Level 3

Access Psychology
(Unit 5)

Psychological Perspectives and

Behaviour
(The Social Perspective)

1
 What is the Social Perspective?

Like other psychological perspectives, the social perspective, or social psychology, is interested
in explaining behaviour. More specifically, social psychology is:

“The scientific investigation of how the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of individuals are
influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005, p. 4).

Social psychology is a “branch of psychology that concentrates on any and all aspects of human
behaviour that involve persons, groups, social institutions and society as a whole” (Reber & Reber,
2001, pp. 690 - 691). As such, it sits at the intersection of a number of related social science
disciplines, including cognitive psychology, social anthropology and sociology. Such is the
similarity between social psychology and sociology that the two can be difficult to distinguish.
However, has been suggested that whereas sociologists start with society and work inwards
towards the individual, social psychologists do the opposite, starting with the individual and
working outwards towards society (Reber & Reber, 2001).

Key assumptions of the social perspective

As with the other psychological perspectives we have studied, the social perspective has a
number of key assumptions (see Hogg & Vaughan, 2005):

 Social psychologists are interested in studying human behaviour and, as such, do not generally
study animals. This is in contrast to the learning perspective, which claims that all organisms
(human and non-human animals) learn in the same way (the principle of equipotentiality):

"The behaviourist, in his efforts to get a unitary scheme of animal response,

recognises no dividing line between man or brute” (Watson, 1970, p. 104).

 Like the learning perspective, the social perspective studies behaviour because behaviour can
be observed and measured. The behaviours of interest to social psychologists include both
obvious motor actions (e.g., running) and more subtle actions (e.g., raising an eyebrow).

 Distinct from the learning perspective, but consistent with the cognitive and psychodynamic
perspectives, the social perspective is also interested in feelings, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes,
intentions and goals. Although these are not directly observable, social psychologists believe

2
 that they can be inferred with some confidence from an individual’s behaviour and that, as they
may influence or govern overt behaviour, they are critical in helping us to understand it.

 In line with both the learning and cognitive perspectives, but in stark contrast to the
psychodynamic perspective, the social perspective uses the scientific method to construct
theories. Social psychologists conduct empirical research to test hypotheses, with their
preferred research methods being laboratory and field experiments. In keeping with this, the
majority of social psychological knowledge is based on the statistical analysis of quantitative
data. Like the psychodynamic perspective, however, some social psychologists prefer non-
experimental methods and employ more qualitative techniques, such as discourse analysis,
which enable them to get to the heart of underlying beliefs and reasons, which is something
that the learning perspective, certainly behaviourism, had little interest in.

 A more recent field of social psychology called evolutionary social psychology also has links
with the biological perspective. This theory claims that many behavioural tendencies can be
explained through the ancestral past of our species. Drawing in part on Darwin’s theory of
evolution, evolutionary social psychologists argue that “complex social behaviour is adaptive
and helps (a) the individual, (b) kin and (c) the species as a whole to survive” (Hogg &
Vaughan, 2005, p. 22). For example, Stevens and Price (1996, 2000, cited in Eysenck, 2009,
p. 395) have suggested that schizophrenia may have served the evolutionary purpose of
splitting social groups (with individuals with schizophrenia acting as subgroup leaders), thereby
reducing the risk of food shortages, attacks, etc. and ultimately improving the chance of
survival.

The social perspective studies a vast range of topics, from interpersonal attraction and
relationships to bystander intervention, crowd behaviour and prejudice, but perhaps one of the
best-known social psychological topics is social influence.

Social Influence
The term social influence refers to a process in which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs or
behaviours are affected by the presence or actions of others. Put more simply, it is concerned
with the different ways in which other people influence the way we think, feel and behave.

Social influence can take many different forms, but the two topics that we are going to explore in
more detail are:
 Conformity (majority influence)
 Obedience
3
Conformity (Majority Influence)
Human beings have a strong tendency to conform to
(i.e., ‘go along with’) those around them. This could
be in terms of fashion, beliefs, mannerisms, language
etc. Although we might like to think that we are acting
independently, the extent to which people generally
conform to the social norms (rules and expectations)
of their groups and societies becomes all the more
apparent when someone does not conform – e.g., a
streaker, pushing in front of a queue, failing to hold the
door open for the person behind you, etc.

Conformity is of course relative to context. For example, wearing no clothes in a naturist camp
would be to conform, whereas such behaviour in Lancaster town centre would be an example on
non-conformity.

ACTIVITY:
Give some examples of conformity and non-conformity from your own experience.

