Social influence:
CONFORMITY – behaviour of individual/small group influenced by a larger
group
Kelman (1968)
A01 - Types of conformity:
INTERNALISATION COMPLIANCE IDENTIFICATION
Belief of the majority is Going along with the Change view publicly
accepted by the group even if you and privately to fit in
individual and becomes disagree with a group of people
part of their belief you admire
Look to others how to To appear ‘normal’ Deeper level of
behave conformity
Informational social Normative social Normative social
influence influence influence
Usually, long-term and Short term Temporary opinion
permanent change, may change
when longer
associated/around the
group
Deep level Superficial conformity Not as deep
Public & private Public Public and private but
only when with the
group
A01- Explanations for conformity:
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE
o Agree with the opinion of the majority in order to be linked and gain
approval
o Often leads to compliance and identification
o Belonging to a group is rewarding (can be outcasted if not similar)
o May personally & privately disagree BUT conform in public
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
o Social situations people can be unclear what to think/feel
o Conform with others & copy their actions – don’t know what to do
o Need to be right
o If a majority are doing something, conformity may be sensible
o Helps you not stand out
o Internalisation
,A03 - Evaluating explanations of conformity:
NSI:
Linkenbach and Perkins (2003)
o generally accepted that norms bring about conformity and there is
strong correlation between normative beliefs and their behaviour.
o at 12–17-year-olds in 7 counties in Montana, USA
o Normal number of smokers was 17%
o When campaign of people their age DON’T SMOKE 10% were smoking
o 41% started smoking when told children their own age group did smoke
– want to fit in
Shultz (2008)
o Persuade guests in a hotel to reuse their towels rather than having fresh
ones each day.
o gathered data from 132 hotels and 794 hotel rooms where guests stayed
for a week.
o In control, a door hanger informed guests of the environmental benefits
of reusing towels.
o In the experimental condition, in addition to the information, guests
were informed that ‘75% of guests choose to reuse their towels each
day’.
o Guests reduced need for towels by 25% when told of the fact most
people reuse them – conformed
ISI:
Lucas (2006)
o Students give answer to maths problems
o More conformity to wrong answers when questions were hard, than
when they were easy
o Most true for those who said had bad maths skills
o Conform when don’t know answer (ambiguous situations)
Wittenbrink & Henley (1996)
o Participants exposed to negative info about African Americans (they
were led to believe this was the majority view)
o Later reported more negative views on a black target individual
o Changed opinion because of the group
Jenness (1932)
o Participants estimate no of beans in a jar
o No in jar is ambiguous
o Participants look to group for guidance (females changed more)
o Likely to change opinion (desire to be right) – INTERNALISATION
, All humans have individual differences where we all do behaviours that are the
same, but to have our unique aspects, where we do things different
A03 - Sherif (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment:
Demonstrating people conform to group norms in ambiguous (i.e. unclear)
situations
Method:
- Sherif used lab experiment
- Autokinetic effect – small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in dark
room appear to move, BUT its still (visual illusion)
- Asked in three phases
- 1 = individually
- 2 = on groups of three
- 3 = individually
Results:
- Found that over many trials the group converged to a common estimate
- In phase 1, ppts individually tested it ranged (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm)
- In phase 2, ppts guesses tended to coverage to a common estimate
- In phase 3, ppts made guesses closer to the common group, rather than their
original estimates
Evaluaion
- Artificial, only males sampled, deception
A01 - ASCH (1951)
Aim:
o Asch wanted to asses if people change views even if
they know they are right
o Supports NSI
Method:
o 123 males in groups of 9
o Shown a line and three comparison ones – told to
match it
o Used six to eight confederates in group to purposely say wrong one
o Did 18 trials and in 12 confederates told to be wrong
o Naïve ppt often conformed to group even though knew they were right
o Confederates gave same incorrect answer on 12 critical trials
CONFORMITY – behaviour of individual/small group influenced by a larger
group
Kelman (1968)
A01 - Types of conformity:
INTERNALISATION COMPLIANCE IDENTIFICATION
Belief of the majority is Going along with the Change view publicly
accepted by the group even if you and privately to fit in
individual and becomes disagree with a group of people
part of their belief you admire
Look to others how to To appear ‘normal’ Deeper level of
behave conformity
Informational social Normative social Normative social
influence influence influence
Usually, long-term and Short term Temporary opinion
permanent change, may change
when longer
associated/around the
group
Deep level Superficial conformity Not as deep
Public & private Public Public and private but
only when with the
group
A01- Explanations for conformity:
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE
o Agree with the opinion of the majority in order to be linked and gain
approval
o Often leads to compliance and identification
o Belonging to a group is rewarding (can be outcasted if not similar)
o May personally & privately disagree BUT conform in public
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
o Social situations people can be unclear what to think/feel
o Conform with others & copy their actions – don’t know what to do
o Need to be right
o If a majority are doing something, conformity may be sensible
o Helps you not stand out
o Internalisation
,A03 - Evaluating explanations of conformity:
NSI:
Linkenbach and Perkins (2003)
o generally accepted that norms bring about conformity and there is
strong correlation between normative beliefs and their behaviour.
o at 12–17-year-olds in 7 counties in Montana, USA
o Normal number of smokers was 17%
o When campaign of people their age DON’T SMOKE 10% were smoking
o 41% started smoking when told children their own age group did smoke
– want to fit in
Shultz (2008)
o Persuade guests in a hotel to reuse their towels rather than having fresh
ones each day.
o gathered data from 132 hotels and 794 hotel rooms where guests stayed
for a week.
o In control, a door hanger informed guests of the environmental benefits
of reusing towels.
o In the experimental condition, in addition to the information, guests
were informed that ‘75% of guests choose to reuse their towels each
day’.
o Guests reduced need for towels by 25% when told of the fact most
people reuse them – conformed
ISI:
Lucas (2006)
o Students give answer to maths problems
o More conformity to wrong answers when questions were hard, than
when they were easy
o Most true for those who said had bad maths skills
o Conform when don’t know answer (ambiguous situations)
Wittenbrink & Henley (1996)
o Participants exposed to negative info about African Americans (they
were led to believe this was the majority view)
o Later reported more negative views on a black target individual
o Changed opinion because of the group
Jenness (1932)
o Participants estimate no of beans in a jar
o No in jar is ambiguous
o Participants look to group for guidance (females changed more)
o Likely to change opinion (desire to be right) – INTERNALISATION
, All humans have individual differences where we all do behaviours that are the
same, but to have our unique aspects, where we do things different
A03 - Sherif (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment:
Demonstrating people conform to group norms in ambiguous (i.e. unclear)
situations
Method:
- Sherif used lab experiment
- Autokinetic effect – small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in dark
room appear to move, BUT its still (visual illusion)
- Asked in three phases
- 1 = individually
- 2 = on groups of three
- 3 = individually
Results:
- Found that over many trials the group converged to a common estimate
- In phase 1, ppts individually tested it ranged (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm)
- In phase 2, ppts guesses tended to coverage to a common estimate
- In phase 3, ppts made guesses closer to the common group, rather than their
original estimates
Evaluaion
- Artificial, only males sampled, deception
A01 - ASCH (1951)
Aim:
o Asch wanted to asses if people change views even if
they know they are right
o Supports NSI
Method:
o 123 males in groups of 9
o Shown a line and three comparison ones – told to
match it
o Used six to eight confederates in group to purposely say wrong one
o Did 18 trials and in 12 confederates told to be wrong
o Naïve ppt often conformed to group even though knew they were right
o Confederates gave same incorrect answer on 12 critical trials
