psychology: social influence

types of conformity
• Herbert Kelman (1958) suggested that there are three ways
in which people conform to the opinion of a majority:
 internalisation
• a person genuinely accepts the group norms
• results in a public as well as private change of
opinion/behaviour
• this change is permanent
• the attitudes have become internalised (become part of the
way the person thinks)
• occurs even in the absence of other group members
 identification
• we conform to the opinions/behaviours of a group because
we value something about that group
• we identify with the group, so we want to be part of it
• this may mean we publicly and privately change our
opinions/behaviours, but only while the group is present
• we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for
 compliance
• simply 'going along with others' in public
• privately not changing personal opinions/behaviours
• results in only a superficial change
• as soon as the group pressure stops, the behaviour or opinion
stops
 explanations for conformity
• Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955) developed a two-
process theory, arguing that there are two main reasons
people conform
• They are based on two central human needs:
• the need to be right (ISI)
• the need to be liked (NSI)
 informational social influence (ISI)
 need to be right
 cognitive process because it is to do with what you think
 about who has better information
 we are uncertain about what behaviours or beliefs are right or wrong
 we just accept others’ answers because we feel they are most likely right
 most likely to happen in:
 new situations - when we don’t know what is right
 ambiguous situation - when it’s not clear as to what is right
 crisis situations - when quick decision need to be made
 when a person (or group) is regarded as more of an expert
 normative social influence (NSI)
 need to be liked
 emotional process
 about social norms (regulated the behaviour of groups and individuals) - what is normal or typical
behaviour for a social group
 norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals, so it is not surprising that we pay
attention to them
 we don’t want to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected
 most likely to happen in:
 situations with strangers - when we feel concerned about rejection
 situations with friends - when we feel concerned about social approval
 stressful situations - where people have a greater need for social support
 evaluation - research support for ISI
P: One strength of the explanations for conformity of ISI is that there is supportive research.
E: For example, Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that
were easy or more difficult. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were
difficult rather than when they were easier ones. This was truer still for students who rated their
mathematical ability as poor.
E: This study shows that people conform in situations where they feel they don't know the answer to
a question and feel that someone else knows more than them and has more information than them.
We look to them because we assume they know better than us and therefore must be right.
L: As a result, this strengthens the credibility of ISI as an explanation for why people conform.
 evaluation - individual differences in NSI
P: One weakness of NSI is that it ignores individual differences, as NSI does not affect everyone's
behaviour in the same way.
E: For example, McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation were more
likely to conform. They concluded that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people
more than others.
E: This is a weakness because NSI generalises conformity and explains that everyone will conform
because of the need to be liked. But NSI fails to recognise that there are some people who are less
concerned about being liked are less affected by NSI than those who care more about being like.
They are known as nAffiliators. These people have greater need for 'affiliation'- being in a
relationship with others- they were likely to conform. This shows that the desire to be liked underlies
conformity for some people more than others.
L: Consequently, the credibility of NSI as an explanation for why people conform is reduced.
 evaluation - ISI and NSI work together
• The idea of Deutsch and Gerrard’s ‘two-process’ approach is that behaviour is
either due to NSI or ISI. But the truth is that, more often, both processes are
involved. For example, conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting
pp in the Asch experiment (see the next spread). This dissenter may reduce the
power of NSI (because the dissenter provides social support) or may reduce the
power of ISI (because there is an alternative source of information).
• This shows that it isn’t always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work.
This is the case in lab studies, but is even truer in real-life conformity situations
outside the lab. This casts serious doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two
processes operating independently in conforming behaviour.
 evaluation - Individual differences in ISI
• As with NSI (above), ISI does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way.
For example, Asch (1955) found that students were less conformist (28%) than
other pps (37%). Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted a study involving science
and engineering students and found very little conformity (details on the next
spread).
• Consider: Explain why such individual differences are a limitation of the ISI
explanation.
 evaluation - research support for NSI
• P: One strength of NSI as an explanation for conformity is that there is empirical research to
support it.

