Summary
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AQA SUMMARY NOTES
- Course
- Institution
Covering all A01, A02 and A03 that could possibly come up in your exams!
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Astarpsychstudent
Content preview
Conformity Conformity: Types and explanations Conformity to social roles ObedienceAsch 1951 Baseline procedure: Types of conformity: Zimbardo (1973) Stanford prison experiment: Milgram (1963) Baseline:
Aims: Solomon Asch devised a procedure to measure Internalisation: when a person genuinely accepts group
the extent that people conformed to the opinion of norms, results in a private as well as public change of
others, even in a situation where the answers were opinions/behaviours. Change is usually permanent Procedure: Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the Procedure: Stanley Milgram recruited 40 American
clearly wrong. and persists in the absence of group members because basement of the psychology department at Stanford male ptps supposedly for a study on memory. Each
Findings: Asch found that the naïve ptps conformed attitudes have become how the person thinks University to investigate the effects if social roles on ptp arrived at Milgram’s lab and drew lots for their role. A
36.8% of the time, this shows a high level of conformity (internalised). conformity. confederate (Mr Wallace) was always the learner whilst
when the situation is unambiguous. 21 male student volunteers were involved in the study the ptp was the teacher. An experimenter (another
There were individual differences, 25% of the ptps never – selected by psychological testing that showed them to confederate) wore a lab coat.
gave a wrong answer and 75% conformed atleast once. Identification: when we identify with a group that we be emotionally stable. They were randomly allocated
Asch conducted further studies where he showed that value, we want to become a part of it. Publicly change to the role of guard or prisoner.
certain variables lead to less or more conformity. our opinions/behaviours even if we don’t privately agree. The teacher had to give the learner an increasingly
severe electric shock each time he made a mistake on a
Social roles were encouraged by two routes: task. The shocks increased in 15 volt steps up to 450
Variables investigated: Compliance: involves going along with others in 1. Uniform: prisoners were strip searched, given a volts. The shocks were fake, but the shock machine
public but privately not changing opinions/behaviours. uniform and a number to encourage de-invidualisation. was labelled to make them look increasingly severe. If
Results in a superficial change and the Guards enforced rules and had own uniform eg cuffs. the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter gave a
1. Group size: Asch varied the number of confederates opinion/behaviour stops as soon as group pressure 2. Instructions about behaviour: prisoners were told verbal prod to continue.
in each group between 1 and 15. The relationship does. they could not leave but would have to ask for parole.
between group size and level of conformity was Guards were told they had complete power over
curvilinear. If there were two confederates, conformity to prisoners. Key findings: 12.5% (5 ptps) stopped at 300 volts.
the wrong answer was 13.6%. When there were three Explanations for conformity: 65% continued to 450 volts. Ptps showed signs of
confederates conformity rose to 31.8%. Above three Informational social influence (ISI): ISI is a cognitive extreme tension, three had full blown uncontrollable
confederates, conformity rates levelled off. Adding more process – about information and the desire to be Findings and conclusions: the guards played their seizures.
than three confederates made little difference. right. ISI leads to internalisation. Occurs in situations roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly.
People are very sensitive to other people’s opinions which are new or where there is ambiguity. May The prisoners rebelled within two days – they ripped
because one confederate was enough to sway happen when decisions have to be made quickly when their uniforms, shouted, and swore at the guards. The Other findings: Before the study, Milgram asked 14
opinions. we assume the group is likely to be right. guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed psychology students to predict how they thought the
the prisoners – reminder of the powerless role. naïve ptps would respond. The students estimated that
no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts.
2. Unanimity: Asch introduced a dissenting Normative social influence (NSI): NSI is an emotional After the study, ptps were debriefed. Follow up
confederate, varying in correct and incorrect answers. In process where people prefer social approval rather The guard’s behaviour threatened the prisoners questionnaires showed 84% were glad they had
the presence of a dissenter, conformity reduced on then rejection. NSI leads to compliance. NSI concerns psychological and physical health. participated.
average to less than a quarter of the level it was when what is normal behaviour for a social group and is 1. after the rebellion was put down, the prisoners
the majority was unanimous. Conformity reduced if the most likely to occur in situations where you do not know became subdued, anxious, and depressed.
dissenter gave the right or wrong answer. Having a the norms and look to others on how to behave. Occurs 2. three prisoners were released early because they Conclusions: We obey legitimate authority even if that
dissenter allowed the ptps to behave more in situations with strangers if you don’t want to be showed signs of psychological disturbance. means that our behaviour causes harm to someone
independently. rejected or with people we known when we are 3. one prisoner went on hunger strike, the guards else. Certain situational factors encourage obedience.
concerned about social approval. More pronounced in attempted to force-feed him and punished him by putting Like war scenarios.
stressful situations where people have a need for him in the hole.
3. Task difficulty: Asch made the line-judging task social support. The study was stopped after 6 days instead of the
harder by making the stimulus and comparison lines planned 14 days.
more similar in length. It was difficult to see differences
between the lines. Conformity increased. Situation is
more ambiguous so we are more likely to look to Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour –
others for guidance and to assume they are right most conformed strongly to their role. Guards
and we are wrong = Informational social influence became brutal, prisoners became submissive. Other
volunteers also conformed eg chaplain.
Asch 1951 Baseline procedure: 123 American male Sherif 1935: aimed to investigate if people will conform Perry 2013: analysed Milgram’s research archive of
ptps were tested individually, sitting last or next to last in to a group or ambiguous task. Ptps were asked how far tape recordings. She found that the experimenter
a group of 6-8 confederates. They were shown two large along the dots of lights had moved. They were asked frequently went off script eg varying the wording of the
cards, one was a standard line and on the other were twice, alone and in a group. When ptps were asked four prods and using them excessively. Ptps often
three comparison lines. alone the first time they would change their answer the voiced their suspicions about the shocks.