Conformity occurs when an individual’s behaviour and / or beliefs are influenced by a larger
group of people, which is why conformity is also referred to as majority influence.

Myers (1999, cited in Cardwell et al., 2000, p. 107) defines conformity as:
“A change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure.”

ACTIVITY:
Think back to an occasion where you have conformed to the behaviour or beliefs of others. What
was it about the situation that caused you to conform?

4
Explanations for conformity
Deutsch and Gerrard (1955, cited in Malim & Birch, 1998, p. 679) proposed a two-process theory
in which they claimed there are two main reasons why people conform. These are based on two
central human needs – the need to be liked and the need to be right.
 Normative social influence
 Informational social influence

Normative social influence

Normative social influence is an explanation of conformity that
says we agree with the opinions of the majority because we want
to be accepted, gain social approval or be liked. Normative
social influence is an emotional process because it relates to
how a person feels. That is, they want to feel accepted and do
not want to feel foolish. For example, a Manchester United
supporter might cheer for Liverpool while among a group of
Liverpool supporters because they want to fit in with the group.

Normative social influence is most likely to occur in situations with strangers where a person feels
concerned about rejection. However, it might also occur with people you know because people
are most concerned about the social approval of their friends. Normative social influence might
also be more pronounced in stressful situations where there is a greater need for social support.

EVALUATIVE POINTS – Normative Social Influence

Individual differences in normative social influence – Evidence suggests that normative
social influence does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. For example, people
who are less concerned about being liked are less affected by normative social influence than
those who are more concerned about being liked. Such people are described as nAffiliators.
These are people who have a greater need for ‘affiliation’ – a need for being in a relationship
with others. McGhee and Teevan (1967, cited in Flanagan et al., 2015, p. 17) found that
students high in need for affiliation were more likely to conform. This shows that a desire to be
liked underlies conformity in some people more than others and illustrates that there are
individual differences in the way people respond.
Research support for normative social influence – Asch (1951, cited in Rice &
Haralambos, 2001, pp. 188 - 189 ) used a laboratory experiment to demonstrate that people
will go along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did. When he asked them
why they did this, some said that they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer (when other
people were giving the wrong answer) and were afraid of disapproval. When Asch repeated
his study but asked participants to write down their answer instead of saying it out loud,
conformity rates fell to 12.5%

5
Informational social influence
Informational social influence is an explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion
of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as
well. Informational social influence is a cognitive process because it relates to how a person
thinks. That is, they think that if the majority
display a particular behaviour or give a particular
response then it is likely to be correct. For
example, a school child who is not confident with
maths might change their answers to the
homework because all of their friends have
different answers and they want to get the answer
right as well.

Informational social influence is most likely to occur in situations that are new or ambiguous. It is
also typical in crisis situations where a decision needs to be made quickly, and in situations in
which one person (or group) is regarded as being more of an expert.

EVALUATIVE POINT – Informational Social Influence

Research support for informational social influence – Lucas et al. (2006, cited in Flanagan
et al., 2015, p. 17) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or
difficult. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult than when
they were easy. This was true for most students who rated their mathematical ability as ‘poor’.
This shows that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer,
which is exactly the outcome predicted by the informational social influence explanation of
conformity.
Individual differences in informational social influence – As with normative social
influence, informational social influence does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way.
For example, Asch (1955, cited in Flanagan et al., 2015, p. 17) found that students were less
conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). Perrin and Spencer (1980, cited in Flanagan
et al., 2015, p. 17) also conducted a study with science and engineering students and found
very little conformity.

ACTIVITY:
Thinking back to the example you gave above of an occasion where you have conformed to the
behaviour or beliefs of others. Were you conforming as a result of normative social influence or
informational social influence? Are there any issues with trying to classifying behaviour in this
way?

6
 EVALUATIVE POINT – The two-process theory
Which type of social influence? In real-life situations, and in laboratory experiments (see the
Asch study later), it is not always possible to be sure whether conformity results from normative
social influence or informational social influence. Deutsch and Gerrard’s ‘two-process’
approach claims that conformity is either due to normative social influence or informational
social influence. However, it is often the case that both processes are involved. In other
words, normative social influence and informational social influence might work together to
create conformity.

Types of conformity
Kelman (1958, cited in Cardwell et al., 2000, p. 108) identified three types of conformity (ways in
which people conform):

1. Compliance – This is a superficial type of conformity which occurs when a person ‘goes along
with’ the opinions/behaviours of others in public, but privately does not change their
opinions/behaviour. This means that the particular opinion or behaviour stops as soon as the
group pressure stops. For example, a Manchester United supporter might pretend to support
Liverpool whilst in a large group of Liverpool supporters but their heart is still with Manchester
United!