• E: For example, Asch (1951) found that many of his pps went along with a clearly wrong answer
just because other people did. When asked why they did this, the pps said they felt self-conscious
about giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When Asch repeated the
study but asked pps to write down their answers, instead of saying them out loud, conformity rates
fell to 12.5%

• E: This is a strength because it shows people were more prepared to give the wrong answer just to
be liked, rather than to give the correct answer just to be right, as suggested by NSI.

• L: Therefore, the credibility of NSI as an explanation for conformity is increased.

 procedure
• researcher/s: Solomon Asch (1951, 1955)
• aim: to investigate whether pps would feel pressured into conforming in an unambiguous situation
• sample: 123 American male undergraduates
• pps were shown 2 white cards, 1 with a standard line and 1 with 3 comparison line and were asked to match
the standard line with 1 of the 3 comparison lines (unambiguous - clear answer)
• each naïve pp was tested individually with a group of between six and eight confederates and were not
aware that the others were confederates
• on the first few trials all the confederates gave the right answers but then they started making errors
• all the confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer
• altogether each pp took part in 18 trials and on 12 ‘critical trials’ the confederates gave the wrong answer
(a trial was one occasion identifying the length of a standard line)
 findings
• the naïve pp gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time
• overall 25% of the pps did not conform on any trials
• 75% conformed at least once
• Asch effect - the extent to which pps conform even when the situation is unambiguous
• when pps were interviewed afterwards most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
• interviewed pps after the experiment to find out why they conformed - pps said that they
knew their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in,
or they thought they would be ridiculed - this confirms that pps conformed due to NSI and
the desire to fit in
 asch’s variations
Asch was further interested in the conditions that might lead
to an increase or a decrease in conformity - investigated these
by carrying out some variations of his original procedure
1. group size
2. unanimity
3. task difficulty
 asch’s variations: group size
• conformity was only 3% when there was one confederate
• conformity was 13% when there were two confederates
• with three confederates - conformity increased to 31.8% -
didn’t increase much beyond this regardless of the number of
confederates
• 4 = optimal group size - conformity does not seem to increase
in groups larger than four
 asch’s variations: unanimity
• a person is more likely to conform when all members of the group agree and give the same
answer
• Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others - sometimes the new confederate
gave the correct answer and sometimes he gave the wrong one
• presence of a dissenting confederate - conformity reduced by a quarter from the level it was
when the majority was unanimous
• the presence of a dissenter enabled the naïve participant to behave more independently
• influence of the majority depends on the group being unanimous
• even the presence of one confederate who goes against the majority choice – reduced
conformity to as much as 5.5%
 asch’s variations: task difficulty
• made line-judging task more difficult by making the stimulus
line and the comparison lines more similar in length
• conformity increased under these conditions
• ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder
• situation is more ambiguous - we are more likely to look to
other people for guidance and to assume that they are right,
and we are wrong
 evaluation: a child of its time
• P: One weakness of Asch’s study is that it lacks temporal validity.

• E: For example, Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s original study with engineering students in the UK.
Only one student conformed in a total of 396 trials.

• E: It may be that the engineering students felt more confident about measuring lines than the original sample
and therefore were less conformist.

• E: This is an issue because it may be that in the 1950s (when Asch conducted his research) it was more
conformist time in America, and so conforming made sense to establish social norms. However, nowadays
we live a much less conformist society where we are more readily encouraged to be independent and
individual.

• L: As a result this questions the credibility of Asch’s research and it’s applicability to the modern day.
 evaluation: artificial situation and task
• P: A weakness of Asch’s study is that it lacks ecological validity.

• E: For example, Asch’s research was conducted in an artificial setting, whereby not only were pps aware that
they were being studied and may have shown demand characteristics, the groups they were in and the task
they were doing was not that in nature of an everyday task and trivial.

• E: This is an issue because the findings do not generalise to everyday situations, especially when the
consequences of conformity might be more important, and when we interact with other people in groups in a
much more direct way.

