Social Influence

Conformity

A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

Internalisation

• The deepest level of conformity

• A person genuinely accepts the group norms, leading to a public and private change in beliefs/behaviour

• The change is permanent and persists even without group prescence

Identification

• A moderate type of conformity

• They publicly change behaviour even if they don’t fully agree privately because they identify with the group

• The change only lasts for as long as the individual desires to be a part of the group

Compliance

• Superficial and temporary conformity

• The person publicly goes along with the group to fit in but privately disagrees

• The change stops when the group pressure stops

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

• 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

• This may lead to internalisation

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

• An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked

• This may lead to compliance

Asch (1951) - Aim

To investigate to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is certain

Asch (1951) - Baseline Procedure

• 123 American men were tested

• Each participant saw two large white cards on each trial

• The line X on the left-hand card was the standard line

• The lines A, B and C were the 3 comparison lines

• It was made very clear which line was the same length as X

• The participants had to say out loud which line they believed was the same length as X

• The confederates gave the same incorrect scripted answers each time

Asch (1951) - Physical arrangement of participants

• Participants were tested in groups of 6-8

• Only one was a genuine participant, always seated last or next to last in the group

Asch (1951) - Baseline Findings

• On average, the genuine participants conformed to the incorrect answers 36.8% of the time

• 25% of the participants never conformed to the incorrect answer

Asch (1951) - Group Size

• Asch varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15

• Found a curvilinear relationship; conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point

• With 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8% but the presence of more confederates made litte additional differences

• Therefore, this suggests that small majorities are enough to influence conformity, but larger groups don’t increase conformity proportionally

Asch (1951) - Unanimity

• Asch introduced a dissenter who gave either the correct answer or a different incorrect answer than the confederates

• The presence of a dissenter reduced conformity to less than a quarter of the original level

• Also allowed the genuine participant to behave more independently

• Therefore, this suggets unanimity is crucial; when it is broken, conformity drops significantly

Asch (1951) - Task Difficulty

• Asch made the line-judging task harder by making lines more similiar in length

• Conformity increased when the task was more ambiguous

• Therefore, this links to informational social influence as the participants were unsure and looked to others as a guide

Asch (1951) - Laboratory experiment

P One strength of Asch’s research is that it was conducted in a highly controlled laboratory environment.

E Asch was able to manipulate key variables such as group size, unanimity and task difficulty to observe their direct effects on conformity levels.

E This high level of control over EVs means cause-and-effect relationships can be more confidently established and it increases the internal validity of the findings as we can be certain that these were te variables influencing conformity not other factors.
L Therefore, Asch’s study provides reliable and valid evidence about how social and situational factors influence conformity

Asch (1951) - Research Support

P Another strength of Asch’s research is support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty.

E Lucas et al. (2006) asked their participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Participants were given answers from 3 other students who were confederates.
E The participants conformed more often when the problems were harder.
L Therefore, this shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.

Asch (1951) - Counterpoint to research support

However, Lucas et al’s study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. Participants with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence. This shows that individual factors can influence conformity over situational variables.

Asch (1951) - Artificial Situation and Task

P One limitation of Asch’s research is that the task and situation were artifical.

E Participants knew they were in a research study, the groups did not resemble real-life social groups and the task was one that would not be experienced in everyday life.
E Participants may have displayed demand characteristics and the study lacks ecological validity as the nature of the experiment does not represent a real-world situation.
L Therefore, Asch’s findings do not generalise to real-world experiences in conformity.

Asch (1951) - Limited Application

P Another limitation is that Asch’s participants were American men.

E Other research suggests that women may be conformist. Furthermore, the US is an individualist culture and similiar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures have found that conformity rates are higher.
E Asch’s findings lack generalisability to women and collectivist cultures.
L Therefore, Asch’s research tells us little about conformity in women and people in some cultures.

Zimbardo (1973) - Aim

To investigate whether people conform to social roles and whether brutality in prisons is due to personality or expectations of social roles

Zimbardo (1973) - Procedure

• 21 emotionally stable male student volunteers were randomly assigned to the roles of prisoners or guards in a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University

• Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles through uniform and instructions about behaviour

Zimbardo (1973) - Uniform

• Prisoners were identified by number and were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair

• The guards had their own uniform, a wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades

• These uniforms created a loss of personal identity, called de-individuation, meaning they would be more likely to conform to the social roles

Zimbardo (1973) - Behavioural Instructions

• Prisoners were further encouraged to indentify with their role by several procedures

• This included ‘applying for parole’ rather than leaving the study early

• Guards were reminded to maintain power over prisoners

Zimbardo (1973) - Findings

• Guards became increasingly brutal and aggressive, using divide-and-rule tactics and harsh punishments

• Prisoners became submissive, depressed and anxious; one went on a hunger strike, and several showed signs of psychological disturbance

• The participants conformed strongly to their assigned roles, even behaving as if it were a real prison

Zimbardo (1973) - Conclusion

• People readily conform to social roles, even when those roles go against moral beliefs

• The situational factors, such as uniform, had a powerful influence on behaviour

Zimbardo (1973) - Control

P One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables.
E Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner, eliminating participant characteristics as an explanation of the findings.
E This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study.
L Therefore, we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of social roles on conformity.

