social influence Flashcards
what was asch’s aim
too see what people what extend other conform to the opinions of everyone
what are the 3 variable of asch’s theory
1) group size
2) unaminity
3) task difficulty
asch’s group size variable
asch wanted to know whether the size of the grp would be more important than the agreement of the group
group size
procedure and results
asch tested this
he varied the total number of confederated from 1-15.
He found a curvilinear relationship between group sixe and conformity
asch’s unanimity variable
asch wanted to see if the presence of non - conforming person would affect the naive participant’s conformity
asch’s unanimity
procedure and results
he introduced a new confederate who disagreed with other confederates.
so in one variation the new confederate gave the correct answer and in other variation, the new confederate gave a different wrong answer
the rate decreased to less than a quarter of its level
asch’s task difficulty
asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect the degree of conformity
unanimity procedure and results
he increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the stimulus line and the comparison line more similar too each other, by making it harder for the participant to see.
asch found the conformity has increased
evaluation of asch
limitation
one limitation of asch’s research is that the task and situation were artificial.
participant knew were they in a research study and may simply have went along with what was expected (demand characteristic)
Asch’s participant were american men , other research suggests that women may be more conformist as they are more scared about social relationship
what are the types of conformity
internalisation - when a person geniunely accepts the group norms. resuling in a private aswell as a public change of opinion
identification - we conform to opinions of a group because there is something we value about the group. we publicaly change our opinions to beaccpeted by the group but dont privately agree with everything the group stands for.
compliance - going along with others in public but not changing personal opinions and belief
evaluations for types and explanations of conformity
+ Supporting research for types of conformity
Research by Kelman (1958) supports the distinction between compliance, identification, and internalisation. For example, compliance involves public but not private agreement, as shown in Asch’s line study, where participants conformed to the majority view publicly but admitted in interviews that they knew the group was wrong. This supports the idea that different types of conformity reflect different levels of agreement.
ISI and NSI have research support but often overlap
Both informational social influence (ISI) and normative social influence (NSI) have empirical support. For example, Lucas et al. (2006) found more conformity on harder maths problems (supporting ISI). Meanwhile, Asch (1951) showed people conform to avoid disapproval (supporting NSI). However, it’s difficult to separate them clearly in real-life situations—they often operate together, which questions their validity as distinct explanations.
Individual differences and cultural bias
Conformity explanations may lack universality. Research (e.g. Perrin and Spencer, 1980) found British engineering students conformed far less than in Asch’s original study, suggesting individual or cultural factors (e.g. collectivism vs. individualism) play a role. This limits the generalisability of ISI/NSI as universal explanations of conformity.
conforming to social roles
Conforming to social roles means adapting behaviour to fit those expectations, even if it contradicts personal values.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Aim:
To investigate how people conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a simulated prison environment.
Procedure:
24 emotionally stable male volunteers randomly assigned roles of prisoner or guard. Mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford University. Prisoners were arrested at home, blindfolded, strip-searched, and given uniforms and numbers. Guards were given uniforms, wooden clubs, handcuffs, and reflective sunglasses to de-individualise them. Zimbardo acted as prison superintendent.
Findings:
Guards became increasingly brutal and abusive (using harassment, punishment, and humiliation). Prisoners became submissive, anxious, and depressed. One was released after 1 day due to psychological disturbance. The study was ended after 6 days instead of the intended 14 due to ethical concerns.
Conclusion:
Participants conformed to social roles, even when it led to extreme behaviour. The situation, not personality, appeared to influence behaviour (supporting situational explanation of behaviour).
evaluation points:-
Real-life relevance (high face validity):
The study showed how easily people conform to roles, which has been applied to real situations like Abu Ghraib (Iraqi prison where U.S. soldiers abused detainees), supporting the idea that situations can lead to brutality.
Control over variables:
Zimbardo randomly assigned roles to reduce individual differences, increasing internal validity—it’s more likely the behaviour was due to the situation rather than personality.
Ethical issues:
Participants were psychologically harmed and not fully protected from distress. Zimbardo’s dual role (researcher and superintendent) created a conflict of interest, affecting his objectivity and ability to protect participants.
Disagreement over conclusions:
Some argue Zimbardo overemphasised situational factors and underplayed dispositional influences (e.g., personality). Later research (like Haslam and Reicher’s BBC prison study) found people don’t automatically conform to roles. Also lack of temporal validity
