SOCIAL INFLUENCE
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
SOLOMON ASCH: CONFORMITY EXPERIMENTS AO1
123 male participants were told they were taking part in a study of visual perception.
Participants were put in groups with between 7 and 9 confederates (i.e. fake subjects
pretending to be part of the experiment too).
Each participant completed 18 trials where they would be shown the sets of lines above
(A, B, or C) and then asked which one was closest to the original line.
In the 12 critical trials, the confederates would all give the same wrong answer – the
participant was always asked to give their answer last (or second to last) so as to hear
the group’s answers first.
The control group for this experiment consisted of 36 participants. In the control trials,
participants were asked the same question as above – but this time alone.
Across all critical trials, participants conformed to the incorrect group consensus 32% of
the time.
75% of participants conformed to at least one incorrect answer
5% of participants conformed to every incorrect answer
This is compared to an error rate of just 0.04% in the control trials.
SOLOMON ASCH: CONFORMITY EXPERIMENTS AO3
Practical applications: Asch’s experiments demonstrate the extent to which humans
follow the herd.
Questions of ecological/external validity: Guessing the length of lines is a specific
and unusual task.
Gender bias (beta bias): All the participants in Asch’s study were male, so it is not
clear whether the findings are valid in females as well.
Ethical concerns: Asch told participants they were taking part in a study of visual
perception, and thus did not give informed consent to the actual study (which was on
conformity).
SOLOMON ASCH: CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT VARIATIONS AO1
Unanimity: Participants’ conformity declined from 32% to 5.5% when one ‘partner’
confederate was instructed to give the correct answer and go against the incorrect
,answer of the majority. Asch’s findings are consistent with other research which finds
conformity rates decline when the majority answer is not unanimous. In other words, if
the majority all agree, the participant is more likely to conform to the group than if there
is some disagreement.
Group size: Increasing the size of the group tended to increase conformity – up to a
point. In trials with just one confederate and one participant, conformity rates were low.
Increasing the number of confederates to 2 also increased conformity to 12.8% and
increasing the number of confederates to 3 increased conformity even further to 32%
(the same as the original study). However, adding extra confederates (4, 8, or 16)
beyond this did not increase conformity.
Task difficulty: Increasing the difficulty of the task was also found to increase
conformity. Asch adjusted the lengths of the lines in the study above to make it either
more easy or more difficult to see which line was closest in length to the original line. If
the difference between the incorrect answer and the correct answer was very small (and
thus harder to notice), participants were more likely to conform to the incorrect answers
of the majority.
Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
PHILIP ZIMBARDO: STANFORD PRISON STUDY AO1
Zimbardo and his team converted the basement of the psychology department at
Stanford University into a fake prison.
21 male students were selected from a total of 75 participants for their mental stability
and lack of antisocial tendencies.
These 21 participants were randomly divided into two groups: 10 ‘guards’ and 11
‘prisoners’
Prisoners were arrested by real police and then subjected to real police booking
procedures (e.g. fingerprinting and mug shots). They were put in cells in groups of 3
and were confined throughout the experiment.
Guards worked in 8 hour shifts and were instructed to refer to the prisoners by their
assigned numbers rather than their names. A realistic prison routine was established
with meal times, etc.
The prisoners wore jackets with their number on, and a chain around one ankle. Guards
wore khaki uniforms, mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact, and carried handcuffs
and wooden batons.
The study was scheduled to run for 2 weeks.
The guards became increasingly sadistic. For example, they forced the prisoners to
continually repeat their assigned numbers and made them go to the toilet in buckets in
their cells. As punishment, the guards refused to allow prisoners to empty these
, buckets, took away their mattresses and made them sleep on the concrete floor, and
took away their clothes.
The prisoners became increasingly submissive. Many stopped questioning the guards
behaviour and sided with the guards against rebellious prisoners
After 35 hours, one prisoner began to “act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage
that seemed out of control” and had to be released. Three other prisoners had to be
released for similar reasons throughout the duration of the experiment.
The guards’ sadism became so harmful that Zimbardo stopped the experiment after just
6 days instead of the scheduled 2 weeks.
PHILIP ZIMBARDO: STANFORD PRISON STUDY AO3
Practical applications: Zimbardo’s study demonstrates the influence of conformity to
social roles, which is an important psychological insight that has resulted in useful
applications in society.
Questions of ecological/external validity: Both the guards and prisoners knew they
were taking part in a study, and so this might have affected how they behaved. For
example, they might have felt they were expected to act a certain way. This is
somewhat confirmed by post-study interviews: Many of the participants said they were
just acting. As such, the findings of this study may not apply to real life situations.
Ethical concerns: It’s clear the study subjected many of the participants to high levels
of stress, as evidenced by the prisoner who “went crazy” and had to be released, as
well as the other participants who had to be released. Further, participants did not
explicitly consent to all aspects of the experiment, such as being ‘arrested’ at home.
Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and
situational variables affecting obedience including proximity and location, as
investigated by Milgram, and uniform.
STANLEY MILGRAM: OBEDIENCE EXPERIMENTS AO1
40 American male participants aged 20-50 were told they were taking part in an study of
the effects of punishment on memory and learning.
The confederate ‘experimenter’ (wearing a lab coat to create an impression of authority)
told the participant that he had been randomly assigned the role of ‘teacher’ and that
another participant (who was another confederate) had been randomly assigned the
role of ‘learner’.
The experimenter told the participant the test would involve giving increasingly powerful
electric shocks to the learner from a machine in the room next door (marked with
different voltage levels).
