SOCIAL INFLUENCE
CONFORMITY
Asch’s baseline procedure (1951)
- 123 American men in groups with 5-7 confederates
- Confederates gave the wrong answers on some trials
- Naive participants conformed 37% of the time
Variables
Group size Group size ranged from 1 - 15, conformity increased to a point, with three conformity
raised to 31.% but more made little difference
Unanimity Conformity decreased in the presence of a dissenter,
Task difficulty Informational social influence, look to others as harder to judge for self
EVALUATION
Strength:
- Supported by studies on the effects of task difficulty, Lucas et al. where students agreed with the
wrong answers more often on the difficult questions
Limitations:
- Participants were deceived
- Lucas et al. shows conformity is complex, high confidence
- All American men, studies in collectivist cultures have higher conformity rates than individualist
- The task and situation was artificial
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Internalisation Accept the groups norms - permanent change
Identification Value the group - change to be accepted
Compliance Superficial - temporary only public change
Informational Social Influence: agreeing with the majority because we believe they know better and are more
likely to be right, common in crisis situations
, EVALUATION
Strength
- Lucas et al. conformed to difficult maths problems showing ISI is a valid explanation
Limitation
- Hard to differentiate from NSI. E.g. the dissenter in Asch’s study could have caused a drop in
conformity for either
Normative Social Influence: agreeing because we want to be liked/ not to be rejected, common in stressful
situations or for approval of friends
EVALUATION
Strength:
- Asch’s participants said they conformed because they felt self-conscious and afraid of disapproval.
When answers written down, conformity dropped to 12.5%
Limitation
- Doesn’t always predict conformity, some (nAffiliators) found to be more likely to conform as they want
to relate to people
CONFORMITY: SOCIAL ROLES
Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment
Procedure 21 ‘emotionally stable’ students randomly allocated roles in the prison
Social roles reinforced through uniforms and instructions about behaviour
(individualisation)
Findings Guards - treated prisoners harshly, harassing (e.g. night time head counts)
Prisoners - failed rebellion, became depressed, experiment stopped after 6 days
(intended to be two weeks)
Conclusion Social roles influence behaviour - brutal guards, submissive prisoners
Social roles easily adopted
EVALUATION
Strengths:
- Control over variables, random allocation meant behaviour due to the role itself (internal validity)
CONFORMITY
Asch’s baseline procedure (1951)
- 123 American men in groups with 5-7 confederates
- Confederates gave the wrong answers on some trials
- Naive participants conformed 37% of the time
Variables
Group size Group size ranged from 1 - 15, conformity increased to a point, with three conformity
raised to 31.% but more made little difference
Unanimity Conformity decreased in the presence of a dissenter,
Task difficulty Informational social influence, look to others as harder to judge for self
EVALUATION
Strength:
- Supported by studies on the effects of task difficulty, Lucas et al. where students agreed with the
wrong answers more often on the difficult questions
Limitations:
- Participants were deceived
- Lucas et al. shows conformity is complex, high confidence
- All American men, studies in collectivist cultures have higher conformity rates than individualist
- The task and situation was artificial
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Internalisation Accept the groups norms - permanent change
Identification Value the group - change to be accepted
Compliance Superficial - temporary only public change
Informational Social Influence: agreeing with the majority because we believe they know better and are more
likely to be right, common in crisis situations
, EVALUATION
Strength
- Lucas et al. conformed to difficult maths problems showing ISI is a valid explanation
Limitation
- Hard to differentiate from NSI. E.g. the dissenter in Asch’s study could have caused a drop in
conformity for either
Normative Social Influence: agreeing because we want to be liked/ not to be rejected, common in stressful
situations or for approval of friends
EVALUATION
Strength:
- Asch’s participants said they conformed because they felt self-conscious and afraid of disapproval.
When answers written down, conformity dropped to 12.5%
Limitation
- Doesn’t always predict conformity, some (nAffiliators) found to be more likely to conform as they want
to relate to people
CONFORMITY: SOCIAL ROLES
Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment
Procedure 21 ‘emotionally stable’ students randomly allocated roles in the prison
Social roles reinforced through uniforms and instructions about behaviour
(individualisation)
Findings Guards - treated prisoners harshly, harassing (e.g. night time head counts)
Prisoners - failed rebellion, became depressed, experiment stopped after 6 days
(intended to be two weeks)
Conclusion Social roles influence behaviour - brutal guards, submissive prisoners
Social roles easily adopted
EVALUATION
Strengths:
- Control over variables, random allocation meant behaviour due to the role itself (internal validity)