ACTIVITY:
Give another example of compliance.

2. Identification – This is a moderate type of conformity which occurs when a person conforms
to the opinions/behaviours of a group because there is something about the group that they
value. The person identifies with the group and wants to be part of it. This means that they
publically change their opinions/beliefs to fit in with the group, but don’t privately agree with
everything the group stands for. For example, a person might join an animal rights group and
convert to veganism but disagree with the fact that they protest against dairy farmers.

ACTIVITY:
Give another example of identification.

7
3. Internalisation – This is a deep type of conformity which occurs when a person genuinely
accepts the group norms. This leads to private as well as public changes in
opinions/behaviours. This change is likely to be permanent because attitudes have been
internalised and will persist in the absence of other group members. For example, an
individual might adopt the religious beliefs of the family they marry into or the society in which
they live.

ACTIVITY:
Give another example of internalisation.

The connection between the types of conformity and the reasons people conform
You have probably noticed that the reason why people conform is often linked to the type of
conformity that they display. It has been suggested that:

 Normative social influence tends to produce compliance.

 Information social influence tends to produce internalisation.

This makes sense because if you are only conforming to fit in (normative social influence), you are
only really interested in how you appear to others. This does not give you a reason to change
your real beliefs and opinions. Informational social influence, on the other hand, is concerned with
your real beliefs and opinions, not just with appearances.

8
Research on conformity
The first study of conformity was conducted by Jenness (1932, cited in Gross, 1993, p. 562).
Participants in the research were asked to individually estimate the number of beans in a glass jar.
They were then divided into groups of three and asked to arrive at a group
estimate through discussion. Following the group discussion, participants
were provided with another opportunity to individually estimate the number of
beans. Jenness measured whether or not they changed their original
estimate. The results showed that nearly all of the participants changed their
original estimate to bring it closer to the group estimate.

ACTIVITY:
Why did participants in Jenness’ study conform? What type of social influence were they
demonstrating? Give reasons for your answer.

Another early study on conformity was conducted by Sherif (1935, cited in Rice & Haralambos,
2001, p. 188). Sherif used a laboratory experiment in which he took advantage of the autokinetic
effect – a visual illusion in which a small spot of light projected onto a screen in an otherwise dark
room appears to move even though it is in fact stationary.

Sherif first asked individual participants to judge

how far the light was moving on a number of
trials, and found that whilst individuals’ estimates
were relatively stable, there was considerable
variation between the estimates given by different
people. Participants were then put into groups of
three and each asked to individually estimate the
amount of movement. In this situation, Sherif found that participants’ judgements converged until
a group norm emerged. This norm emerged despite many of the participants claiming that they
had not seen themselves as part of a group, and denying that they had been influenced by others’
estimates. The group norm also continued to influence participants’ judgements when they were
later tested again on their own.
9
ACTIVITY:
What is similar about the Jenness (1932) and Sherif (1935) studies? What is different?

The results of the studies by Jenness (1932) and Sherif (1935) show that when a person is in a
situation in which the correct answer is unclear they will look to others for guidance and support.
However, Asch (1956, cited in Cardwell et al., 2000, p. 110) claimed that the fact that the tasks
involved in these studies were ambiguous makes it difficult to draw any definite conclusions about
conformity.

According to Asch, conformity should be measured in terms of an individual’s tendency to

agree with other group members who unanimously give the wrong answer on a task where the
solution is obvious or unambiguous.

Asch (1951, 1955, cited in Cardwell et al., 2000, p. 110 – 112) therefore conducted a series of
experiments to investigate how strong normative social influence can be. He set up a task that
was so easy participants should not need to rely on others in order to get the answer right.
Informational social influence should not be operating in this study. If majority influence
occurred in this study, then according to Asch it should be wholly due to normative social
influence. The task Asch set was obvious in a way that those used by Jenness and Sherif were
not.

