SOCIAL INFLUENCE
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Types of conformity: Explanations for con
• Internalisation: permanent form of conformity. Individual accepts majority view as correct (it changes private and public beliefs). • NSI: conforming
• Identification: moderate form of conformity. Individual conforms to be accepted by the majority group. They don’t necessarily agree with the majority. • ISI: conforming
• Compliance: superficial form of conformity. Publically agrees with majority view but privately disagrees
+ research support for ISI: students were given easy and difficult mathematical questions. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when math questions were difficult.
— individual differences in NSI: some people are less concerned with being liked. Research showed that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform
— ISI and NSI working together:often both processes are involved therefore it isn’t always possible to identify which process is at work.
— individual differences in ISI: science and engineering students are less likely to conform.
— research support for NSI: Asch
CONFORMITY: ASCH’S RESEARCH Findings: Asch’s variations:
Aim: to investigate how readily people would conform to the majority in • 75% conformed at least once. • group size: increased group size by adding mo
situations where the answer would be incorrect. • The Asch effect: the extent to which participants with a majority of 3 but not further.
Procedure: 5-7 people in 1 group, one of them being the ‘true participant’ conform even when the situation was ambiguous. • Unanimity: introduced a confederate that disag
while the rest being confederates. Participants were asked to identify • When interviewed after, participants say they was reduced by 25% from when the group was
which of the 3 lines matched the standard line in length. 12 out of the 18 conformed to avoid rejection (normative social • Task difficulty: making the task more difficult b
trials, confederates would say the wrong answer. influence). lines. Conformity increased as a result. ISI plays
— artificial task: behaviour in study cannot be applied to real-life situations as it did not imitate real life conformity.
— limited sample: sample of all males makes for a very androcentric study. Findings cannot be generalisable to women. Women may be more conformist than men because they are m
— ethical issues: participants were told that the study was an eye test. They also thought confederates were genuine participants.
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES: ZIMBARDO’S RESEARCH Findings:
Aim: to investigate whether people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner when placed in a mock prison • guards quickly and readily conformed to their roles as they do
environment. • Prisoners rebelled which only reinforced aggression from gua
Procedure: sample was collected through adverts. Through psychological testing, they chose people who were to as numbers rather than humans. They were emotionally and ph
deemed as ‘emotionally stable’. Roles were randomly assigned to the 10 participants. Prisoners were arrested at • Some had been released early due to the abuse they had end
their homes by local police and taken to mock prison (basement of psychology department). Guards wore uniforms Conclusions: the power of the situation influences a person’s beha
and had equipment such as wooden bats, Hand cuffs and shades. Experiment was stopped after 6 days. within the prison.
+ high internal validity: emotionally stable participants picked through psychological testing — allowed individual personality differences to be ruled out. Therefore differences in behav
— role of dispositional factors: not all guards were brutal and sadistic. Some were supporting and helping prisoners by giving them cigarettes or reinstating privileges. Therefore situation
— ethical issues: participants underwent psychological distress and harm. Zimbardo wasn’t acting as a researcher responsible for the wellbeing of his participants but was acting as a sup
establishment of ethical guidelines.
OBEDIENCE: MILGRAM’S RESEARCH Findings:
Aim: to find out why Germans readily abided by Hitler’s destructive orders and wanted to find out whether they are different by testing Americans. • 65% continue
Procedure: 40 male participants. Participant was always assigned the role of the ‘teacher’ and confederates played the roles of ‘learner’ and ‘experimenter’. The • 0 participants
teacher was told to shock the learner every time they got an answer wrong in a learning task. Shocks became increasingly severe each time (voltage started at 15 • Qualitative da
and went to 450). Experimenter used prods when the teacher seemed uncertain about moving on (“you have no other choice but to continue”). even had seizures.
— low internal validity: can be argues that the participants knew that the shocks weren’t real (demand characteristics). However Sheridan and King conducted a similar study to Milgram’s
males and 100% of females still delivered shocks.
+ high external validity: might seem like it lacks external validity due to lab environment. However milgram argues that the lab environment accurately reflects real-life obedience. A stu
was still very high (22/25 nurses obeyed). Shows that the behaviour seen in Milgram’s study reflects behaviour in real-life situations.
