Psychology Revision Notes
Social Influence
Conformity – A switch in a person’s behaviour or opinions because of real or imagined
pressure from the person or people around them.
- Internalisation- a deep type of conformity where we see the majority behaviour as
correct. It leads to a permanent change in behaviour, both externally and internally
(without the presence of the influential group).
- Identification- a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way around
the influential group. But we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority
believes so may think differently about certain things internally.
- Compliance- a superficial and temporary type of conformity where we agree with
the view in the presence of the influential group but privately disagree. The change
in our behaviour is only present when the influential group is present.
Explanations of conformity
- Informational Social Influence (ISI)- an explanation of conformity that states that
agreement is based on believing the majority are correct. We accept it because we
want to be correct as well. This could lead to internalisation.
- Normative Social Influence (NSI)- an explanation of conformity that states that
agreement is based on the want to be liked. This means acceptance and social
approval which is desirable. This could lead to compliance.
Evaluations
- ISI Strength- Lucas (2006) found, using a mathematical test, that people conform
when their own knowledge fails them, and they feel they don’t know the answer.
This supports ISI.
- NSI Weakness- the need to be liked differs from one individual to another.
- ISI + NSI together- Deutsch and Gerrard’s ‘two-process’ approach suggests that it is
more than likely that they both influence a person within a situation.
Asch’s Research
- Procedure- 123 American men were put in a room with 6-8 confederates and asked
to find the identical line (out of 3 lines) to a line given on a separate white board.
Confederates began by giving the right answer but then started to trick the
participants.
- Findings- 36.8% of naïve participants gave the wrong answer. 25% of participants did
not conform. 75% of participants conformed.
Asch’s Variations
- Group Size- Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates. This
increased the size of the majority. The bigger the group the higher the conformity
level, but only up to a point- this did not go beyond a majority of three (results were
consistent after this).
, - Unanimity- Asch added another confederate that sometimes agreed with the other
confederates (chose the same line as them) but other times disagreed with them
(chose a different line). Asch wanted to test how this would affect conformity and he
found that the presence of a fluctuating confederate reduced conformity.
- Task difficulty- when Asch made the task more difficult (by making each of the lines
more similar in height), the study found that conformity increased because the
majority were more likely to have the correct answer.
Evaluations
- Time- took place in the 1950’s and only in America. Spencer and Perrin (1980) did
the study in England and 1 in 396 trials conformed.
- Artificial Situation- could involve demand characteristics. The task was trivial.
- Gender- only men took part. Neto (1995) suggested that women may conform more
than men based on other experiments.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
- Procedure- a mock prison was created at Stanford University and some voluntary
students were randomly assigned to prisoner and/or guard. The prisoners had to
follow 16 rules. All the participants were assessed as mentally stable. Based on
whether the participant was a prisoner or guard, they had corresponding uniforms.
Guards had full control over prisoners.
- Findings- the study was stopped after 6 days (instead of the originally planned 14
days). The treatment of the prisoners were harsh and became psychologically
damaging. One prisoner went on hunger strike and was put in ‘the hole’. Guards
identified with their social role.
Evaluations
- Control- Zimbardo controlled who took part (only mentally stable participants) to
stop personality differences. This shows that the study has high internal validity.
- Realism- Banauzizi and Mohavedi (1975) identified that participants were simply
based off of stereotypes rather than real reaction.
- Ethical issues- Ethical issues include: protection from harm, right to withdraw,
deception
Milgram’s Obedience Study
- Procedure- 40 male participants (aged 20-50) volunteered for $4.50. A rigged draw
took place and the confederate was always the ‘learner’ and the participant always
the ‘teacher’. An experimenter (confederate) was also there. The ‘learner’ was
strapped into a chair behind a wall and every time they got a question wrong, they
would be ‘shocked’ up to 450 volts. ‘Teacher’ was consistently asked by the
experimenter to go ‘all the way’ to 450 volts despite the reaction (or lack of reaction)
from the ‘learner’.
- Findings- no participants stopped before 300 volts. 12.5.% stopped at 300 volts. 65%
went to 450 volts. Qualitative data was collected which showed ‘teachers’ were
sweating, trembling, anxious etc. Participants were debriefed at the end.