Asch’s ‘lines’ study

Aim
 To see if participants would conform to majority influence and give incorrect answers in a
situation in which the correct answer was obvious.
Procedure
 Participants were shown two large white cards at a time. One card showed a ‘standard
line’ and the other card showed three ‘comparison lines’.
 One of the comparison lines was the same length as the standard line and the other two
were substantially different (i.e., clearly wrong). The participant was asked which of the
three comparison lines matched the standard.
 Participants were 123 American male undergraduate students. Each naïve (genuine)
10
 participant was tested with a group of between 6 and 8 confederates (accomplices) who
were working under the instructions of the experimenter.
 One the first few trials, all of the confederates gave the correct
answer, but they then started making errors in which they all
gave the same wrong answer.
 Altogether each participant took part in 18 trials in which they
judged the length of the lines. On 12 ‘critical trials’ the
confederates gave the wrong answer.
 The naïve participant was always seated either last or next to
last in the group. Participants gave their answers out loud,
beginning with the first person (confederate).
Findings
 The naïve participant conformed to the incorrect answer on an average of 36.8% of the
critical trials.
 25% of the participants did not conform on any trials, meaning that 75% conformed at least
once.
 In interviews after the experiment, Asch found that some of the participants who conformed
reported distortions of perception – they actually perceived the wrong line as correct and
were unaware that their estimates had been affected by the majority. Other participants
reported distortions of judgement – they thought that their perception of the lines must be
inaccurate as so yielded to the majority view. Most participants, however, did not perceive
the wrong line as correct or think that their perception must be wrong, rather they reported
a distortion of action in which they yielded to the majority because they feared being
ridiculed or excluded by the group. In other words, they conformed as a result of
normative social influence. One participant said:
“Here was a group, they had a definite idea, my idea disagreed and this might arouse
anger. I was standing out as a sore thumb. I didn’t want particularly to make a fool of
myself, I felt I was definitely right but they might think I was peculiar.”
 The extent to which people conform even when the situation is unambiguous has been
termed the Asch effect.
 A control group of participants who judged the lines without any confederates hardly ever
made any erroneous judgements – only 0.7% of judgments were incorrect.
Evaluation
 Perrin and Spencer (1980, cited in Flanagan et al., 2015, p. 17) replicated Asch’s
experiment with engineering students from the UK. Only one student conformed in 396
trials. Maybe engineering students felt more confident about the task and were therefore
less conformist. Or maybe society has changed since the time of Asch’s study. Either
way, it appears that the Asch effect is not consistent across situations and may not be
consistent across time, and so it is not a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
 Participants may have displayed demand characteristics because they knew they were in
an experiment and may simply have been going along with the demands of the situation –
see below (although this could say something about conformity in its own right!).
 The task of identifying the lines was relatively trivial and quite unlike most everyday
situations and therefore there was no real reason not to conform. Also, the group that the
naïve participants were part of did not really resemble the groups we are part of in
everyday life. This means that the findings may not generalise to everyday situations (they
may lack ecological validity), especially those in which the consequences of conformity
are more important and we are interacting with other people in groups in a more direct way.
 Only men were tested by Asch. Neto (1995, cited in Flanagan et al., 2015, p. 19) found
that women might be more conformist because they are more concerned about social
relationships than men.
 The men in Asch’s study were from the United States, which is an individualistic culture.
11
 Smith and Bond (1998, cited in Cardwell et al., 2000, p. 113) conducted a meta-analysis
and found that conformity levels in collectivist cultures are higher than those reported by
Asch. Asch’s findings might therefore be difficult to generalise (low population validity).
 There are problems with the ethics of Asch’s experiment. The naïve participants were
deceived about the other people being confederates. Bogdonoff et al. (1961, cited in
Middleton et al., 2017, p. 2) also found that participants in an Asch-type study had higher
levels of autonomic arousal (linked to stress), suggesting that they were in a conflict
situation which possibly caused them psychological harm.

Asch without the Actors

One of the key criticisms of Asch’s research has been his use of confederates, who might have
acted unnaturally, thereby causing demand characteristics and making the experiment difficult
to replicate. To solve this problem, Mori and Arai (2010, cited in The British Psychological
Society, 2010, no page) replicated Asch’s research without confederates. Instead, they used
filter goggles (ostensibly to reduce glare) which allowed different participants to view the same
display and see different things. Same-sex groups of four male and female participants were
stating out loud which of three comparison lines matched a target line. All participants wore
goggles, but only one participant (who always went third) was given goggles that caused them
to observe a different comparison line as matching the target line on critical trials. Consistent
with Asch’s original research, the minority participants answered incorrectly 19.6% of the time.
However, female minority participants answered incorrectly 28.6% of the time, while for males it
was only 5% of the time. This is notable because all of the participants in Asch’s original
experiment were male.

