CN Psychology: Social Influence
Social influence = social influence refers to how the thoughts or actions of individuals are changed after observing
the actions or attitudes of others.
Conformity = when an individual changes their thoughts, behaviours and attitudes to go along with the majority of
the group.
Types of conformity
-Compliance = the shallowest level of conformity involving public agreement but private disagreement.
Ex. agree with others that a film was good but you don't really believe it.
-Identification = identification with a group leads to a temporary public and private agreement.
Ex. drink alcohol while at university because everyone else does, but stop when you leave.
-Internalisation = the deepest level of conformity creating permanent change involving public and private agreement.
Ex. After being influenced by an environmental group, you remain involved in environmental issues for the rest of
your life.
Explanations for conformity (Deutsch & Gerard 1955)
-Deutsch & Gerard developed a two-process theory suggesting that there are two main reasons why people
conform. These are based on two central human needs: the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (NSI).
Informational social influence (ISI)
-People have a basic desire to be right. If unsure about anything, they tend to look to others for guidance.
-ISI is a cognitive process as it is related to what we think.
-Private change.
Normative social influence (NSI)
-People conform because they want to be accepted by the group and avoid rejection.
-NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process.
-Public change.
+ Research support for NSI
Research has supported the view that the normative beliefs of individuals can shape behaviour such as
smoking and energy conservation. Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found that teenagers exposed to a
simple message that the majority of their peers did not smoke, led to them being less likely to take up
smoking. Additionally Schultz et al (2008) found that hotel guests who were shown the normative message
that 75% of hotel guests reuse their towels each day reduced towel use by 25%. These research studies
demonstrate how people shape their behaviour as they wish to fit in with their reference group, thus
demonstrating the power of NSI.
+ Research support of ISI
Jenness' bean study provides research support for the role of ISI. Ps were asked to make an independent
judgement about the number of beans in the jar and then discuss their estimate within a group. They then
made a second independent private estimate. Jeness found that the second estimate was closer to the
group estimate and females conform more than men. Additionally, Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) found
that Ps exposed too negative views about African Americans (which they believed to be the view of the
majority) and later reported more negative attitudes towards black people. This demonstrates how ISI can
influence the political opinion of an individual and the importance of ISI in influencing behaviour.
- NSI may not be detected
Whilst it is evident that NSI has a strong influence on behaviour, it has been suggested that individuals do
not recognise that others have influenced their behaviour. Nolan et al (2008) investigated whether
individuals identified the influence of social norms on their energy conservation behaviour. They believed
that the behaviour of others had the least influence on their own behaviour, yet studies have shown that it
, has the strongest impact. This suggests that individuals rely on beliefs on what should motivate their
behaviour, under-estimating the impact of NSI.
- ISI may be moderated by task
An issue for ISI as an explanation is that judgements on behaviour may be moderated by whether there is a
physical reality to validate their behaviour. For example, London can be determined as a highly populated
city through the existence of objective statistics. However, another judgement, such as whether it is the
most cultural, cannot be made using objective measures as it is a subjective view and therefore individuals
may rely on those they consider to be experts. This demonstrates that the influence of ISI is task dependent
and cannot be applied to all behaviours.
- ISI and NSI may work together
Deutsch and Gerard argue that conformity is the product of either ISI or NSI. However it has been argued
that conformity could be the result of both. For example in Asch’s study the presence of a non-conformer
may reduce the power of NSI (as the P is getting social support) or ISI (as there is an alternative source of
information). This would limit the explanation of NSI and ISI working independently.
- Issues and debates
ISI and NSI adopt a nomothetic approach as they attempt to provide general principles relating to human
behaviour when observed under group pressure from a majority. Furthermore, Asch takes a scientific
approach, using a highly controlled lab setting, investigating key concepts which can be replicated. His work
did, however, show a beta bias, as he used only male Ps, minimising or ignoring the differences between
men and women in relation to conformity.