— ethical issues: participants were deceived and qualitative data showed that they had undergone severe stress (one even had a seizure). This deception can be seen as a betrayal of trust
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Proximity: Location:
• reducing distance between teacher and learner reduced levels of obedience. • Milgram conducted a study in a run-down building instead of a
• In baseline study, teacher could hear but not see them. In proximity variation, teacher and learner prestigious university (where baseline study was held)
were in the same room. Obedience dropped from 65% to 40% • Experimenter had less authority this was.
• In the touch condition (teacher forced learners hand on shock plate), obedience dropped to 30%. • Obedience fell to 45%.
• In remote instruction conditions (experimenter gave instructions by phone), obedience fell to 20.5%.
+ research support: Bickman conducted a field experiment with 3 confederates dressed in a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. They stood on the street and
twice as likely to obey the confederate in the security guard uniform than the confederate in the jacket and tie. Supports the idea that uniform conveys authority.
— lack of internal validity: very contrived environment that the participants may have guessed that the situation is fake. Leads to demand characteristics. Decreases validity and questions
+ cross cultural replications: study was done on Spanish students and obedience levels reached 90%. Shows that results are not limited to American males. However can be argued that
OBEDIENCE: SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
Agentic state: a mental state where we feel no responsibility for our behaviour because we believe to be acting for an authority figure. They still feel moral strain but feel powerless.
Autonomous state: when you take responsibility for your own actions and don’t act as an ‘agent’.
Agentic shift: when someone moves from the autonomous state into the agentic state. This occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This person has
greater power as they are higher up in the social hierarchy.
Binding factors: aspects of the situation that allow for someone to stay in the agentic state by ignoring or minimising the damaging effect of their behaviour. This includes shifting
the responsibility to the victim to reduce moral strain.
+ research support: Blass and Schmitt showed a film of Milgram’s study and asked who they felt was responsible for the harm. Students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant because of
legitimate authority and expert authority (he is a scientist).
— limited explanation: does not explain why some participants did not obey. Also does not support Hofling’s study as nurses did not show anxiety, knowing that they were carrying out destructive orders.
OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS Authoritarian characteristics:
The authoritarian personality (Adorno et al) • submissive to those higher than them
CONFORMITY: TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS
Types of conformity: Explanations for con
• Internalisation: permanent form of conformity. Individual accepts majority view as correct (it changes private and public beliefs). • NSI: conforming
• Identification: moderate form of conformity. Individual conforms to be accepted by the majority group. They don’t necessarily agree with the majority. • ISI: conforming
• Compliance: superficial form of conformity. Publically agrees with majority view but privately disagrees
+ research support for ISI: students were given easy and difficult mathematical questions. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when math questions were difficult.
— individual differences in NSI: some people are less concerned with being liked. Research showed that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform
— ISI and NSI working together:often both processes are involved therefore it isn’t always possible to identify which process is at work.
— individual differences in ISI: science and engineering students are less likely to conform.
— research support for NSI: Asch
CONFORMITY: ASCH’S RESEARCH Findings: Asch’s variations:
Aim: to investigate how readily people would conform to the majority in • 75% conformed at least once. • group size: increased group size by adding mo
situations where the answer would be incorrect. • The Asch effect: the extent to which participants with a majority of 3 but not further.
Procedure: 5-7 people in 1 group, one of them being the ‘true participant’ conform even when the situation was ambiguous. • Unanimity: introduced a confederate that disag
while the rest being confederates. Participants were asked to identify • When interviewed after, participants say they was reduced by 25% from when the group was
which of the 3 lines matched the standard line in length. 12 out of the 18 conformed to avoid rejection (normative social • Task difficulty: making the task more difficult b
trials, confederates would say the wrong answer. influence). lines. Conformity increased as a result. ISI plays
— artificial task: behaviour in study cannot be applied to real-life situations as it did not imitate real life conformity.
— limited sample: sample of all males makes for a very androcentric study. Findings cannot be generalisable to women. Women may be more conformist than men because they are m
— ethical issues: participants were told that the study was an eye test. They also thought confederates were genuine participants.
