Social Influence 16 marker essay plans
Research into conformity (Asch) (2018)
AO1: Types of conformity – compliance = change behaviour in public for acceptance but
keep same opinion in private, identification = change behaviour and opinion in presence of
majority but short-term change only, internalisation = analyse majority’s opinion and adjust
own opinion based on it, deepest level. Asch’s study – aim was to see if naïve participants
conformed to external pressures, 123 male US UG students asked to pick which of the 3
lines was most similar to ‘standard’ line, confederate told to answer wrong whilst
participants reaction was observed. 33% avg conformity rate, 25% didn’t conform, 75%
conformed at least once.
AO3: Strengths – repeatable, controlled setting. Weaknesses – lack of population validity,
lack of temporal validity, lack of ecological validity, lack of mundane realism
Explanations for conformity (informational and normative social influence) (2018)
AO1: Deutsch and Gerard – normative social influence = emotional process, fear of
rejection, acceptance, informative social influence = cognitive process, wanting to be right,
new situations with difficult/unknown task
Factors affecting conformity (group size, unanimity, and task difficulty) (2018)
AO1: Variables in Asch’s study – group size = increased as 1 confederate 3%, 2 confederate
13%, 3+ confederate 32%, unanimity = decreased (5.5%), task difficulty = increased
AO3: Eagly – women more likely to conform in Asch paradigm than men – could be due to
male researcher
Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo)
AO1: Zimbardo’s SPE study – aim to see if people would conform to social roles in mock
prison, 24 men volunteered physically and psychologically tested, arrested at home, prison
guards given reflective sunglasses, clubs, uniform, prisoners given ID, uniform, 3 meals a
day, 3 toilet trips a day, 2 visits a week. Lasted 6 days instead of 14 days, guards acted
sadistically towards prisoners, 1/3 guards tried to stick to rules whilst others were friendly, 5
prisoners had to leave early due to distress
AO3: Hofling et al – “It’s Dr. please give my patient 20mg of Astroten” 95% of female nurses
did even though they were told not to take orders over the phone or up the dosage of
10mg, when other nurses were asked what they would do in the situation 21/22 said they
would not conform. Strengths of Zimbardo – controlled observation, ecological validity,
randomisation. Weaknesses of Zimbardo – influence of DC, ethical issues, lack of population
validity, minimises the effect of individual differences on conformity to social roles
Obedience (Milgram)
AO1: Milgram’s study – aim was to see if people would be obedient to authority despite
potentially hurting someone, 40 naïve participants told experiment was about learning and
punishment, 2 confederates (experimenter and learner), teacher (naïve participant) had to
Research into conformity (Asch) (2018)
AO1: Types of conformity – compliance = change behaviour in public for acceptance but
keep same opinion in private, identification = change behaviour and opinion in presence of
majority but short-term change only, internalisation = analyse majority’s opinion and adjust
own opinion based on it, deepest level. Asch’s study – aim was to see if naïve participants
conformed to external pressures, 123 male US UG students asked to pick which of the 3
lines was most similar to ‘standard’ line, confederate told to answer wrong whilst
participants reaction was observed. 33% avg conformity rate, 25% didn’t conform, 75%
conformed at least once.
AO3: Strengths – repeatable, controlled setting. Weaknesses – lack of population validity,
lack of temporal validity, lack of ecological validity, lack of mundane realism
Explanations for conformity (informational and normative social influence) (2018)
AO1: Deutsch and Gerard – normative social influence = emotional process, fear of
rejection, acceptance, informative social influence = cognitive process, wanting to be right,
new situations with difficult/unknown task
Factors affecting conformity (group size, unanimity, and task difficulty) (2018)
AO1: Variables in Asch’s study – group size = increased as 1 confederate 3%, 2 confederate
13%, 3+ confederate 32%, unanimity = decreased (5.5%), task difficulty = increased
AO3: Eagly – women more likely to conform in Asch paradigm than men – could be due to
male researcher
Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo)
AO1: Zimbardo’s SPE study – aim to see if people would conform to social roles in mock
prison, 24 men volunteered physically and psychologically tested, arrested at home, prison
guards given reflective sunglasses, clubs, uniform, prisoners given ID, uniform, 3 meals a
day, 3 toilet trips a day, 2 visits a week. Lasted 6 days instead of 14 days, guards acted
sadistically towards prisoners, 1/3 guards tried to stick to rules whilst others were friendly, 5
prisoners had to leave early due to distress
AO3: Hofling et al – “It’s Dr. please give my patient 20mg of Astroten” 95% of female nurses
did even though they were told not to take orders over the phone or up the dosage of
10mg, when other nurses were asked what they would do in the situation 21/22 said they
would not conform. Strengths of Zimbardo – controlled observation, ecological validity,
randomisation. Weaknesses of Zimbardo – influence of DC, ethical issues, lack of population
validity, minimises the effect of individual differences on conformity to social roles
Obedience (Milgram)
AO1: Milgram’s study – aim was to see if people would be obedient to authority despite
potentially hurting someone, 40 naïve participants told experiment was about learning and
punishment, 2 confederates (experimenter and learner), teacher (naïve participant) had to
