1. Social Influence (Conformity)

Question 1

What is conformity?

Answer 1

A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

Question 2

Who suggested the types of conformity?

Answer 2

Kelman (1958)

Question 3

What are the 3 types of conformity?

Answer 3

1. Internalisation
2. Identification
3. Compliance

Question 4

What is internalisation?

Answer 4

• When a person genuinely accepts the groups norms.
• There is a change in both their public and private opinions/behaviour.
• This change is usually permanent as attitudes become internalised and exists even when group members are absent

Question 5

What is identification?

Answer 5

• When a person conforms because they value the qualities of a group, so want to be part of it
• May mean the person publicly agrees with the group but does not privately

Question 6

What is compliance?

Answer 6

• When a person conforms to go along with others in the group, resulting in a superficial change
• May publicly agree with others in the group, but will not personally change personal beliefs/opinions
• This change in behaviour stops as soon as group pressure stops

Question 7

Who suggested the explanations for conformity?

Answer 7

Deutsch and Gerad (1955)

Question 8

What are the 2 explanations for conformity?

Answer 8

• ISI (Informational): where we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct, we accept it as we want to be correct as well (cognitive)
• NSI (Normative): When we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked (emotional)

Question 9

AO3 for types and explanations of conformity

Answer 9

• Research support for NSI: when Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer, fear of disapproval, when answers written down conformity fell to 12.5% as there was no normative group pressure
• Research support for ISI: Lucas et al (2006) found participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when maths questions more difficult, when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous and participants did not want to be wrong so relied on given answers
• Individual differences in NSI: NSI does not predict conformity in every case, nAfilliators - have a strong need for affiliation (to be relate to others), McGhee and Tavern (1967) found nAfilliators more likely to conform, differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory

Question 10

Describe Aschs baseline study

Answer 10

• Aimed to asses the extent that people will conform to the opinions of others even in a situation where the answer is certain
• Participants were 123 american men
• Tasked to match a standard line to the correct comparison line
• 1 naive participant was placed in a group with 7 confederates where they gave the wrong answer on 12 trials out of 18

Question 11

What were the findings of Aschs study?

Answer 11

• The genuine participants agreed with the incorrect answer 36.8% of the time
• 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer

Question 12

What were the 3 variables investigated by Asch?

Answer 12

• Group size: Asch varied the number of confederates from 1 to 25, changing the size of the majority
• Unanimity: Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others who either gave the correct answer or a different wrong one
• Task difficulty: Asch increased the difficulty by making the stimulus and comparison lines more similar in length

Question 13

What were the findings of the 3 variables investigated by Asch?

Answer 13

• Group size: conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point. With 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but presence of more made little difference
• Unanimity: The genuine participant conformed less in the presence of a dissenter, the rate decreased to a quarter level than when majority was unanimous, presence of dissenter freed participant to act independently
• Task difficulty: as it became harder for participants to see difference between lines, conformity increased

Question 14

AO3 for Aschs research

Answer 14

• Artificial task and situation: participants aware of study so simple went along with what expected (demand characteristics), the task was trivial so no reason not to conform, Fiske (2014) - ‘Aschs groups were not very groupy’, do not resemble everyday groups, difficulty generalising
• Limited application: participants were american men, research e.g Neto (1995) suggests women more conformist as more concerned about social relationships/acceptance, US is a individualist culture (people more concerned about themselves rather than social groups), other studies show collectivist cultures e.g China have higher conformity rates, Aschs findings tell us little about women/other cultures
• Research support: support for effects of task difficulty, Lucas et al (2006) asked participants to solve range of maths problems, participants given answers from 3 confederates, participants conformed more when questions were harder, therefore Aschs claims were correct
  However, Lucas et al found that conformity is more complex, participants with high confidence in their abilities conformed less compared to others, shows individual level factors can influence conformity

Question 15

What was the aim of Zimbardos research?

Answer 15

Zimbardo wanted to examine whether situational factors e.g social roles or dispositional factors e.g sadism had more of an impact on human behaviour

Question 16

Describe Zimbardos research

Answer 16

• Selected 21 male volunteers who tested as ‘emotionally stable’
• Each participant randomly assigned role of guard or prisoner and were encouraged to conform to roles
• Guards reminded they had complete power over prisoners
• Prisoners were identified by number (led to de-inviduation ie. loss of personal identity) whereas guards had their own uniform, wooden club and handcuffs

Question 17

What were the findings of Zimbardos research?

Answer 17

• Guards accepted roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly and creating opportunities to enforce rules
• Within 2 days, the prisoners rebelled and after became subdued and depressed
• Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days rather than 14

Question 18

AO3 for Zimbardos study

Answer 18

• Control: control over key variables e.g participants, emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned roles, ruled out individual differences, therefore behaviour must have been due to role, increases internal validity, more confidence when drawing conclusions
• Lack of realism: did not represent a true prison, Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) agrued participants merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming, performance based on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards supposed to interact e.g a guard claims he based his role on a character from ‘Cool Hand Luke’, findings tell us little about real situations
  However, McDermott (2019) argued participants did behave as prison was real,90% of conversations were about prison life, ‘Prisoner 416’ later explained he believed the prison was real but run by psychologists rather than the government
• Exaggerates the power of roles: only 1/3 of guards behaved in a brutal manner, another third tried to apply rules fairly, actively tried to support and help the prisoners, they sympathized and reinstated privileges, most guards were able to resist situational pressures, Zimbardos view is overstated and minimises dispositional factors