SOCIAL INFLUENCE
CONFORMITY
TYPES OF & EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
AO1
Compliance: someone conforms publicly, but privately disagrees
Identification: changing views both publicly and privately to fit in with a group
Internalisation: internalising the views of the group to become part of own views
Informational social influence: says we agree with the opinion of the majority due to belief
that they are correct, as we want to be correct as well. May lead to internalisation
Normative social influence: says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want
to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. May lead to compliance
AO3
Supporting evidence for NSI: Asch interviews his participants, and many say they conformed
because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and feared disapproval
Supporting evidence for ISI: Lucas et al found higher conformity on harder maths questions,
showing conformity is more likely when individuals are less sure of their own knowledge
Often unclear whether NSI or ISI are at work, and they may work together: Asch found
conformity was lower with another dissenting confederate, this could be because they
provide social support OR an alternative source of information
There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be explained by one general
theory of situational pressures
VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY - ASCH
1951: ASCHS VARIATIONS
Participants are given the simple question of stating which line from a group of 3 is the same
length as another given line. Confederates in the group give the incorrect answer, and
participants answer last
Participants conformed to confederate answers around 1/3 of the time
GROUP SIZE: One confederate = 3% conformity, two confederates = 13% conformity, three
confederates = 32% conformity
UNANIMITY: One of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout.
In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%.
TASK DIFFICULTY: In one his variations he made the task more difficult. In this variation Asch
found the rate of conformity increased
AO3
Artificial situation – participants may have acted with demand characteristics. Poor
ecological validity as findings do not represent real life conformity
Limited generalisability – all participants were American men so only conclusions about this
group can accurately be drawn from the findings of the research and it is less applicable to
collectivist cultures (conformity rates higher in similar studies)
Support from other studies – Lucas et al, higher conformity on harder maths questions
Standardised procure used, producing replicable results
ZIMBARDO – 1973
AO1
, Zimbardo interviewed volunteers to eliminate those with confounding participant variables.
The chosen participants were made either a prisoner or a guard
Guards showed extreme levels of aggression, even though none had shown any prior
aggressive behaviour. Prisoners conformed to submissive and cowering ways, many had
emotional breakdowns, many introduced themselves by their number rather than name.
Shows people conform to (particularly stereotypical) social roles they are expected to play
This may be due to deindividuation –participants become so immersed in the experiment
they lost any sense of identity, or for the prisoners, learned going along with the guards’
orders meant an easier experience for them
AO3
Control over key variables increases internal validity – emotionally-stable participants
chosen with interviews and randomly assigned to roles of guard/prisoner to minimise
extraneous variables of individual personality differences
Doesn’t reflect a true prison – argument the participants were play-acting how they thought
prisoners/guards should behave rather than genuinely conforming to their roles. One guard
claimed to base his role on a character from ‘Cool Hand Luke’
Exaggerates influence of social roles – only 1/3 guards behaved brutally, others were
fair/supported the prisoners. Zimbardo may have overstated his view participants were
conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g.
personality)
Generalisability: all US males, doesn’t explain conformity to social roles in women etc.
OBEDIENCE
MILGRAM 1963
Male participants enter fixed draw where they are always made a teacher. Learners = confederates.
Teacher and researcher are in a room next door to the learner and each time the learner got a
question wrong, the teacher was instructed to give a higher voltage electric shock.
