Social Influence
Conformity
Type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a
group
- This change is in response to real (physical presence of others) or imagined
(involving pressure of social norms/expectations) group pressures
3 Types of Conformity
Compliance
- Conforming to the majority publicly in spite of not agreeing privately
- It stops when there are no group pressures to conform and is therefore a
temporary behaviour change
- Occurs when an individual accepts influence because he hopes to achieve a
favourable reaction from another person or group
- Adopts the induced behaviour because he expects to gain specific rewards or
approval and avoid specific punishment or disapproval by conformity
Identification
- Individuals conform to the expectations of a social role, no change in private
opinion
- Occurs when an individual accepts influence because he wants to establish or
maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or group
Internalisation
- Person publicly changes their behaviour to fit in with the group, whilst also
agreeing privately
- Occurs when an individual accepts influence because the content of the induced
behaviour is intrinsically rewarding, adopts the induced behaviour because it is
congruent with his value system
Explanations of Conformity
Normative Social Influence
- Yielding to group pressure because a person wants to fit in with the group
- Conforming because the person is scared of being rejected by the group
- Involves compliance
, Informational Social Influence
- Usually occurs when a person lacks knowledge and looks to the group for
guidance
- Or when a person is in an ambiguous situation and socially compares their
behaviour with the group
- This conformity involves internalisation, where a person accepts the views of the
group and adopts them as an individual
Informational Social Influence Case Study: Jenness
Aim: Investigate effect of discussion in groups on accuracy of individual judgements of the
number of jellybeans in a jar
Procedure:
Ppts made individual, private estimates of the number of jellybeans in a jar
Discussed estimates (in a large group or smaller groups) discovering they all had
different estimates
After discussion, group estimates were made
Ppts then made a second individual estimate
Findings:
Typicality of opinion was increased, second private estimates tend to converge their
group estimate
Average change of opinion was greater among females
Conclusions:
Judgements of individuals affected by majority opinions, especially in ambiguous or
unfamiliar situations.
Discussion is not effective in changing opinion unless the individual who enters the
discussion becomes aware that the opinions are different to others
Normative Social Influence Case Study: Asch
Aim: Investigate conformity to group norms using a clear incorrect majority on an
unambiguous task
Procedure:
Group shown a series of cards with lines on and had to say which of 3 lines matched the
single comparison line
123 american male undergraduates tested
1 naïve ppt seated in the penultimate position of the group
, All other ppts were confederates of the researcher
Groups shown a series of lines and asked to match the comparison line with the line on
the stimulus sheet that matched it
Confederates were told to give the wrong answer on the 12 critical trials out of the total
18
Findings:
Conformity rate on critical trials = 36.8 %
25 % of all naïve ppts never conformed to majority incorrect response
75 % of all naïve ppts conformed at least once
In interviews following experiment these were the explanations they gave:
- Didn’t want to seem different, knew it was wrong but went along with it to
appear like everyone else
- Guessed what the study was about and decided to act in the way they thought
the experimenter wanted
- Thought they must be seeing things from a different angle or misunderstood the
task
- Denied being aware they had given any wrong answers
Conclusions:
Groups exert pressure on the minority to conform to the answers given by the majority
Publicly complied with the stooges’ answers even though they privately agreed they
were wrong, felt under some pressure to give same answer
25 percent never conformed at all but reported considerable stress and confusion when
the stooges gave wrong answers
Asch concluded that there could be many variables that affected conformity including
the need for social acceptance and approval, group size, task difficulty so conducted
variations of the study to investigate these
Factors Affecting Conformity
Group Size
- 1-15 confederates
- CURVILINEAR relationship between group size and conformity
- 3 confederates = rose to 31.8 % conformity
- Adding more confederates made small difference – conformity rates level off
quickly
- Suggests we are sensitive to view of others, but just 1 or 2 confederates is
enough to sway our opinion
Group unanimity
- Introduced a disagreeing confederate: sometimes gave the correct answer,
sometimes wrong
- Ppt conformed less often in presence of dissenter (dropped to 5%)
, - Rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level when majority was unanimous
- Dissenter freed naïve ppt to behave more independently – even when they
disagreed with naïve ppt
- Influence of majority largely depends on majority being unanimous = reduces
need for social approve
Task Difficulty
- Increasing difficulty of line judging by making the lines more similar
- Became harder for genuine ppts to see the differences
- Asch found conformity increases, situation may have been more ambiguous as it
was less clear what the correct answer is
- Instead of NSI explaining findings, this would be a result of ISI
Conformity to Social Roles Study: Zimbardo (identification)
Aim:
Investigate the effects of being assigned to the roles of either a prison guard or prisoner
Procedure:
24 U.S male student volunteers
They are randomly allocated role of prisoner or guard
Prisoners are unexpectedly arrested at home
Deloused, given prison uniform and ID number
Guards given uniforms, clubs, whistles and wore reflective sunglasses
Zimbardo took role of prison superintendent
Planned duration was 2 weeks
Stopped after 6 days
Findings:
- Behaviour of students affected by roles they were assigned therefore rejecting
suggestion that bad behaviour is dispositional
- Experiment had to be stopped after 6 days because of the reactions of the
prisoners: 5 had to be released earlier because of extreme emotional depression
- Prisoners and guards adopted contrasting behaviours that were appropriate for
their respective roles
- Although physical violence wasn’t permitted, less direct aggressive behaviour
was observed
- Zimbardo was so immersed in it he couldn’t objectively assess the distress that
was being experienced by the prisoners, his girlfriend saw how bad it was and
was the one who convinced him to terminate it
- This is a clear demonstration of the power of the situation over the behaviour of
the individual, and that it is not just evil men who do evil deeds, but that evil
situations contribute to behaviour as well