Research into conformity
Jeness (1932)
Procedure Findings
•Jeness used a glass jar filled with 811 white beans •Jeness found nearly all Ps changed their original
answer
•26 students
•On average males changed their answer by 256 beans
•Individually estimated how many beans that were in the and females by 382 beans
glass jar
•The range of the whole group went from 1875 before
•Ps then divided into groups of three and asked to the discussion to 474 afterwards – a decrease of 75%
provide a group estimate through discussion
•The results suggest that Ps changed their minds due
•Following the discussion Ps were asked to provide to ISI as their believed that the group were more likely
another opportunity to individually estimate the number of to be correct
beans
, Asch (1965)
Procedure Findings
•123 American male undergraduates •On the 12 critical trials conformity was 33%
•Ps seated around a table •Asch found individual differences. 25% did not conform
at all, 50% conformed on six or more, and 1 in 20
•They believed they were taking part in a vision test conformed on all the trials
•Asked to look at lines of three different lengths •When interviewed afterwards, the majority of Ps
admitted that whilst privately they disagreed with the
majority, they went with the majority to avoid disapproval
•Took it in turns to call out which of the three lines from the group members (compliance)
matched the standardised line
•Real P always answered second
•12 of 18 trials confederates told to give same
incorrect answer
Variations of Asch
-Group size
-Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. He
found that with three confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but the addition of further
confederates made little difference. This Suggests that a small majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted,
but at the other extreme. There is no need for there to be a majority of more than three.
-Unanimity of the majority
-Asch also wanted to know whether the presence of another, non-conforming person, would affect the naive P’s
conformity. He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others to test this. The presence of a dissenting
confederate meant that conformity was reduced by a quarter from the level it was when the majority was
unanimous. The presence of a dissenter enabled the naive participant to behave more independently. This suggests
that the influence of the majority is dependent on the group being unanimous.
-Task difficulty
-Asch made the test more difficult by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar in length. He
found that conformity increased under these conditions. This suggests that informational social influence plays a
greater role when the task becomes harder. This is because the situation is more ambiguous and therefore we are
more likely to look to others for guidance, assuming they are right and we are wrong.
- Child of it’s time
Social influence = social influence refers to how the thoughts or actions of individuals are changed after observing
the actions or attitudes of others.
Conformity = when an individual changes their thoughts, behaviours and attitudes to go along with the majority of
the group.
Types of conformity
-Compliance = the shallowest level of conformity involving public agreement but private disagreement.
Ex. agree with others that a film was good but you don't really believe it.
-Identification = identification with a group leads to a temporary public and private agreement.
Ex. drink alcohol while at university because everyone else does, but stop when you leave.
-Internalisation = the deepest level of conformity creating permanent change involving public and private agreement.
Ex. After being influenced by an environmental group, you remain involved in environmental issues for the rest of
your life.
Explanations for conformity (Deutsch & Gerard 1955)
-Deutsch & Gerard developed a two-process theory suggesting that there are two main reasons why people
conform. These are based on two central human needs: the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (NSI).
Informational social influence (ISI)
-People have a basic desire to be right. If unsure about anything, they tend to look to others for guidance.
-ISI is a cognitive process as it is related to what we think.
-Private change.
Normative social influence (NSI)
-People conform because they want to be accepted by the group and avoid rejection.
-NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process.
-Public change.
+ Research support for NSI
Research has supported the view that the normative beliefs of individuals can shape behaviour such as
smoking and energy conservation. Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found that teenagers exposed to a
simple message that the majority of their peers did not smoke, led to them being less likely to take up
smoking. Additionally Schultz et al (2008) found that hotel guests who were shown the normative message
that 75% of hotel guests reuse their towels each day reduced towel use by 25%. These research studies
demonstrate how people shape their behaviour as they wish to fit in with their reference group, thus
demonstrating the power of NSI.
+ Research support of ISI
Jenness' bean study provides research support for the role of ISI. Ps were asked to make an independent
judgement about the number of beans in the jar and then discuss their estimate within a group. They then
made a second independent private estimate. Jeness found that the second estimate was closer to the
group estimate and females conform more than men. Additionally, Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) found
that Ps exposed too negative views about African Americans (which they believed to be the view of the
majority) and later reported more negative attitudes towards black people. This demonstrates how ISI can
influence the political opinion of an individual and the importance of ISI in influencing behaviour.
