SOCIAL INFLUENCE
, TYPES & EXPLANATIONS OF
AO1- A
CONFORMITY - Individual differences in NSI= McGhee & T
1. Types of conformity= Compliance: shallowest nAffiliators (those high in need of affiliation w
level, change public not private view/behaviour to fit to conform).Those with external LOC (believe
in (NSI), temporary, e.g. laughing at a joke you don’t depend on others), ignores personality & situa
find funny. reduces predictive validity- can’t account for w
& when.
2. Identification= change to be part of a group-a sense
of group membership, public & private change but + Research support NSI= Asch, when intervie
temporary (not maintained when individual leaves said they felt self-conscious giving the right a
group), e.g. moving to new city for uni & supporting conformed to avoid disapproval, when he repl
experiment & pps wrote answer in private, co
local football team, stop supporting them when move
to 12.5%.
back.
- Individual differences in ISI= Asch found s
3. Internalisation= deepest level, change public & conformist (28%) than other pps (37%), Perrin
private view/behaviour, genuinely accepted views of conducted study with science & engineering s
group (ISI), permanent, e.g. becoming vegan or found very little conformity, people with know
changing religion. confidence less influenced by ‘right’ view of m
affected by ISI.
4. Explanations= Normative social influence: desire
to be liked & fit in, emotional process (people prefer + Research support ISI= Lucas (2006), asked
social approval rather than rejection), concerned with math problems that were easy & more difficu
conformity to incorrect answer when question
typical behaviour for social group (norms), occurs with
difficult (most true for students who rated ma
strangers that may make you feel concerned about poor), supports ISI, new situations when there
rejection & people you know because concerned with who know more than them.
social approval, leads to compliance.
- NSI/ ISI distinction not useful= ISI & NSI w
5. Informational social influence= desire to be right, people may conform for desire to be right (ISI
cognitive process (to do with how you think & time understand that it’s required for social a
generally people want to be right), occurs when we e.g. when starting new job (learning workplac
, AO1-
VARIABLES AFFECTING
A
1.
CONFORMITY:
Asch’s study= (1951), examine extent to which
ASCH
+ High control of EV= controlled lab experiment, standardised procedure
people will conform in unambiguous (obvious) cards & instructions, 12 critical trials, allows for replications (Asch’s variat
situation.123 male US students volunteered, told it reliability, isolates conformity as cause of behaviour C.A. demand charact
was a visual perception task (vision test), pps saw (guessing aim) impacting results.
two large cards- one with standard line and three
comparison lines, had to state which comparison - Artificial task & environment= line judgement task unimportant (no re
line was same length as standard. 6-8 confederates conform) & in lab, findings do not generalise to everyday situations where
(fake pps) and 1 naïve participant, 12/18 trials of conformity are important e.g. pressure to smoke amongst friends (more
confederates gave wrong answer. interaction & consequence of rejection), lacks ecological validity & munda
2. Results= Pps conformed (gave wrong answer) - Gender & culturally biased sample= 123 American males, may not ge
36.8% of time and 75% conformed at least once females (want for social relationships) from collectivist cultures (where co
(meaning 25% never conformed). In control group may be higher due to being concerned with group needs not just themselv
with no confederates, less than 1% of pps gave population validity, cannot assume universality.
wrong answer.
- Unethical= deception & lack of informed consent, thought it was a vision
3. Conclusion= People will conform to an incorrect confederates were real, deception is betrayal of trust, reduces reputation o
majority due to fear of rejection (NSI) even when a social science C.A. however this was necessary to avoid demand chara
task is unambiguous (the Asch effect). out if people conformed (if aware of true aim then might have behaved diff
conformed), to overcome the ethical issues pps were debriefed.
4. Situational variables= Group size: Asch varied
number of confederates between 1-15, with 2 - Individual differences (task difficulty)= Lucas et al, found maths stud
confederates: conformity 13.6%, 3 confederates: less on harder maths problems if they were high in confidence, whereas le
rose to 31.8%, further increases made little students conformed more, this suggests hat self-esteem & expertise reduc
difference, size of majority is important but up to a majority influence when tasks are more ambiguous as people trust their o
point, small majority is sufficient for people to be
influenced. - Identification more important than group size= identification a type
where people need to value the group & want membership of it, people m
5. Unanimity= introducing dissenter (sometimes with majority & want to be like them no matter the group size, hence grou
gave correct answer or wrong but always disagreed insufficient to explain conformity (social identity & belongingness more im
with majority- refuses to obey), conformity dropped conform more to an ingroup e.g. students who take same subject as you, t
to 5%, due to social support & encouraging
independence/ reducing pressure of NSI. - Other dispositional factors LOC, being nAffiliator impact conformit
traits influence conformity levels, those with internal LOC conform less & n
6. Task difficulty= when stimulus line & comparison (people with strong desire for social approval) conform to fit in, shows that
line more similar in length, conformity increased just affected by situational factors but dispositional factors too.
due to ISI as task became more ambiguous.
, CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES:
AO1- ZIMBARDO AO
1. Zimbardo (1971) Stanford Prison experiment= wanted to + High control over EV’s= all pps screen
test whether brutality of prison guards was a result of emotional stability (can see effect of situ
personalities or whether it was created by the situation. controlling disposition), randomly allocate
(reduces researcher bias & distributes pa
2. Aim= to investigate how easily people would conform to the variables easily), rules out individual pers
roles of a guard and prisoner in a role-playing activity that differences, cause & effect established, in
stimulated prison life. internal validity.
3. Method= controlled observation, mock prison in basement of - Ethical issues= arrest at home (lack of
Stanford uni, participants responded to newspaper ad consent), protection from harm e.g. emot
(volunteer sample) ‘$15 per day for 1-2 weeks’, recruited 24 Zimbardo’s dual role of superintendent &
‘emotionally stable’ white male students (only 21 stayed), (student who wanted to leave study spok
randomly allocated to prisoners/guards, prisoners arrested from who responded as a superintendent worr
their homes (blind-folded, strip searched, issued a uniform & running of his prison), compromised right
number). conflicting roles of researcher and superi
necessary to increase realism (irl can’t ju
4. Deindividuation= state of losing sense of individuality & leave).
becoming less aware of our responsibility for our actions,
prisoners names never used (just numbers), guards had uniform - Lack of realism= Banuazizi & Mohaved
which consisted of reflective sunglasses, khaki shirts & pants, suggested pps were play-acting (demand
baton & handcuffs. characteristics), performances reflected s
prisoners/guards, one guard based his ro
5. Results= guards began to humiliate & punish prisoners, e.g. character from a film, threatened interna
forcing to do push ups & clean toilet with bare hands, prisoners 90% of prisoners’ conversations were abo
began to show signs of mental & emotional distress with some ½ introduced themselves as a number to
being released in the first few days, prisoners rebelled within 2 (was real to pps).
days e.g. ripped their uniforms, swore at guards & went on
hunger strikes, study had to stop after 6 days instead of 14. + Applications= prison reform, focus on m
juveniles separated from adults in US pris
6. Conclusion= study rejects dispositional hypothesis, power of likelihood of violence against them), “qui
situation that was more important than personality in made by Zimbardo & his students used in
, TYPES & EXPLANATIONS OF
AO1- A
CONFORMITY - Individual differences in NSI= McGhee & T
1. Types of conformity= Compliance: shallowest nAffiliators (those high in need of affiliation w
level, change public not private view/behaviour to fit to conform).Those with external LOC (believe
in (NSI), temporary, e.g. laughing at a joke you don’t depend on others), ignores personality & situa
find funny. reduces predictive validity- can’t account for w
& when.
2. Identification= change to be part of a group-a sense
of group membership, public & private change but + Research support NSI= Asch, when intervie
temporary (not maintained when individual leaves said they felt self-conscious giving the right a
group), e.g. moving to new city for uni & supporting conformed to avoid disapproval, when he repl
experiment & pps wrote answer in private, co
local football team, stop supporting them when move
to 12.5%.
back.
- Individual differences in ISI= Asch found s
3. Internalisation= deepest level, change public & conformist (28%) than other pps (37%), Perrin
private view/behaviour, genuinely accepted views of conducted study with science & engineering s
group (ISI), permanent, e.g. becoming vegan or found very little conformity, people with know
changing religion. confidence less influenced by ‘right’ view of m
affected by ISI.
4. Explanations= Normative social influence: desire
to be liked & fit in, emotional process (people prefer + Research support ISI= Lucas (2006), asked
social approval rather than rejection), concerned with math problems that were easy & more difficu
conformity to incorrect answer when question
typical behaviour for social group (norms), occurs with
difficult (most true for students who rated ma
strangers that may make you feel concerned about poor), supports ISI, new situations when there
rejection & people you know because concerned with who know more than them.
social approval, leads to compliance.
- NSI/ ISI distinction not useful= ISI & NSI w
5. Informational social influence= desire to be right, people may conform for desire to be right (ISI
cognitive process (to do with how you think & time understand that it’s required for social a
generally people want to be right), occurs when we e.g. when starting new job (learning workplac
, AO1-
VARIABLES AFFECTING
A
1.