• L: Therefore as a result, the validity of Asch’s research is compromised, and the overall credibility is
reduced.
 evaluation: limited application of findings
• P: A weakness of Asch’s research is that there is gender bias.

• E: For example, in Asch’s study only men were used (not women). Other research suggests that women
might be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships (and being
accepted) than men are (Neto 1995).

• E: This is an issue because the findings of Asch’s study cannot be generalised to women. It is widely
believed that women may respond to conformity differently to men, and that they might be more conformist
as they are more concerned about social relationships (and being accepted) than men are.

• L: As a result, the credibility of Asch’s research into conformity is weakened.

 evaluation: limited application of findings
• P: A weakness of Asch’s research is that there is cultural bias.

• E: For example, Bond and Smith (1996) conducted studies in China and found that conformity rates are
higher. This makes sense because such cultures are more oriented to group needs.

• E: This is an issue because the findings of Asch’s study cannot be generalised to all cultures. Asch’s study
was done in United States, an individualist culture i.e. where people are more concerned about themselves
rather than their social group. However, other research makes it clear that collectivist cultures are more
conformist as the social group is more important than the individual.

• L: As a result, the credibility of Asch’s research into conformity is weakened.

 evaluation: findings only apply to certain
situations
• The fact that pps had to answer out loud and were with a group of strangers who they wanted to impress
might mean that conformity was higher than usual. On the other hand, Williams and Sogon (1984) found
conformity was actually higher when the majority of the group were friends than when they were strangers.

• Consider: Why do you think conformity might be higher in a group of friends rather than strangers? Is it
possible that conformity changes from situation to situation? Explain why this is a serious limitation of
Asch’s studies.
 evaluation: a child of its time
• The naïve pps were deceived because they thought the other people involved in the procedure (the
confederates) were also genuine pps like themselves. However, it is worth bearing in mind that this ethical
cost should be weighed up against the benefits gained from the study.

