Paper 1
Social Influence + Memory
, Social influence - conformity- Asch
A person changed their behaviour or opinions as a result or imagined pressure from
another person or a group of people. 1. - Situation and task were artificial
Participants knew they were in a research study ( demand characteristics ).
Aim - to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong Task was trivial - no reason not to conform.
answers. FM - Fiske said that the groups were not ‘very groupy’ and were not like
everyday groups. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalised to everyday
Procedure - 123 american males tested individually sitting last or second to last in a
group of confederates. life.
Conclusion - judgment of individuals affected by majority opinions, even when 2. - Little real world application - beta bias involved (overestimates)
majority are wrong. The research was conducted on men only. We cannot use these results and
generalise them to women. Many have concluded that, women might be
Naive ppts conformed 36.8% of the time
more conformists as they would be more worried about social
25% - never gave a wrong answer relationships and being accepted by others.
FM - cultural bias
75% - conformed at least once The study only represents individualist cultures as it was based on
American men. Collectivistic cultures in China - the conformity rates
Normative social influence - want to be normal and fit in would be much higher.
Variations:
3. + Evidence in support:
1. Group size - varying the confederates in each group between 1 and 15 Lucas et al gave ppts easy and hard maths questions. Found ppts
- 2 confederates - conformity to wrong answer was: 13.6% conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems were hard.
- 3 confederates: conformity rose to 31.8% The situation was ambiguous so they relied on answers given.
- People are very sensitive to opinions of other people.
1. Unanimity - Introduced a dissenting confederate ( gave wrong answers + sometimes right
Ppts given wrong answers from other students - 3.
answers) HW- more complicated than what Asch thought.
- Always disagreed to the majority Lucas - confidence + conformity are related. Asch did not investigate
- With a dissenter the conformity levels reduced on average
- Having a dissenter allowed the naive ppts to behave more independently.
individual factors.
1. Task difficulty - ambiguous task increase - conformity increases as u want to be right.
- Made the stimulus line and comparison line more similar in length. 4. - ethical issues
- Difficult to see differences between the lines.
-
No informed consent given
Conformity increased.
- Situation is more ambiguous - more likely to look for others for guidance and HW - deception required for study to work.
to assume they are right and we are wrong. (ISI)
, Types + explanations of conformity
Types: 1. + Research support for ISI
Lucas et al: found ppts conformed more to incorrect answers when
- Identification maths problems were hard. The situation was ambiguous so they
- ✔public relied on answers given.
- HW - unclear is NSI or ISI is operating in these studies.
❓sometimes private
Dissenter may reduce the power of NSI and ISI. Therefore, it is hard
- Part of group. Not maintained when you leave. Permanent in group. You
to separate and they mostly operate together in real life.
want to be apart of group.
- Compliance 2. + Research support for NSI
- ✔public - Asch found many ppts conformed rather than give the
- ✖not private correct answer. They were afraid of disapproval when
- Opinion stops when not with group. Temporary change in views. To gain answers were written down the conformity level fell to
approval and avoid disapproval. 12.5%. Some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected
- Internalisation by the group.
- ✔public HW - can’t generalise to a wide population - beta bias
- FM - there is individual differences involved.
✔private
- Some people are nAffiliators where they need to relate to
- Group not required and views are maintained even when the group is
others and to please them. McGhee + Teevan - students who
physically not there. Permanent change in views. Accept group norms. are nAffiliators more likely to conform. NSI underlies more
for some people than other.
Explanations:
1. + Both NSI + ISI operate together. Both concepts are useful
- NSI (normative social influence) - need to be liked - gain approval. in explaining conformity.
Don't truly believe. Strangers + friends and anywhere you will face FM - theory of why people conform is holistic
rejection. Linked to compliance. - as it can explain why people conform in both informational
+ normative situations.
- ISI (informational social influence) - need to be right. Task is
ambiguous. Leads to internalisation.