Evaluations
Social Influence
Conformity – A switch in a person’s behaviour or opinions because of real or imagined
pressure from the person or people around them.
- Internalisation- a deep type of conformity where we see the majority behaviour as
correct. It leads to a permanent change in behaviour, both externally and internally
(without the presence of the influential group).
- Identification- a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way around
the influential group. But we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority
believes so may think differently about certain things internally.
- Compliance- a superficial and temporary type of conformity where we agree with
the view in the presence of the influential group but privately disagree. The change
in our behaviour is only present when the influential group is present.
Explanations of conformity
- Informational Social Influence (ISI)- an explanation of conformity that states that
agreement is based on believing the majority are correct. We accept it because we
want to be correct as well. This could lead to internalisation.
- Normative Social Influence (NSI)- an explanation of conformity that states that
agreement is based on the want to be liked. This means acceptance and social
approval which is desirable. This could lead to compliance.
Evaluations
- ISI Strength- Lucas (2006) found, using a mathematical test, that people conform
when their own knowledge fails them, and they feel they don’t know the answer.
This supports ISI.
- NSI Weakness- the need to be liked differs from one individual to another.
- ISI + NSI together- Deutsch and Gerrard’s ‘two-process’ approach suggests that it is
more than likely that they both influence a person within a situation.
Asch’s Research
- Procedure- 123 American men were put in a room with 6-8 confederates and asked
to find the identical line (out of 3 lines) to a line given on a separate white board.
Confederates began by giving the right answer but then started to trick the
participants.
- Findings- 36.8% of naïve participants gave the wrong answer. 25% of participants did
not conform. 75% of participants conformed.
Asch’s Variations
- Group Size- Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates. This
increased the size of the majority. The bigger the group the higher the conformity
level, but only up to a point- this did not go beyond a majority of three (results were
consistent after this).
, - Unanimity- Asch added another confederate that sometimes agreed with the other
confederates (chose the same line as them) but other times disagreed with them
(chose a different line). Asch wanted to test how this would affect conformity and he
found that the presence of a fluctuating confederate reduced conformity.
- Task difficulty- when Asch made the task more difficult (by making each of the lines
more similar in height), the study found that conformity increased because the
majority were more likely to have the correct answer.
Evaluations
- Time- took place in the 1950’s and only in America. Spencer and Perrin (1980) did
the study in England and 1 in 396 trials conformed.
- Artificial Situation- could involve demand characteristics. The task was trivial.
- Gender- only men took part. Neto (1995) suggested that women may conform more
than men based on other experiments.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
- Procedure- a mock prison was created at Stanford University and some voluntary
students were randomly assigned to prisoner and/or guard. The prisoners had to
follow 16 rules. All the participants were assessed as mentally stable. Based on
whether the participant was a prisoner or guard, they had corresponding uniforms.
Guards had full control over prisoners.
- Findings- the study was stopped after 6 days (instead of the originally planned 14
days). The treatment of the prisoners were harsh and became psychologically
damaging. One prisoner went on hunger strike and was put in ‘the hole’. Guards
identified with their social role.
Evaluations
- Control- Zimbardo controlled who took part (only mentally stable participants) to
stop personality differences. This shows that the study has high internal validity.
- Realism- Banauzizi and Mohavedi (1975) identified that participants were simply
based off of stereotypes rather than real reaction.
- Ethical issues- Ethical issues include: protection from harm, right to withdraw,
deception
Milgram’s Obedience Study
- Procedure- 40 male participants (aged 20-50) volunteered for $4.50. A rigged draw
took place and the confederate was always the ‘learner’ and the participant always
the ‘teacher’. An experimenter (confederate) was also there. The ‘learner’ was
strapped into a chair behind a wall and every time they got a question wrong, they
would be ‘shocked’ up to 450 volts. ‘Teacher’ was consistently asked by the
experimenter to go ‘all the way’ to 450 volts despite the reaction (or lack of reaction)
from the ‘learner’.
- Findings- no participants stopped before 300 volts. 12.5.% stopped at 300 volts. 65%
went to 450 volts. Qualitative data was collected which showed ‘teachers’ were
sweating, trembling, anxious etc. Participants were debriefed at the end.
Evaluations