• Consider: Why is this a limitation of the study? What do you think the Benefits of the study were? On
balance, do you think they outweighed the ethical issues or not? Explain your answer.
 the stanford prison experiment (SPE)
 following reports of brutality by guards in prisons across
America in the late 1960s, Philip Zimbardo and his
colleagues wanted to answer this question - do prison
guards behave brutally because they have sadistic
personalities, or is it the situation that creates such
behaviour?
 procedure
 researcher/s: Philip Zimbardo (1960s)
 aim:
 sample:
 set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford university (Haney et al. 1973)
 advertised for students willing to volunteer and selected those who were deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after extensive psychological
testing
 students were randomly assigned the roles of guards or prisoners
 ‘prisoners’ were arrested in their homes by the local police - delivered to the ‘prison’
 blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a uniform and number (names were never used) (deindividuation)
 social roles of the prisoners and the guards were strictly divided
 prisoners’ daily routines were heavily regulated - 16 rules - enforced by the guards who worked in shifts, three at a time
 guards - to underline their role - had their own uniform, complete with wooden club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades (prevented
anyone from seeing their eyes or reading their emotions - increased anonymity)
 told they had complete power over the prisoners, for instance even deciding when they could go to the toilet
 findings
 after a slow start to the simulation, the guards took up their roles with enthusiasm
 their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health, and the study was stopped after six days instead of the
intended 14
 within two days, the prisoners rebelled against their harsh treatment by the guards
 they ripped their uniforms, and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers
 the guards employed ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other
 they harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them they were being monitored all the time - e.g. they conducted frequent headcounts,
sometimes in the middle of the night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers
 the guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating plenty of opportunities to enforce the rules and punish even the smallest
misdemeanour
 after their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
 one prisoner was released on the first day because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance
 two more were released on the fourth day. one prisoner went on a hunger strike - the guards attempted to force-feed him and then punished
him by putting him in ‘the hole’, a tiny dark closet - instead of being considered a hero, he was shunned by the other prisoners
 the guards identified more and more closely with their role - their behaviour became more brutal and aggressive, with some of them
appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners
 conclusions
 simulation revealed the power of the situation to influence
people’s behaviour
 guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles
within the prison
 roles were very easily taken on by the pps - even volunteers
who came in to perform certain functions (e.g. ‘prison
chaplain’) - behaved as if they were in a prison rather than in a
psychological study
 Evaluation: control
 A strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had some control over
variables. The most obvious example of this was the selection of pps.
Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles
of guard and prisoner. This was one way in which the researchers tried to rule
out individual personality differences as an explanation of the ¬findings. If
guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by
chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the pressures of the situation.
 Having such control over variables is a strength because it increases the internal
validity of the study. So we can be much more con¬ dent in drawing conclusions
about the influence of roles on behaviour.
 Evaluation: Lack of realism
 Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued the pps were merely play-acting rather than
genuinely conforming to a role. Their performances were based on their stereotypes of
how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. For example, one of the guards
claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the ¬film Cool Hand Luke. This
would also explain why the prisoners rioted - because they thought that was what real
prisoners did.
 But Zimbardo pointed to evidence that the situation was very real to the pps. Quantitative
data gathered during the procedure showed that 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were
about prison life. ‘Prisoner 416’ expressed the view that the prison was a real one, but run
by psychologists rather than the government. On balance, it seems that the situation was
real to the pps, which gives the study a high degree of internal validity.
 Evaluation: Role of dispositional influences
 Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to
influence behaviour, and minimising the role of personality factors (dispositional
influences). For example, only a minority of the guards (about a third) behaved
in a brutal manner. Another third were keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest
actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering
them cigarettes and reinstating privileges (Zimbardo 2007).
 This suggests that Zimbardo’s conclusion - that pps were conforming to social
roles - may be over-stated. The differences in the guards’ behaviour indicate that
they were able to exercise right and wrong choices, despite the situational
pressures to conform to a role.
 Evaluation: Lack of research support
 Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam’s (2006) partial replication of the Stanford prison
experiment was broadcast on BBC TV, so has become known as the BBC prison
study. Their ¬findings were very different to those of Zimbardo and his colleagues. It
was the prisoners who eventually took control of the mock prison and subjected the
guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience. The researchers used social
identity theory (SIT - Tajfel 1981) to explain this outcome. They argued that the
guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group, but the prisoners
did. They actively identi¬fied themselves as members of a social group that refused to
accept the limits of their assigned role as prisoners.
 Consider: Explain why this ¬finding challenges Zimbardo’s conclusions about
conformity to social roles.
 Evaluation: Ethical issues
 A major ethical issue arose because of Zimbardo’s dual roles in the
study. For example, on one occasion a student who wanted to leave
the study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as superintendent. The whole
conversation was conducted on the basis that the student was a
prisoner in a prison, asking to be ‘released’. Zimbardo responded to
him as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather
than as a researcher with responsibilities towards his pps.
 Consider: Explain why this is an ethical limitation of the Stanford
prison study.
 milgram’s original obedience study
• obedience - a form of social influence in which an individual follows a
direct order - the person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority,
who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming
• Stanley Milgram (1963) sought an answer to the question of why the