Social Influence + Memory
, Social influence - conformity- Asch
A person changed their behaviour or opinions as a result or imagined pressure from
another person or a group of people. 1. - Situation and task were artificial
Participants knew they were in a research study ( demand characteristics ).
Aim - to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong Task was trivial - no reason not to conform.
answers. FM - Fiske said that the groups were not ‘very groupy’ and were not like
everyday groups. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalised to everyday
Procedure - 123 american males tested individually sitting last or second to last in a
group of confederates. life.
Conclusion - judgment of individuals affected by majority opinions, even when 2. - Little real world application - beta bias involved (overestimates)
majority are wrong. The research was conducted on men only. We cannot use these results and
generalise them to women. Many have concluded that, women might be
Naive ppts conformed 36.8% of the time
more conformists as they would be more worried about social
25% - never gave a wrong answer relationships and being accepted by others.
FM - cultural bias
75% - conformed at least once The study only represents individualist cultures as it was based on
American men. Collectivistic cultures in China - the conformity rates
Normative social influence - want to be normal and fit in would be much higher.
Variations:
3. + Evidence in support:
1. Group size - varying the confederates in each group between 1 and 15 Lucas et al gave ppts easy and hard maths questions. Found ppts
- 2 confederates - conformity to wrong answer was: 13.6% conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems were hard.
- 3 confederates: conformity rose to 31.8% The situation was ambiguous so they relied on answers given.
- People are very sensitive to opinions of other people.
1. Unanimity - Introduced a dissenting confederate ( gave wrong answers + sometimes right
Ppts given wrong answers from other students - 3.
answers) HW- more complicated than what Asch thought.
- Always disagreed to the majority Lucas - confidence + conformity are related. Asch did not investigate
- With a dissenter the conformity levels reduced on average
- Having a dissenter allowed the naive ppts to behave more independently.
individual factors.
1. Task difficulty - ambiguous task increase - conformity increases as u want to be right.
- Made the stimulus line and comparison line more similar in length. 4. - ethical issues
- Difficult to see differences between the lines.
-
No informed consent given
Conformity increased.
- Situation is more ambiguous - more likely to look for others for guidance and HW - deception required for study to work.
to assume they are right and we are wrong. (ISI)
, Types + explanations of conformity
Types: 1. + Research support for ISI
Lucas et al: found ppts conformed more to incorrect answers when
- Identification maths problems were hard. The situation was ambiguous so they
- ✔public relied on answers given.
- HW - unclear is NSI or ISI is operating in these studies.
❓sometimes private
Dissenter may reduce the power of NSI and ISI. Therefore, it is hard
- Part of group. Not maintained when you leave. Permanent in group. You
to separate and they mostly operate together in real life.
want to be apart of group.
- Compliance 2. + Research support for NSI
- ✔public - Asch found many ppts conformed rather than give the
- ✖not private correct answer. They were afraid of disapproval when
- Opinion stops when not with group. Temporary change in views. To gain answers were written down the conformity level fell to
approval and avoid disapproval. 12.5%. Some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected
- Internalisation by the group.
- ✔public HW - can’t generalise to a wide population - beta bias
- FM - there is individual differences involved.
✔private
- Some people are nAffiliators where they need to relate to
- Group not required and views are maintained even when the group is
others and to please them. McGhee + Teevan - students who
physically not there. Permanent change in views. Accept group norms. are nAffiliators more likely to conform. NSI underlies more
for some people than other.
Explanations:
1. + Both NSI + ISI operate together. Both concepts are useful
- NSI (normative social influence) - need to be liked - gain approval. in explaining conformity.
Don't truly believe. Strangers + friends and anywhere you will face FM - theory of why people conform is holistic
rejection. Linked to compliance. - as it can explain why people conform in both informational
+ normative situations.
- ISI (informational social influence) - need to be right. Task is
ambiguous. Leads to internalisation.