CONFORMITY:
Asch’s study= (1951), examine extent to which
ASCH
+ High control of EV= controlled lab experiment, standardised procedure
people will conform in unambiguous (obvious) cards & instructions, 12 critical trials, allows for replications (Asch’s variat
situation.123 male US students volunteered, told it reliability, isolates conformity as cause of behaviour C.A. demand charact
was a visual perception task (vision test), pps saw (guessing aim) impacting results.
two large cards- one with standard line and three
comparison lines, had to state which comparison - Artificial task & environment= line judgement task unimportant (no re
line was same length as standard. 6-8 confederates conform) & in lab, findings do not generalise to everyday situations where
(fake pps) and 1 naïve participant, 12/18 trials of conformity are important e.g. pressure to smoke amongst friends (more
confederates gave wrong answer. interaction & consequence of rejection), lacks ecological validity & munda
2. Results= Pps conformed (gave wrong answer) - Gender & culturally biased sample= 123 American males, may not ge
36.8% of time and 75% conformed at least once females (want for social relationships) from collectivist cultures (where co
(meaning 25% never conformed). In control group may be higher due to being concerned with group needs not just themselv
with no confederates, less than 1% of pps gave population validity, cannot assume universality.
wrong answer.
- Unethical= deception & lack of informed consent, thought it was a vision
3. Conclusion= People will conform to an incorrect confederates were real, deception is betrayal of trust, reduces reputation o
majority due to fear of rejection (NSI) even when a social science C.A. however this was necessary to avoid demand chara
task is unambiguous (the Asch effect). out if people conformed (if aware of true aim then might have behaved diff
conformed), to overcome the ethical issues pps were debriefed.
4. Situational variables= Group size: Asch varied
number of confederates between 1-15, with 2 - Individual differences (task difficulty)= Lucas et al, found maths stud
confederates: conformity 13.6%, 3 confederates: less on harder maths problems if they were high in confidence, whereas le
rose to 31.8%, further increases made little students conformed more, this suggests hat self-esteem & expertise reduc
difference, size of majority is important but up to a majority influence when tasks are more ambiguous as people trust their o
point, small majority is sufficient for people to be
influenced. - Identification more important than group size= identification a type
where people need to value the group & want membership of it, people m
5. Unanimity= introducing dissenter (sometimes with majority & want to be like them no matter the group size, hence grou
gave correct answer or wrong but always disagreed insufficient to explain conformity (social identity & belongingness more im
with majority- refuses to obey), conformity dropped conform more to an ingroup e.g. students who take same subject as you, t
to 5%, due to social support & encouraging
independence/ reducing pressure of NSI. - Other dispositional factors LOC, being nAffiliator impact conformit
traits influence conformity levels, those with internal LOC conform less & n
6. Task difficulty= when stimulus line & comparison (people with strong desire for social approval) conform to fit in, shows that
line more similar in length, conformity increased just affected by situational factors but dispositional factors too.
due to ISI as task became more ambiguous.
, CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES:
AO1- ZIMBARDO AO
1. Zimbardo (1971) Stanford Prison experiment= wanted to + High control over EV’s= all pps screen
test whether brutality of prison guards was a result of emotional stability (can see effect of situ
personalities or whether it was created by the situation. controlling disposition), randomly allocate
(reduces researcher bias & distributes pa
2. Aim= to investigate how easily people would conform to the variables easily), rules out individual pers
roles of a guard and prisoner in a role-playing activity that differences, cause & effect established, in
stimulated prison life. internal validity.
3. Method= controlled observation, mock prison in basement of - Ethical issues= arrest at home (lack of
Stanford uni, participants responded to newspaper ad consent), protection from harm e.g. emot
(volunteer sample) ‘$15 per day for 1-2 weeks’, recruited 24 Zimbardo’s dual role of superintendent &
‘emotionally stable’ white male students (only 21 stayed), (student who wanted to leave study spok
randomly allocated to prisoners/guards, prisoners arrested from who responded as a superintendent worr
their homes (blind-folded, strip searched, issued a uniform & running of his prison), compromised right
number). conflicting roles of researcher and superi
necessary to increase realism (irl can’t ju
4. Deindividuation= state of losing sense of individuality & leave).
becoming less aware of our responsibility for our actions,
prisoners names never used (just numbers), guards had uniform - Lack of realism= Banuazizi & Mohaved
which consisted of reflective sunglasses, khaki shirts & pants, suggested pps were play-acting (demand
baton & handcuffs. characteristics), performances reflected s
prisoners/guards, one guard based his ro
5. Results= guards began to humiliate & punish prisoners, e.g. character from a film, threatened interna
forcing to do push ups & clean toilet with bare hands, prisoners 90% of prisoners’ conversations were abo
began to show signs of mental & emotional distress with some ½ introduced themselves as a number to
being released in the first few days, prisoners rebelled within 2 (was real to pps).
days e.g. ripped their uniforms, swore at guards & went on
hunger strikes, study had to stop after 6 days instead of 14. + Applications= prison reform, focus on m
juveniles separated from adults in US pris
6. Conclusion= study rejects dispositional hypothesis, power of likelihood of violence against them), “qui
situation that was more important than personality in made by Zimbardo & his students used in