- NSI may not be detected
Whilst it is evident that NSI has a strong influence on behaviour, it has been suggested that individuals do
not recognise that others have influenced their behaviour. Nolan et al (2008) investigated whether
individuals identified the influence of social norms on their energy conservation behaviour. They believed
that the behaviour of others had the least influence on their own behaviour, yet studies have shown that it
, has the strongest impact. This suggests that individuals rely on beliefs on what should motivate their
behaviour, under-estimating the impact of NSI.
- ISI may be moderated by task
An issue for ISI as an explanation is that judgements on behaviour may be moderated by whether there is a
physical reality to validate their behaviour. For example, London can be determined as a highly populated
city through the existence of objective statistics. However, another judgement, such as whether it is the
most cultural, cannot be made using objective measures as it is a subjective view and therefore individuals
may rely on those they consider to be experts. This demonstrates that the influence of ISI is task dependent
and cannot be applied to all behaviours.
- ISI and NSI may work together
Deutsch and Gerard argue that conformity is the product of either ISI or NSI. However it has been argued
that conformity could be the result of both. For example in Asch’s study the presence of a non-conformer
may reduce the power of NSI (as the P is getting social support) or ISI (as there is an alternative source of
information). This would limit the explanation of NSI and ISI working independently.
- Issues and debates
ISI and NSI adopt a nomothetic approach as they attempt to provide general principles relating to human
behaviour when observed under group pressure from a majority. Furthermore, Asch takes a scientific
approach, using a highly controlled lab setting, investigating key concepts which can be replicated. His work
did, however, show a beta bias, as he used only male Ps, minimising or ignoring the differences between
men and women in relation to conformity.
Research into conformity
Jeness (1932)
Procedure Findings
•Jeness used a glass jar filled with 811 white beans •Jeness found nearly all Ps changed their original
answer
•26 students
•On average males changed their answer by 256 beans
•Individually estimated how many beans that were in the and females by 382 beans
glass jar
•The range of the whole group went from 1875 before
•Ps then divided into groups of three and asked to the discussion to 474 afterwards – a decrease of 75%
provide a group estimate through discussion
•The results suggest that Ps changed their minds due
•Following the discussion Ps were asked to provide to ISI as their believed that the group were more likely
another opportunity to individually estimate the number of to be correct
beans
, Asch (1965)
Procedure Findings
•123 American male undergraduates •On the 12 critical trials conformity was 33%
•Ps seated around a table •Asch found individual differences. 25% did not conform
at all, 50% conformed on six or more, and 1 in 20
•They believed they were taking part in a vision test conformed on all the trials
•Asked to look at lines of three different lengths •When interviewed afterwards, the majority of Ps
admitted that whilst privately they disagreed with the
majority, they went with the majority to avoid disapproval
•Took it in turns to call out which of the three lines from the group members (compliance)
matched the standardised line
•Real P always answered second
•12 of 18 trials confederates told to give same
incorrect answer
Variations of Asch
-Group size
-Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. He
found that with three confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but the addition of further
confederates made little difference. This Suggests that a small majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted,
but at the other extreme. There is no need for there to be a majority of more than three.
-Unanimity of the majority
-Asch also wanted to know whether the presence of another, non-conforming person, would affect the naive P’s
conformity. He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others to test this. The presence of a dissenting
confederate meant that conformity was reduced by a quarter from the level it was when the majority was
unanimous. The presence of a dissenter enabled the naive participant to behave more independently. This suggests
that the influence of the majority is dependent on the group being unanimous.
-Task difficulty
-Asch made the test more difficult by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar in length. He
found that conformity increased under these conditions. This suggests that informational social influence plays a
greater role when the task becomes harder. This is because the situation is more ambiguous and therefore we are
more likely to look to others for guidance, assuming they are right and we are wrong.
- Child of it’s time