German population had followed the orders of Hitler and slaughtered
over 10 million Jews, Gypsies and members of other social groups in the
Holocaust during the Second World War. He wanted to know if Germans
were different – were they more obedient? He began his research by
establishing a method to study obedience. His rst, original study is the
one against which all the others (‘variations’) are compared, which is why
it is sometimes called the ‘baseline’ study
 procedure
• Milgram recruited 40 male participants through newspaper adverts and yers in the post. The ad said he was looking
for participants for a study about memory. The participants recruited were aged between 20 and 50 years, and their
jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. They were offered $4.50 to take part (this was a reasonable amount of
money in the early 1960s). When participants arrived at Milgram’s lab they were paid the money at the outset and
there was a rigged draw for their role. A confederate, ‘Mr. Wallace’, always ended up as the ‘learner’ while the true
participant was the ‘teacher’. There was also an ‘experimenter’ (another confederate) dressed in a lab coat, played by
an actor. Participants were told they could leave the study at any time. The learner was strapped in a chair in another
room and wired with electrodes. The teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock
each time the learner made a mistake on a learning task (the task involved learning word pairs). The shocks were
demonstrated to the teacher. Thereafter the shocks were not real. The shock level started at 15 (labelled ‘slight
shock’ on the shock machine) and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts (labelled ‘danger – severe shock’). When the
teacher got to 300 volts (‘intense shock’) the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next
question. After the 315-volt shock the learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no further
response from the learner. When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, the experimenter gave a
standard instruction: ‘An absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer’. If the teacher felt unsure about
continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of four standard ‘prods’, which were repeated if necessary: Prod 1 –
‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on.’ Prod 2 – ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’ Prod 3 – ‘It is absolutely
essential that you continue.’ Prod 4 – ‘You have no other choice, you must go on.’
 findings
• No participants stopped below 300 volts, 12.5% ( ve participants) stopped at
300 volts (‘intense shock’), 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts.
Qualitative data were also collected, such as observations that the
participants showed signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to
‘sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their ngernails into
their hands’. Three even had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’. Prior to the
study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants’
behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants
would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the ndings were not expected.
All participants were debriefed, and assured that their behaviour was
entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire; 84%
reported that they felt glad to have participated.
 Evaluation – low internal validitiy
• Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved the way they did
because they didn’t really believe in the set up – they guessed it wasn’t real
electric shocks. In which case Milgram was not testing what he intended to
test, i.e. the study lacked internal validity. Gina Perry’s (2013) recent research
con rms this. She listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that
many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks. However, Sheridan
and King (1972) conducted a similar study where real shocks were given to a
puppy. Despite the real shocks, 54% of the male student participants and
100% of the females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. This
suggests that the effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because people
behaved the same way with real shocks. Milgram himself reported that 70%
of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine.
 Evaluation – high external validity
• Milgram’s study may at rst glance appear to lack external validity because
it was conducted in a lab. However, the central feature of this situation
was the relationship between the authority gure (the experimenter) and
the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately re
ected wider authority relationships in real life. Other research supports
this argument. For example, Ho ing et al. (1966) studied nurses on a
hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjusti ed demands by
doctors were very high (with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying). This suggests
that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s
lab study can be generalised to other situations. So his ndings do have
something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
 Evaluation – supporting replication
• Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death) is a documentary about reality TV,
presented on French television in 2010. It includes a replication of Milgram’s
study. The participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for
a new game show called La Zone Xtrême. They were paid to give (fake)
electric shocks – when ordered by the presenter – to other participants, who
were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience. In a remarkable con
rmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the
maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their
behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous
laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety. This replication supports
Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority, and
demonstrates that his ndings were not just a one-off chance occurrence.
 Evaluation – alternative research
• According to social identity theory the key to obedience lies in group identi
cation. In Milgram’s study, participants identi ed with the experimenter – they
identi ed with the science of the study. When obedience levels fell, this was
because the participants identi ed less with the science and more with the victim
or with another group. Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher (2012) analysed the
behaviour of the participants in Milgram’s study. They looked at how a person
behaved every time one of the four prods was used. The rst three prods don’t
demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science (e.g. ‘The experiment
requires that you continue’). The 4th prod demands obedience (‘You have no
other choice, you must go on’). Every time the 4th prod was used, the
participant quit. Consider: According to SIT, why did Milgram’s participants obey?
Explain why this is a limitation of Milgram’s conclusions about authority.
 Evaluation – ethical issues
• Diana Baumrind (1964) was very critical of the ways Milgram deceived
his participants. Milgram led participants to believe that the allocation
of roles as ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ was random, but in fact it was xed.
Perhaps the most signi cant deception involved the participants
believing the electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected because
she saw deception as a betrayal of trust that could damage the
reputation of psychologists and their research. Consider: Why else is
deception undesirable in psychological research? For example, what
other knock-on effects does it have for the participant?