65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450 volts, and all the participants continued to
at least 300 volts
AO3
Internal validity boosted: Ps take part in fixed draw and experience minor shock before to
increase likelihood they believe the learner is a real participant and the experiment is
actually into effect of punishment on learning
Low internal validity – Perry argued only 50% believed the shocks were real, and of these,
2/3 were disobedient. Participants may have been responding to demand characteristics to
fulfil the aims of the study, and their behaviour was ‘play-acting’
Generalisability – all participants are American men, contrived situation so can’t be used to
describe obedience behaviour in everyday situations
Reliable – standardised procedure and lab setting, same 4 prods for all Ps and Cs act
similarly, e.g. banging on the wall at 300V
SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR OBEDIENCE
THE AGENTIC STATE:
AO1
Individuals believe they are acting on behalf of someone else, as agents, and are not
responsible for their actions. They may feel powerless to disobey
CONFORMITY
TYPES OF & EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
AO1
Compliance: someone conforms publicly, but privately disagrees
Identification: changing views both publicly and privately to fit in with a group
Internalisation: internalising the views of the group to become part of own views
Informational social influence: says we agree with the opinion of the majority due to belief
that they are correct, as we want to be correct as well. May lead to internalisation
Normative social influence: says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want
to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. May lead to compliance
AO3
Supporting evidence for NSI: Asch interviews his participants, and many say they conformed
because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and feared disapproval
Supporting evidence for ISI: Lucas et al found higher conformity on harder maths questions,
showing conformity is more likely when individuals are less sure of their own knowledge
Often unclear whether NSI or ISI are at work, and they may work together: Asch found
conformity was lower with another dissenting confederate, this could be because they
provide social support OR an alternative source of information
There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be explained by one general
theory of situational pressures
VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY - ASCH
1951: ASCHS VARIATIONS
Participants are given the simple question of stating which line from a group of 3 is the same
length as another given line. Confederates in the group give the incorrect answer, and
participants answer last
Participants conformed to confederate answers around 1/3 of the time
GROUP SIZE: One confederate = 3% conformity, two confederates = 13% conformity, three
confederates = 32% conformity
UNANIMITY: One of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout.
In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%.
TASK DIFFICULTY: In one his variations he made the task more difficult. In this variation Asch
found the rate of conformity increased
AO3
Artificial situation – participants may have acted with demand characteristics. Poor
ecological validity as findings do not represent real life conformity
Limited generalisability – all participants were American men so only conclusions about this
group can accurately be drawn from the findings of the research and it is less applicable to
collectivist cultures (conformity rates higher in similar studies)
Support from other studies – Lucas et al, higher conformity on harder maths questions
Standardised procure used, producing replicable results
ZIMBARDO – 1973
AO1
, Zimbardo interviewed volunteers to eliminate those with confounding participant variables.
The chosen participants were made either a prisoner or a guard
Guards showed extreme levels of aggression, even though none had shown any prior
aggressive behaviour. Prisoners conformed to submissive and cowering ways, many had
emotional breakdowns, many introduced themselves by their number rather than name.
Shows people conform to (particularly stereotypical) social roles they are expected to play
This may be due to deindividuation –participants become so immersed in the experiment
they lost any sense of identity, or for the prisoners, learned going along with the guards’
orders meant an easier experience for them
AO3
Control over key variables increases internal validity – emotionally-stable participants
chosen with interviews and randomly assigned to roles of guard/prisoner to minimise
extraneous variables of individual personality differences
Doesn’t reflect a true prison – argument the participants were play-acting how they thought
prisoners/guards should behave rather than genuinely conforming to their roles. One guard
claimed to base his role on a character from ‘Cool Hand Luke’
Exaggerates influence of social roles – only 1/3 guards behaved brutally, others were
fair/supported the prisoners. Zimbardo may have overstated his view participants were
conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g.
personality)
Generalisability: all US males, doesn’t explain conformity to social roles in women etc.
OBEDIENCE
MILGRAM 1963
Male participants enter fixed draw where they are always made a teacher. Learners = confederates.
Teacher and researcher are in a room next door to the learner and each time the learner got a
question wrong, the teacher was instructed to give a higher voltage electric shock.
65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450 volts, and all the participants continued to
at least 300 volts
AO3
Internal validity boosted: Ps take part in fixed draw and experience minor shock before to
increase likelihood they believe the learner is a real participant and the experiment is
actually into effect of punishment on learning
Low internal validity – Perry argued only 50% believed the shocks were real, and of these,
2/3 were disobedient. Participants may have been responding to demand characteristics to
fulfil the aims of the study, and their behaviour was ‘play-acting’
Generalisability – all participants are American men, contrived situation so can’t be used to
describe obedience behaviour in everyday situations
Reliable – standardised procedure and lab setting, same 4 prods for all Ps and Cs act
similarly, e.g. banging on the wall at 300V
SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR OBEDIENCE
THE AGENTIC STATE:
AO1
Individuals believe they are acting on behalf of someone else, as agents, and are not
responsible for their actions. They may feel powerless to disobey
