to stress + discomfort.
Conformity to social roles – driven by the need to conform to some groups to which the
individual belongs.
Informational social influence – driven by the need to be right. When an individual feels
they lack knowledge required to successfully complete a task, they look to more
knowledgeable people + imitate their behaviour.
AO3 – types of + explanations for conformity
Research support for NSI
- Asch’s interview – some said they were afraid of disapproval/ judgement.
- Conformity levels dropped to 12.5% when wrote their answers down.
Research support for ISI
- Lucas et al found ppts conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems
were difficult.
- Asch’s variation with line length.
, Is the distinction between NSI + ISI useful?
- Hard to tell which is operating + in most real-world scenarios probs a combination.
- E.g., group unanimity – possibility of rejection (NSI) or conveys the impression that
everyone else is ‘in the know’ (ISI).
AO1 – Asch
Procedure
- Showed 123 American male undergrads series of cards with lines on + asked them to
say which of the 3 lines presented matched the single comparison line
- 1 naïve ppt in each group seated in penultimate position + rest of group members =
confederates instructed to give the same wrong answer on 12 critical trials.
Findings
- Basic conformity rate on critical trials = 36.8%
- 75% of naïve ppts conformed at least once.
- In interview – some ppts said they gave wrong answer to fit in (NSI), some said they
thought they misunderstood (ISI), some said they acted how they thought the
experimenter wanted them to (demand characteristics).
Group size
- Asch – group size influenced tendency to conform but only to a majority of 3 (v little
conformity with 1 or 2 confederates but with 3, proportion of conforming responses
jumped to about 30%). Further increases in no. of confederates didn’t increase this
rate substantially.
- Bond supports Asch – found a weak positive correlation between group size +
conformity but only when reporting in public (NSI).
Unanimity
- With presence of a dissenting confederate giving the correct answer, conformity
dropped to 5.5% (NSI).
Task difficulty
- Increased similarity of line lengths which increased conformity (ISI).
AO3 – Asch
Compromised ecological validity.
- More trivial than agreeing to a crime – no serious implications on individual/ anyone
else, no moral consideration + less stress.
- Strangers in influencing group = rare in real life – conformity either higher (care
more about opinions) or lower (feel more comfortable/less afraid of rejection).
Ethical issues (deception).
- Deceived as they thought confederates were genuine ppts like themselves (discuss
deception in more detail).
- Benefits likely outweigh v limited harm caused by deception.
Population validity.
- Smith et al analysed Asch-type studies across a range of cultures – average
conformity rate for individualist cultures = 25% whereas collectivist = 37% (culture
bias).
- Variation w men same age but working since left school, conformity levels dropped.
