as psychology aqa notes

Social influence:

·         Asch (1951) -- 50 male MAeircna students, a "vision test", confederates givign incorrect answer. Avergae conformity 37%, only 25% never conformed. WHen  dissenter introduced the rate fell to 5.5%. When taks made more difficult coformity increased as a shift to information social influneced. Confomirtyi ncreaed as grou spize inscreased to four and then plateaued. Non prepresentativ sample, externa lvaidity (but tasks took seriously, uni students used ot quesitoning in pulic), ethics (harm minor, value of research justiifed deception), reliable? (many studies replicated -- but Perrin and Spencer (1980) foudn only one ocformist in 396 trialswhen repeated with UK science students, Lucas (2006) those with high self-esteem more resistance ot normative oscial influnece).

·         NSI explains compliance, ISI internalisation. COmpliance (goes alogn wiht majority but does not share its views), identigfiation (coyign orle models in a group but this may not be logn lasitng, can be displaced with new gorup identity), internalisation (perosn accepted hte views of the group as their own vired, their behaviours as their own, will think and act in this manner ven in a different situation). 

·         But difficutl to distinguish (identification required a pubic commitment but hthis commitment may actually just be reformative as part of compliance), dependent on issu (Hornsye (2003), people more ocnfomraitveo n physical than moral issues)< sex (women conform more than men due ot oxyoticin and role of caring, but Eagly and Karli (1981) argues that this reflects a bias in research). 

·         Zimbardo (1973), Stanford Prison Experiment, 24 males from volunteer,s psychometirc tests, none knew each other, ocntract playr ole for two weeks suspension of icvil rights, guards unfiorms, sunglasses, whistle, wooden baotn, prisoners home on a SUnday, arrested by real police, bokoed, ifngerprintedi n astaiton, blindfolded and riven to prison, stitpped, dleosued, issued wiht uniform, numbered smokc, angkle chain, rubber snadles and bald cap, no personal belongings in cells. GUardso nly refer ot prisoenrs by number, rpsioenrs allwoed three meals a day, 3 sueprivsed toilet trips, 2 hours for reading and/or letter-writing, 2 vision peirods and iflsm per week, line up 3 times a day,cputnign and testing, work assignments. Guardsi ncreasedp unihsments, tookaway rpivleges as days woreo n, guards ofered ot do extrah ours, five prisoners released early because of extrmee depresison after two days, six days whole epxeriment ended, prisoners pleaed byt guards idsappointed by this. AUtomntic conformity, nto due to personaltiy or culture. Deindividualisation, learned helplessness.

·         Riecher nad Haslma (2006) repeated for the BBC, if groups permeable beahviour not as brutal/passive. Majorityo f guards behaved approrpiately. Abu Gharib, 2003, confirms this idea? Pariticipants well-ifnormed and debriefed, signed cotnract, value of research ,cancelled early, but ttill ethically controversial. External valditiy? (not real prison, no training, no real guitl for crime, knew in simulaiton, conformed to stereotyped media norms? BUt 90% of conversations on prison matters, genuine anxiety and distress ,prisoenrs referred to one another by number. Intenral valididty? (Zimbardo gave no role models or sets of norms for pariticpants). 

·…