Crutchfield (1955, cited in Cardwell et al., 2000, p. 112)

Crutchfield was aware of the studies that Asch had carried out and wanted to improve them by
making a few significant changes. He primarily wanted to test much larger numbers of
participants. Doing this using the methodology that Asch used (one naïve participant per trial)
would have been too time-consuming, so he developed a way to test
large numbers of participants at once.

The test room was set up with several cubicles so that participants
could not see each other. The experiment was designed to investigate
if people would conform less if they were not face to face with the rest
of the group.

12
A screen and buttons were placed in each booth. A picture would appear on the screen, be
removed, and other images appear. The subjects were asked to select which of the second set of
images was the same as the first by pressing the corresponding button.

Each image had a number and each person was asked to select the number of the second image
that was the same as the first. The experiment was set up so that all participants thought they
could see the selections made by the participants in the other booths: In each booth was a series
of lights with numbers on which indicated the ‘choice’ made by the others. However, the twist was
that all the booths were number six and all of the other answers that participants saw (except their
own) were dummies. These eliminated the need for confederates as each participant was
effectively giving an individual response.

Crutchfield carried out his study with varying images: Asch’s lines, stars, pictures, etc. He found
that when tested with a group of ordinary people, the conformity level was 30% when using Asch’s
lines.

ACTIVITY:
Why do you think that Crutchfield obtained similar levels of conformity to those produced in Asch’s
original experiment?

Conformity to a social role

So far we have considered how people have a tendency to conform to the behaviours or opinions
of other people when they form the majority of a group. But to what extent do we conform to the
expectations that people have of us? These arise out of the roles we play in society and have
powerful influences on our behaviour.

Philip Zimbardo was interested in answering the question of whether prison guards behave
brutally because they have sadistic personalities, or whether it is
the situation that they are in which creates such behaviour. To test
this, Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973, cited in Rice &
Haralambos, 2001, pp. 194 - 195) set up a mock prison in the
basement of the psychology department at Stanford University.

13
 Zimbardo’s ‘prison’ experiment
Aim
 To investigate how readily people conform to new roles by setting up a 2 week
prisoner/guard role-playing exercise.
Procedures
 Adverts were placed for students willing to volunteer in the experiment. Those deemed
‘emotionally stable’ were selected and randomly assigned to the role of guard or prisoner.
 To heighten the realism of the experiment, local police arrested the ‘prisoners’ at home and
delivered them to the ‘prison’ where they were blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and
given a uniform and a number.
 The social roles of the prisoners and guards were strictly divided. The prisoners’ routines
were heavily regulated. There were 16 rules that they had to follow, which were enforced
by the guards who worked in shifts, three at a time. The prisoners’ names were never
used, only their numbers.
 To underline their role, the guards had their own uniform complete with wooded clubs,
handcuffs, keys and mirrored sunglasses. They were told they had complete power over
the prisoners, but no physical aggression was permitted.
 Zimbardo himself took the role of the prison superintendent.
Findings
 After a slow start, the guards took up their roles completely, harassing and humiliating the
prisoners to such an extent that the study had to be abandoned after 6 days instead of the
planned 14.
 Prisoners rebelled after two days but were quelled with fire extinguishers.
 Some prisoners became depressed and anxious. One prisoner had to be released after one
day, two more prisoners had to be released on the fourth day.
 One prisoner went on ‘hunger strike’. He was punished by being put in ‘the hole’ (a small
dark cupboard) and shunned by the other prisoners.
Conclusion
 The simulation revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour.
 Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their role within the prison.
Evaluation
 Zimbardo and his colleagues had some control over variables. For example, emotionally
stable individuals were chosen as participants and randomly assigned to the role of
prisoner or guard. Having control over variables is a strength because it increases the
internal validity of a study. This gives us more confidence about drawing conclusions
regarding the influence of roles on behaviour.
 Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975, cited in Flanagan et al., 2015, p. 21) claimed that
participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. They
suggested that participants’ performances were based on stereotypes about how prisoners
and guards are supposed to behave. Zimbardo disagreed with this, claiming that
qualitative data collected during the study showed that 90% of prisoners’ conversations
were about prison life. ‘Prisoner 416’ also expressed the view that the prison was real.
 Reicher and Haslam’s (2006, cited in Flanagan et al., 2015, p. 21) partial replication of the
Stanford prison experiment found very different results to those of Zimbardo. Here, it was
the prisoners who took control and subjected the guards to harassment and disobedience.
The researcher explained their findings using Social Identify Theory, claiming that the
prisoners had developed a shared social identity.
 Zimbardo’s dual roles as researcher and prison superintendent caused major ethical
issues.

14