There were 18 trials involving different pairs of cards, second time to fit in the group. Shows ISI as when ptp
only 12 of these trials the confederates all gave the was unsure they went along with the group. Also shows
same clearly wrong answer. internalisation
- Artificial tasks and situations: Ptps knew they were + Evidence to support NSI: Asch found that ptps + Control over key variables: Emotionally stable ptps + Replications as evidence to support: In a French
in a research study (demand characteristics). The task conformed rather then give the correct answer because were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of TV documentary, contestants were paid to give fake
was trivial and there was no reason not to conform. they were afraid of disapproval. When ptps wrote down guards or prisoners. The guards and prisoners had electric shocks when ordered to by the presenter to
, Fiske 2014 argued that Asch’s groups were not like answers with no normative pressure, conformity rose to those roles only by chance, so their behaviour was other ptps. 80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an
real life groups. This means that the findings do not 12.5%. This shows that at least some conformity is due due to the role itself and not their personalities. This apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like
generalise to everyday life. to a desire not to be rejected by the group for control increased the study’s validity so we have more that of Milgram’s ptps eg signs of anxiety. Supports
disagreeing with them. confidence drawing conclusions about the effect of Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority.
social roles on conformity.
- Little application: Only American men were tested by - Lacked realism of a true prison: Banuazizi and
Asch. Neto 1995 suggested that women might be + Evidence to support ISI: Lucas et al found ptps Mohavedi (1975) suggested ptps were play acting. Their - Lacked internal validity: Orne and Holland argued
more conformist, possibly because they are more conformed more to incorrect answers when maths performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners that ptps guessed the electric shocks were fake, so
concerned about social relationships. The US in an problems were difficult. For hard problems the situation and guards are expected to behave. One guard based they were play acting. This was supported by Perry’s
individualistic culture and studies in collectivist was ambiguous, so they relied on the answers they were his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke. discovery that only half the ptps believed the shocks
cultures eg Bond and Smith 1996 have found higher given. This supports ISI because the results are what ISI Prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what real were real. This suggests that ptps may have been
conformity rates. Means that Asch’s findings tells us would predict. prisoners did. This suggests that the SPE tells us little responding to demand characteristics.
little about conformity in women and people in some CA: It is unclear if NSI or ISI operates in studies and real about conformity to social roles in actual prisons. CA: Sheridan and King (1972) ptps gave real shocks to
cultures. life. A dissenter may reduce the power of NSI, therefore CA: Ptps behaved as if the prison was real, 90% of a puppy, 54% of males and 100% of females
ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in conversations about prison life, Prisoner 416 delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. This
most real-life situations. believed it was a prison run by psychologists. This suggests the obedience in Milgram’s study may be
+ Evidence to support: Lucas et al 2006 asked ptps to suggests that the SPE replicated the roles of guards and genuine.
solve easy and hard problems. Ptps were given answers prisoners just as in a real prison, increasing internal
that falsely claimed to be from the other three students. - Individual differences in NSI: Some people are validity.
Ptps conformed more often when the problems were concerned about being liked by others – nAffiliators who - Findings are not due to blind obedience: Haslam et
harder. Shows Asch was correct that task difficulty is have a strong need for affiliation (relation to other al (2014) found that every ptp given the first three
one variable affecting conformity. people). McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students - Zimbardo exaggerated the power roles: The power prods obeyed the experimenter but those given the
CA: conformity is more complex then Asch thought. who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. This of social roles to influence behaviour may have been fourth prod disobeyed. According to Social Identity
Lucas et al showed that conformity was related to shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more exaggerated in the SPE. Only 1/3 of guards behaved theory, the first three prods required identification with
confidence (high confidence = less conformity). Shows than others, an individual difference cannot be explained brutally. Another 1/3 applied the rules fairly. The rest the science of the research, but the fourth prod required
that individual-level factors interact with situational by a theory of situational pressures. supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes blind obedience. This shows that the finding is best
ones. Asch did not investigate these individual factors. and reinstating privileges. Suggests the SPE explained in terms of identification with scientific
overstates the view that the guards were conforming to aims and not as blind obedience to authority.
Is the NSI/ISI distinction useful? Lucas et al’s study brutal roles and minimised dispositional influences.
Ethics: Asch’s research increased our knowledge of shows that the NSI/ISI distinction may not be useful
why people conform, which may help avoid mindless because it is impossible to work out which is operating. Ethics: Ptps in this study were deceived eg they thought
destructive conformity. When ptps are deceived they However, Asch’s research supports both NSI and ISI. Alternative explanation: Zimbardo claimed ptps the shocks were real. Milgram delt with this by debriefing
cannot give their informed consent to take part and Therefore both overall concepts are useful because they naturally took on their social roles. However, this doesn’t ptps. Baumrind (1964) felt this deception could have
they may have a negative experience. We might argue can be identified and used to explain the reasons for explain those guards who were not brutal. Social Identity serious consequences for ptps and researchers as there
that the research was justified because there are a wide conformity in study’s and real-world situations. theory argues only those who identify with the role of the was no informed consent possible. Therefore, research
range of potential application and the stress caused was guard conform. Shows that it is possible to resist can damage the reputations of psychologists and their
minimal. situational pressures to conform, as long as they don’t research in the eyes of the public.
identify with the role.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Astarpsychstudent. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.73. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now