The first study would be Jenness in 1932. Jenness asked students to estimate the number of beans in a bottle. Taking individuals estimates first then placed the individuals into groups and asked them to discuss their estimates. Once the findings had been calculate he found that the students in particular groups would conform to a group average. According to Jenness in a situation where the answer was unknown they listened to their peers and would in his view conform. This demonstrates informational social influence also Compliance.
His research was criticised since for one the experiment was not taken out in ecologically valid circumstances. The students were not in surroundings that were familiar to them thus behaving differently. Critics have argued that the students may have conformed in order to make the results easier for the psychologist. The experiment could show conformity, showing that the students believed that their peers somehow had more knowledge than they did and if they wanted to get the answer right then they must follow. It may possibly show compliance since the students did disagree in private since they gave an estimate individually which were different than those given finally. They could simply be worried of being thought of as a pest or different showing normative influence.
The second would be the Sherif research in 1935.In his experiment he had a small pin of light. (Very small movements in the eye can make the light seem as though it were moving) Sherif would take individuals into the room and ask how far the moved and in which direction. Then he would do the same with groups of three and ask them the same question they would each have their own personal norms but tended to give an answer close to their peers. He repeated the experiment but allowed them in-groups first then individually the results showed that they continued to act in the influence of the groups even in the individual experiments.
This experiment again has been criticised for its lack of ecological validity since the circumstances were very artificial. No members of the participants were used to standing in a darkened room looking at pin of light. In some experiments I is useful to have a few participants who agree a norm which is pre-arranged thus making the results more accurate. Although it does suggest the same principles as in the Jenness study. Meaning compliance and informational social influence.
The third would be Asch’s study. In his experiment he gathered seven students and were told to look at a display of three lines (A, B and C) and were asked to say out loud which two lines matched.
Six members of the experiment were confederates armed with a pre-arranged answer. The experimenter would then move through the group asking each in turn which two lines matched, Each of the confederates unanimously gave the wrong answer. The participant was always the last or the last but one to answer. The performance of the participants was compered to that of a controlled experiment (where no member was a confederate)
It was found that 37% of participants conformed and gave the wrong answer. This is compered to 0.7% of people in the controlled conditions. This is a demonstration of normative social influence. Alternatively when the genuine participant was questioned before the confederates there were only 5% of participants who conformed.
This experiment has many valid points and invalid points. There may have been evidence of conformity but the participants may have been simply trying to make the results easier on the experimenter. Some of the conformity has been blamed on the fact that the experiment was undertaken in America in the 1950’s when conformity was high, where being different was not accepted.
There are however many different types of conformity showing in this experiment along with normalative social influence there is also compliance.
Finally the Zimbado study was one which caused great disturbance. It was set in the 1960’s where violence in American prisons was on the increase. Brutal attacks were regularly reported.
Zimbado created an experiment, which is known as the “Stanford prison experiment” since it was conducted in Stanford University.
Zimbado found emotionally stable people to act as guards and prisoners he then placed them in a mock prison and in order to make the experiment they were arrested in the middle of the night, stripped naked, skin searched, given uniform and basic provisions. The guards were informed on 16 rules that they were to enforce.
The prisoners were to ask the guards to do almost everything including going to the toilet and writing letters.
The experiment was highly dangerous. Riots were reported two days into the study with prisoners acting irrationally and guards were cruel and were beating and harassing their prisoners almost constantly. After a while the behaviour of both parties changed the prisoners became more submissive often walking facing the ground whereas the guards became more hostile the experiment was shut down after six days because many of the prisoners were leaving since showing severe signs of emotional disturbance.
Critics have argued that the experiment was unethical and proved nothing. Some say that the guards and prisoners were simply acting out a stereotype. They argued that the experiment was simply “hell” and that Zimbado simply carried the experiment on even though it was obviously causing extreme damage. The facts that the guards were showing more aggression when on their own with prisoners away from recording equipment should have made Zimbado stop the experiment.
It is true that experiment was of value but the level of violence was far beyond what was expected. It shows compliance and informational social influence (where the prisoners accepted what happening to them thinking that the guards or the experimenter knew better)
This essay shows four studies and their effects on the participants in some extreme (Zimbado) and others not.
