Social influence

Method: In groups of 8, participants judged line lengths by saying out loud which comparison line matched the standard line. Each group contained one real participant- the others were confederates. The real participants always went last or last by one, so that they heard the others’ answers before giving theirs. Each participant did 18 trials. On 12 of these the confederates all gave the same wrong answer. There was also a control group, where the participants judged the line lengths in isolation.

Results: In the control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time. In the critical trials, participants conformed to the majority 37% of the time. 75% conformed at least once. Afterwards, some participants said they didn’t really believe their answers, but didn’t want to look different.

Conclusion: The control condition showed the task was easy to get right. However, 37% were wrong on the critical trials- they conformed to the majority due to normative social influence.

Evaluation: This was a laboratory experiment, so there was good control of the variables.Strict control of the variables also means that you could easily repeat the study to see if you get the same results. However, the study lacks ecological validity. The participants were deceived and might have been embarrassed when they discovered the true nature of the study.   

Method: Male students were recruited to act as either guards or prisoners in a mock prison. They were randomly given the roles of prisoner or guard, and their behaviour was observed. The prisoners were “arrested” as they went about their day, taken to “prison” and given uniforms and numbers. The guards also wore uniforms and mirrored sunglasses.

Results: Initially, the guards tried to assert their authority and the prisoners resisted by sticking together. The prisoners then became more passive and obedient, while the guards invented nastier punishments. The experiment was abandoned early because some prisoners became very distressed.

Conclusion: Guards and prisoners adopted their social roles quickly. Zimbardo claims this shows that our social role can influence our behaviour- seemingly well-balanced men became unpleasant and aggressive in the role of the guard.

Evaluation: This was a controlled observation, so there was a good control of variables. However, because it was an artificial environment, the results can’t be generalised to real-life situations. In terms of ethics, some participants found the experience very distressing. There’s also a problem with observer bias, as Zimbardo ran the prison himself, and later admitted that he became too personally involved in the situation. 

Method: This condition tested whether people would obey orders to shock someone in a different room. It took place at Yale University. 40 men participated, responding to newspaper adverts seeking volunteers for a study on “learning and memory”. They received payment for attending, which didn’t depend on them proceeding with the experiment. The experimenter wore a grey technician’s coat. Each participant was introduced to a confederate. They drew lots to see who would act as “teacher” and “learner”, but this was fixed so the participant was always the teacher. The participant witnessed the confederate being strapped into a chair and connected up to a shock generator in the next room. It didn’t actually give electric shocks, but the participants thought it was real. The switched ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts. The participant taught the learner word-pairs over an intercom. When the learner answered incorrectly, the participant had to administer an increasing level of shock. After the 300v shock, the learner pounded on the wall and made no further responses. If participants hesitated during the process, the experimenter told them to continue. Debriefing included an interview, questionnaires and being reunited with the “learner”.

Results: 26 participants (65%) administered 450v and none stopped before administering 300v. Most participants showed signs of distress like sweating, groaning and trembling.

Conclusion: Ordinary people will obey orders to hurt people, even if it goes against their conscience.

Method: This was a laboratory experiment into minority influence using 192 women. In groups of 6 at a time, participants judged the colour of 36 slides. All of the slides were blue, but the brightness of the blue varied. Two of the six participants in each group were confederates. In one condition the confederates called each of the 36 slides “green” (consistent) and in another they called 24 of the slides “green” and 12 of the slides “blue” (inconsistent). A control group was also used that contained no confederates.

Results: In the control group the participants called the slides “green” 0.25% of the time. In the consistent condition 8.4% of the time participants adopted the minority position and called the slides “green”, and 32% of the participants called the slides “green” at least once. In the inconsistent condition the participants moved to the minority position only 1.25% of the time.

Conclusion: The confederates were in the minority but their views appear to have influenced the real participants. The use of the two conditions illustrated that the minority had more influence when they were consistent.

Evaluation: Lacked ecological validity because the test was artificial. The study was only involving women so it can’t be generalised to men. The participants may have thought it was a trivial exercise so they may not have taken it seriously.

Method: Researchers in New York dressed up as a guard, a milkman or a normal citizen. They then approached people on the street and asked them to pick up litter, move up from a bus stop or give money to a stranger.

Results: Approximately 90% of participants obeyed the guard figure, but only 50% obeyed the civilian.

Conclusion: People are much more likely to follow orders from a perceived authority figure.

Evaluation: This study had high ecological validity as being stopped by a guard or passerby could naturally happen. However, there are ethical issues due to a lack of informed consent.

Method: During the night shift in a hospital, a man calling himself Dr Smith said he was a locum doctor and asked the nurse to go against regulations and give a patient a double dose of Astroten.

Results: 21 out of the 22 nurses complied with the doctor and went to administer the Astroten.

Conclusion: People are likely to carry out orders that go against the rules if asked by a perceived authority figure.

Evaluation: It had been replaced with a placebo so the patient was never in any harm, this experiment has high ecological validity as it was a natural setting but it is not ethically sound as the nurses had been deceived.

They did a meta-analysis of conformity research, where they re-analysed data from a number of different studies. They did find some sex differences in conformity, but the differences were inconsistent. The clearest difference between men and women were in Asch-like studies where there was group pressure from an audience.

Eagly (1987) argued that men and women’s different social roles explain the differences in conformity- women are more concerned with group harmony, so are more likely to agree with others. Assertiveness and independence are valued male attributes, so maintaining your own opinion under pressure fits with the perceived male social role.

He set up a mock psychiatric ward in a hospital for 3 days. 29 staff members volunteered to be “patients” and were held in the ward. Another 22 staff members were involved but they were asked to carry on as normal. It didn’t take long for the “patients” to start behaving like real patients. It became difficult to tell them apart- they seemed to be conforming to the roles they were assigned. Many showed signs of depression and withdrawal, and 6 tried to escape. After the study the “patients” said they had felt frustrated and anxious and that they’d lost their identity. This led to better patient-doctor relationships.