, Paper 1: Section A: Social Influence
Types of conformity Conformity → adopt the behaviours/actions of the + NSI Research support: Asch: when they wrote down
majority as a result of real/imagined pressure answers, conformity lowered to 12.5%
Kelman’s types of conformity: + ISI Research support: Lucas et al: ppts conformed when
● Compliance → majority belief accepted maths questions were hard because they assumed others
publicly, personal opinion remains unchanged, were correct
only lasts when group pressure exists
● Identification → Behaviour is changed but only - Cannot separate ISI and NSI, i.e: dissenter lowers both
in presence of the group they identify with due to social support and additional information
(temporary)
● Internalisation → Majority belief is accepted, - Individual differences: nAffiliators want to be liked more,
becoming part of their own belief system so they conform more
privately and publically
Informational SI → desire to be right (cognitive and
permanent)
Normative SI → desire to be liked and accepted
(emotional and temporary)
, Conformity Asch’s Line Study: - Lacks mundane realism: demand characteristics
● 123 American male undergraduates
● 1 standard line and 3 comparison lines (one - Limited application: American (individualist culture), men
matched the standard line), participants had to state (beta bias)
which one matched aloud in a group of 6-8
confederates who deliberately gave wrong answers + Research support: Lucas et al: found more conformity
● Participant conformed on 36.8% of trials, 25% never when maths problems were harder
conformed once - Conformity is more complex, confident ppts were
● Participants later interviewed and said they less conforming
conformed to avoid social rejection
Variations:
● Group Size: 2-16, adding 3 confederates increased
conformity to 31%, then levelled off
● Unanimity: Dissenting participant lowered conformity
to 25%
● Task difficulty: Line lengths being more similar
increased conformity
Conformity to social roles Zimbardo’s Stamford Prison Experiment, 1973: + Controlled: random assignment to roles increased internal
● 21 emotionally stable male student volunteers validity
● Randomly assigned to prisoner or guard,
- Guards had a uniform, handcuffs, shades and - Lack of realism: ppts play-acted their roles from movies,
wooden beaters riotting and ‘cool hand Luke’ character
- Prisoners had uniforms, cap, and they were + 90% of prisoner conversations were about
given a number to use instead of a name prisonlife
● Gaurds became brutal, prisoners went on hunger
strikes, became anxious and depressed - Exaggerates power of roles: ⅓ were brutal, ⅓ tried to
● Study closed after 6 days instead of the intended 14 apply rules fairly, ⅓ supported prisoners, minimising
● Social roles are easily adopted dispositional factors
- Alternative explanation: social identity theory argues they
must identify with their roles and it does not come easily
, Obedience Milgram 1963: + Research Support: French game of Death: 80% went to
● 40 American male volunteers took part at Yale 450V, showed the same anxious behaviour
University
● They drew out who would be the learner/teacher but - Low internal validity: only half the ppts believed the
it was rigged so the confederate would always be the shocks were real
learner + Sheridan and King: 100% of females gave REAL
● The teacher thought it was a memory test, asked to shocks to a puppy
increase shocks by 15V every time the learner got it
wrong (but these were fake) - Alternative interpretation: every ppt given the 4th prod
● Prods from the experimenter disobeyed, social identity theory, as they did identify with
1. Please continue the aims of the research in prod 2 and 3 but refused when
2. The experiment requires you to continue asked to just obey
3. It is essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must continue - Ethical implications: deception, no protection from harm
● All gave shocks up to 300V, 65% went to the full
450V
● Many showed signs of extreme tension, and 3 had
seizures
Types of conformity Conformity → adopt the behaviours/actions of the + NSI Research support: Asch: when they wrote down
majority as a result of real/imagined pressure answers, conformity lowered to 12.5%
Kelman’s types of conformity: + ISI Research support: Lucas et al: ppts conformed when
● Compliance → majority belief accepted maths questions were hard because they assumed others
publicly, personal opinion remains unchanged, were correct
only lasts when group pressure exists
● Identification → Behaviour is changed but only - Cannot separate ISI and NSI, i.e: dissenter lowers both
in presence of the group they identify with due to social support and additional information
(temporary)
● Internalisation → Majority belief is accepted, - Individual differences: nAffiliators want to be liked more,
becoming part of their own belief system so they conform more
privately and publically
Informational SI → desire to be right (cognitive and
permanent)
Normative SI → desire to be liked and accepted
(emotional and temporary)
, Conformity Asch’s Line Study: - Lacks mundane realism: demand characteristics
● 123 American male undergraduates
● 1 standard line and 3 comparison lines (one - Limited application: American (individualist culture), men
matched the standard line), participants had to state (beta bias)
which one matched aloud in a group of 6-8
confederates who deliberately gave wrong answers + Research support: Lucas et al: found more conformity
● Participant conformed on 36.8% of trials, 25% never when maths problems were harder
conformed once - Conformity is more complex, confident ppts were
● Participants later interviewed and said they less conforming
conformed to avoid social rejection
Variations:
● Group Size: 2-16, adding 3 confederates increased
conformity to 31%, then levelled off
● Unanimity: Dissenting participant lowered conformity
to 25%
● Task difficulty: Line lengths being more similar
increased conformity
Conformity to social roles Zimbardo’s Stamford Prison Experiment, 1973: + Controlled: random assignment to roles increased internal
● 21 emotionally stable male student volunteers validity
● Randomly assigned to prisoner or guard,
- Guards had a uniform, handcuffs, shades and - Lack of realism: ppts play-acted their roles from movies,
wooden beaters riotting and ‘cool hand Luke’ character
- Prisoners had uniforms, cap, and they were + 90% of prisoner conversations were about
given a number to use instead of a name prisonlife
● Gaurds became brutal, prisoners went on hunger
strikes, became anxious and depressed - Exaggerates power of roles: ⅓ were brutal, ⅓ tried to
● Study closed after 6 days instead of the intended 14 apply rules fairly, ⅓ supported prisoners, minimising
● Social roles are easily adopted dispositional factors
- Alternative explanation: social identity theory argues they
must identify with their roles and it does not come easily
, Obedience Milgram 1963: + Research Support: French game of Death: 80% went to
● 40 American male volunteers took part at Yale 450V, showed the same anxious behaviour
University
● They drew out who would be the learner/teacher but - Low internal validity: only half the ppts believed the
it was rigged so the confederate would always be the shocks were real
learner + Sheridan and King: 100% of females gave REAL
● The teacher thought it was a memory test, asked to shocks to a puppy
increase shocks by 15V every time the learner got it
wrong (but these were fake) - Alternative interpretation: every ppt given the 4th prod
● Prods from the experimenter disobeyed, social identity theory, as they did identify with
1. Please continue the aims of the research in prod 2 and 3 but refused when
2. The experiment requires you to continue asked to just obey
3. It is essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must continue - Ethical implications: deception, no protection from harm
● All gave shocks up to 300V, 65% went to the full
450V
● Many showed signs of extreme tension, and 3 had
seizures