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
SOLOMON ASCH: CONFORMITY EXPERIMENTS AO1
123 male participants were told they were taking part in a study of visual perception.
Participants were put in groups with between 7 and 9 confederates (i.e. fake subjects
pretending to be part of the experiment too).
Each participant completed 18 trials where they would be shown the sets of lines above
(A, B, or C) and then asked which one was closest to the original line.
In the 12 critical trials, the confederates would all give the same wrong answer – the
participant was always asked to give their answer last (or second to last) so as to hear
the group’s answers first.
The control group for this experiment consisted of 36 participants. In the control trials,
participants were asked the same question as above – but this time alone.
Across all critical trials, participants conformed to the incorrect group consensus 32% of
the time.
75% of participants conformed to at least one incorrect answer
5% of participants conformed to every incorrect answer
This is compared to an error rate of just 0.04% in the control trials.
SOLOMON ASCH: CONFORMITY EXPERIMENTS AO3
Practical applications: Asch’s experiments demonstrate the extent to which humans
follow the herd.
Questions of ecological/external validity: Guessing the length of lines is a specific
and unusual task.
Gender bias (beta bias): All the participants in Asch’s study were male, so it is not
clear whether the findings are valid in females as well.
Ethical concerns: Asch told participants they were taking part in a study of visual
perception, and thus did not give informed consent to the actual study (which was on
conformity).
SOLOMON ASCH: CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT VARIATIONS AO1
Unanimity: Participants’ conformity declined from 32% to 5.5% when one ‘partner’
confederate was instructed to give the correct answer and go against the incorrect
,answer of the majority. Asch’s findings are consistent with other research which finds
conformity rates decline when the majority answer is not unanimous. In other words, if
the majority all agree, the participant is more likely to conform to the group than if there
is some disagreement.
Group size: Increasing the size of the group tended to increase conformity – up to a
point. In trials with just one confederate and one participant, conformity rates were low.
Increasing the number of confederates to 2 also increased conformity to 12.8% and
increasing the number of confederates to 3 increased conformity even further to 32%
(the same as the original study). However, adding extra confederates (4, 8, or 16)
beyond this did not increase conformity.
Task difficulty: Increasing the difficulty of the task was also found to increase
conformity. Asch adjusted the lengths of the lines in the study above to make it either
more easy or more difficult to see which line was closest in length to the original line. If
the difference between the incorrect answer and the correct answer was very small (and
thus harder to notice), participants were more likely to conform to the incorrect answers
of the majority.
Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
PHILIP ZIMBARDO: STANFORD PRISON STUDY AO1
Zimbardo and his team converted the basement of the psychology department at
Stanford University into a fake prison.
21 male students were selected from a total of 75 participants for their mental stability
and lack of antisocial tendencies.
These 21 participants were randomly divided into two groups: 10 ‘guards’ and 11
‘prisoners’
Prisoners were arrested by real police and then subjected to real police booking
procedures (e.g. fingerprinting and mug shots). They were put in cells in groups of 3
and were confined throughout the experiment.
Guards worked in 8 hour shifts and were instructed to refer to the prisoners by their
assigned numbers rather than their names. A realistic prison routine was established
with meal times, etc.
The prisoners wore jackets with their number on, and a chain around one ankle. Guards
wore khaki uniforms, mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact, and carried handcuffs
and wooden batons.
The study was scheduled to run for 2 weeks.
The guards became increasingly sadistic. For example, they forced the prisoners to
continually repeat their assigned numbers and made them go to the toilet in buckets in
their cells. As punishment, the guards refused to allow prisoners to empty these
, buckets, took away their mattresses and made them sleep on the concrete floor, and
took away their clothes.
The prisoners became increasingly submissive. Many stopped questioning the guards
behaviour and sided with the guards against rebellious prisoners
After 35 hours, one prisoner began to “act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage
that seemed out of control” and had to be released. Three other prisoners had to be
released for similar reasons throughout the duration of the experiment.
The guards’ sadism became so harmful that Zimbardo stopped the experiment after just
6 days instead of the scheduled 2 weeks.
PHILIP ZIMBARDO: STANFORD PRISON STUDY AO3
Practical applications: Zimbardo’s study demonstrates the influence of conformity to
social roles, which is an important psychological insight that has resulted in useful
applications in society.
Questions of ecological/external validity: Both the guards and prisoners knew they
were taking part in a study, and so this might have affected how they behaved. For
example, they might have felt they were expected to act a certain way. This is
somewhat confirmed by post-study interviews: Many of the participants said they were
just acting. As such, the findings of this study may not apply to real life situations.
Ethical concerns: It’s clear the study subjected many of the participants to high levels
of stress, as evidenced by the prisoner who “went crazy” and had to be released, as
well as the other participants who had to be released. Further, participants did not
explicitly consent to all aspects of the experiment, such as being ‘arrested’ at home.
Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and
situational variables affecting obedience including proximity and location, as
investigated by Milgram, and uniform.
STANLEY MILGRAM: OBEDIENCE EXPERIMENTS AO1
40 American male participants aged 20-50 were told they were taking part in an study of
the effects of punishment on memory and learning.
The confederate ‘experimenter’ (wearing a lab coat to create an impression of authority)
told the participant that he had been randomly assigned the role of ‘teacher’ and that
another participant (who was another confederate) had been randomly assigned the
role of ‘learner’.
The experimenter told the participant the test would involve giving increasingly powerful
electric shocks to the learner from a machine in the room next door (marked with
different voltage levels).