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES: ZIMBARDO’S RESEARCH Findings:
Aim: to investigate whether people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner when placed in a mock prison • guards quickly and readily conformed to their roles as they do
environment. • Prisoners rebelled which only reinforced aggression from gua
Procedure: sample was collected through adverts. Through psychological testing, they chose people who were to as numbers rather than humans. They were emotionally and ph
deemed as ‘emotionally stable’. Roles were randomly assigned to the 10 participants. Prisoners were arrested at • Some had been released early due to the abuse they had end
their homes by local police and taken to mock prison (basement of psychology department). Guards wore uniforms Conclusions: the power of the situation influences a person’s beha
and had equipment such as wooden bats, Hand cuffs and shades. Experiment was stopped after 6 days. within the prison.
+ high internal validity: emotionally stable participants picked through psychological testing — allowed individual personality differences to be ruled out. Therefore differences in behav
— role of dispositional factors: not all guards were brutal and sadistic. Some were supporting and helping prisoners by giving them cigarettes or reinstating privileges. Therefore situation
— ethical issues: participants underwent psychological distress and harm. Zimbardo wasn’t acting as a researcher responsible for the wellbeing of his participants but was acting as a sup
establishment of ethical guidelines.
OBEDIENCE: MILGRAM’S RESEARCH Findings:
Aim: to find out why Germans readily abided by Hitler’s destructive orders and wanted to find out whether they are different by testing Americans. • 65% continue
Procedure: 40 male participants. Participant was always assigned the role of the ‘teacher’ and confederates played the roles of ‘learner’ and ‘experimenter’. The • 0 participants
teacher was told to shock the learner every time they got an answer wrong in a learning task. Shocks became increasingly severe each time (voltage started at 15 • Qualitative da
and went to 450). Experimenter used prods when the teacher seemed uncertain about moving on (“you have no other choice but to continue”). even had seizures.
— low internal validity: can be argues that the participants knew that the shocks weren’t real (demand characteristics). However Sheridan and King conducted a similar study to Milgram’s
males and 100% of females still delivered shocks.
+ high external validity: might seem like it lacks external validity due to lab environment. However milgram argues that the lab environment accurately reflects real-life obedience. A stu
was still very high (22/25 nurses obeyed). Shows that the behaviour seen in Milgram’s study reflects behaviour in real-life situations.
— ethical issues: participants were deceived and qualitative data showed that they had undergone severe stress (one even had a seizure). This deception can be seen as a betrayal of trust
OBEDIENCE: SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Proximity: Location:
• reducing distance between teacher and learner reduced levels of obedience. • Milgram conducted a study in a run-down building instead of a
• In baseline study, teacher could hear but not see them. In proximity variation, teacher and learner prestigious university (where baseline study was held)
were in the same room. Obedience dropped from 65% to 40% • Experimenter had less authority this was.
• In the touch condition (teacher forced learners hand on shock plate), obedience dropped to 30%. • Obedience fell to 45%.
• In remote instruction conditions (experimenter gave instructions by phone), obedience fell to 20.5%.
+ research support: Bickman conducted a field experiment with 3 confederates dressed in a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. They stood on the street and
twice as likely to obey the confederate in the security guard uniform than the confederate in the jacket and tie. Supports the idea that uniform conveys authority.
— lack of internal validity: very contrived environment that the participants may have guessed that the situation is fake. Leads to demand characteristics. Decreases validity and questions
+ cross cultural replications: study was done on Spanish students and obedience levels reached 90%. Shows that results are not limited to American males. However can be argued that
OBEDIENCE: SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
Agentic state: a mental state where we feel no responsibility for our behaviour because we believe to be acting for an authority figure. They still feel moral strain but feel powerless.
Autonomous state: when you take responsibility for your own actions and don’t act as an ‘agent’.
Agentic shift: when someone moves from the autonomous state into the agentic state. This occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This person has
greater power as they are higher up in the social hierarchy.
Binding factors: aspects of the situation that allow for someone to stay in the agentic state by ignoring or minimising the damaging effect of their behaviour. This includes shifting
the responsibility to the victim to reduce moral strain.
+ research support: Blass and Schmitt showed a film of Milgram’s study and asked who they felt was responsible for the harm. Students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant because of
legitimate authority and expert authority (he is a scientist).
— limited explanation: does not explain why some participants did not obey. Also does not support Hofling’s study as nurses did not show anxiety, knowing that they were carrying out destructive orders.
OBEDIENCE: DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS Authoritarian characteristics:
The authoritarian personality (Adorno et al) • submissive to those higher than them