Conformity
Type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a
group
- This change is in response to real (physical presence of others) or imagined
(involving pressure of social norms/expectations) group pressures
3 Types of Conformity
Compliance
- Conforming to the majority publicly in spite of not agreeing privately
- It stops when there are no group pressures to conform and is therefore a
temporary behaviour change
- Occurs when an individual accepts influence because he hopes to achieve a
favourable reaction from another person or group
- Adopts the induced behaviour because he expects to gain specific rewards or
approval and avoid specific punishment or disapproval by conformity
Identification
- Individuals conform to the expectations of a social role, no change in private
opinion
- Occurs when an individual accepts influence because he wants to establish or
maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or group
Internalisation
- Person publicly changes their behaviour to fit in with the group, whilst also
agreeing privately
- Occurs when an individual accepts influence because the content of the induced
behaviour is intrinsically rewarding, adopts the induced behaviour because it is
congruent with his value system
Explanations of Conformity
Normative Social Influence
- Yielding to group pressure because a person wants to fit in with the group
- Conforming because the person is scared of being rejected by the group
- Involves compliance
, Informational Social Influence
- Usually occurs when a person lacks knowledge and looks to the group for
guidance
- Or when a person is in an ambiguous situation and socially compares their
behaviour with the group
- This conformity involves internalisation, where a person accepts the views of the
group and adopts them as an individual
Informational Social Influence Case Study: Jenness
Aim: Investigate effect of discussion in groups on accuracy of individual judgements of the
number of jellybeans in a jar
Procedure:
Ppts made individual, private estimates of the number of jellybeans in a jar
Discussed estimates (in a large group or smaller groups) discovering they all had
different estimates
After discussion, group estimates were made
Ppts then made a second individual estimate
Findings:
Typicality of opinion was increased, second private estimates tend to converge their
group estimate
Average change of opinion was greater among females
Conclusions:
Judgements of individuals affected by majority opinions, especially in ambiguous or
unfamiliar situations.
Discussion is not effective in changing opinion unless the individual who enters the
discussion becomes aware that the opinions are different to others
Normative Social Influence Case Study: Asch
Aim: Investigate conformity to group norms using a clear incorrect majority on an
unambiguous task
Procedure:
Group shown a series of cards with lines on and had to say which of 3 lines matched the
single comparison line
123 american male undergraduates tested
1 naïve ppt seated in the penultimate position of the group
, All other ppts were confederates of the researcher
Groups shown a series of lines and asked to match the comparison line with the line on
the stimulus sheet that matched it
Confederates were told to give the wrong answer on the 12 critical trials out of the total
18
Findings:
Conformity rate on critical trials = 36.8 %
25 % of all naïve ppts never conformed to majority incorrect response
75 % of all naïve ppts conformed at least once
In interviews following experiment these were the explanations they gave:
- Didn’t want to seem different, knew it was wrong but went along with it to
appear like everyone else
- Guessed what the study was about and decided to act in the way they thought
the experimenter wanted
- Thought they must be seeing things from a different angle or misunderstood the
task
- Denied being aware they had given any wrong answers
Conclusions:
Groups exert pressure on the minority to conform to the answers given by the majority
Publicly complied with the stooges’ answers even though they privately agreed they
were wrong, felt under some pressure to give same answer
25 percent never conformed at all but reported considerable stress and confusion when
the stooges gave wrong answers
Asch concluded that there could be many variables that affected conformity including
the need for social acceptance and approval, group size, task difficulty so conducted
variations of the study to investigate these
Factors Affecting Conformity
Group Size
- 1-15 confederates
- CURVILINEAR relationship between group size and conformity
- 3 confederates = rose to 31.8 % conformity
- Adding more confederates made small difference – conformity rates level off
quickly
- Suggests we are sensitive to view of others, but just 1 or 2 confederates is
enough to sway our opinion
Group unanimity
- Introduced a disagreeing confederate: sometimes gave the correct answer,
sometimes wrong
- Ppt conformed less often in presence of dissenter (dropped to 5%)
, - Rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level when majority was unanimous
- Dissenter freed naïve ppt to behave more independently – even when they
disagreed with naïve ppt
- Influence of majority largely depends on majority being unanimous = reduces
need for social approve
Task Difficulty
- Increasing difficulty of line judging by making the lines more similar
- Became harder for genuine ppts to see the differences
- Asch found conformity increases, situation may have been more ambiguous as it
was less clear what the correct answer is
- Instead of NSI explaining findings, this would be a result of ISI
Conformity to Social Roles Study: Zimbardo (identification)
Aim:
Investigate the effects of being assigned to the roles of either a prison guard or prisoner
Procedure:
24 U.S male student volunteers
They are randomly allocated role of prisoner or guard
Prisoners are unexpectedly arrested at home
Deloused, given prison uniform and ID number
Guards given uniforms, clubs, whistles and wore reflective sunglasses
Zimbardo took role of prison superintendent
Planned duration was 2 weeks
Stopped after 6 days
Findings:
- Behaviour of students affected by roles they were assigned therefore rejecting
suggestion that bad behaviour is dispositional
- Experiment had to be stopped after 6 days because of the reactions of the
prisoners: 5 had to be released earlier because of extreme emotional depression
- Prisoners and guards adopted contrasting behaviours that were appropriate for
their respective roles
- Although physical violence wasn’t permitted, less direct aggressive behaviour
was observed
- Zimbardo was so immersed in it he couldn’t objectively assess the distress that
was being experienced by the prisoners, his girlfriend saw how bad it was and
was the one who convinced him to terminate it
- This is a clear demonstration of the power of the situation over the behaviour of
the individual, and that it is not just evil men who do evil deeds, but that evil
situations contribute to behaviour as well