Zimbardo (1973) - Real-world application

P Another strength of the SPE is that it has real-world relevance in understanding the power of social roles.
E The findings have been used to explain real-life events, such as the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where guards displayed similiar dehumanising and brutal behaviours towards detainees.
E This shows that Zimbardo’s conclusions about how normal people can conform to abusive roles under certain situational pressures can help explain real-world scenarios. It enhances the ecological validity and application of the study.
L Therefore, the SPE provides important insight into how social roles can contribute to destructive behaviour.

Zimbardo (1973) - Exaggerates the power of roles

P One limitation of the SPE is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour.

E Only one-third of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner; another third tried to apply the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to support and help the prisoners.
E This shows that most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.
L Therefore, this suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors.

Zimbardo (1973) - Lack of realism

P Another limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison.

E Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued that participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participants’ performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave, one guard claimed he based his role on a brutal character from the film “Cool Hand Luke.”
E This would explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought it was what real prisoners did.
L Therefore, this suggests that findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.

Milgram (1963) - Aim

To investigate how far people would go in obeying an authority figure, even when it involved harming another person

Milgram (1963) - Baseline Procedure

• 40 American male volunteers took part in a lab experiment on “memory”

• Participants were always the Teacher; a confederate was always the learner

• Teachers gave increasingly strong electric shocks to the Learner for wrong answers

• The shocks ranged from 15V to 450V, and the Learner was in a different room

Milgram (1963) - Baseline Findings

• 100% of participants delivered all the shocks up to 300V

• 65% went to 450V

• Participants showed signs of extreme tension: sweating, trembling, stuttering, and three even had seizures

• Psychology students predicted <3% would go up to 450V, showing the outcome was unexpected

• All participants were debriefed, and 84% later said they were glad to have taken part

Milgram (1963) - Conclusion

• Obedience is not unique to a particiular group, e.g Germans.

• Situational factors play a powerful role in obedience

Proximity

• Same room as learner - obedience dropped to 40%

• Teacher forces hand onto shock plate - obedience dropped to 30%

• Instructions by phone - obedience dropped to 20.5%

• Being physically distant from the consequences makes obedience easier; distance from authority reduces it

Location

• In a run-down office block - obedience fell to 47.5%

• Yale’s prestige increased obedience; less credible settings reduced perceived legitimacy of authority

Uniform

• Experimenter in lab coat gets called away and replaced by ordinary member of public in everyday clothes - obedience dropped to 20%

• Uniforms signal legitimate authority, without one, obedience is less likely

Situational variables - Research Support

P One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience.
E In a field experiment in NYC, Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dress in different outfits - a jacket and a tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter.
E People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie.
L Therefore, this supports the view that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.

Situational variables - Cross-cultural replications

P Another strength of Milgram’s research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures.

E Meeus and Raajmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone - a confederate - desperate for a job. 90% obeyed. The researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity.
E When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.
L Therefore, this suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across other cultures too.

Situational variables - Low Internal Validity

P One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked.
E The extra manipulation of variables make this more likely. Even Milgram recognised that in the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a “member of the public,” some participants may have worked out the truth as it was so contrived.
E In Milgram’s studies it is unclear whether the participants are genuinely obeying or whether they are responding to demand characteristics and seeing through the deception.
L Therefore, Milgram’s studies lack internal validity.

Situational variables - Danger of situational perspective

P Another limitation of Milgram’s research is that it only supports a situational explanation of obedience.
E But this perspective has been criticised by Mandel (1998) who argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour.
E In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milgram’s explanation also ignores dispositional factors, implying that the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyong their control
L Therefore, Milgram’s study is potentially offensive and excuses evil personality.

Agentic state

• A person acts on behalf of an authority figure and does not feel personally responsible for their actions

• They may experience moral strain when they know the action is wrong but feel unable to disobey

Autonomous state

• The opposite of the agentic state

• The person feels free and responsible for their own actions

• The agentic shift is the transition from autonomy to agency, often triggered by the prescence of a legitimate authority figure

Binding Factors

• Strategies that help reduce moral strain and allow people to remain in the agnetic state

• For example, shifting responsibility to the victim or minimising the harm caused

Agentic state - Research Support

P One strength is that Milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience.

E Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point, and often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure. One participant asked “Who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed?” and continued when the Experiment replied, “I’m responsible.”
E This shows that participants felt they were not personally responsible for their actions, supporting the idea that they had entered an agentic state.
L Therefore, this suggests that when participants enter the agentic state, obeying orders becomes easier.

Agentic state - Limited explanation

P A limitation is that the agentic state explanation cannot account for all cases of obedience.
E In Rank and Jacobsons (1977) study, 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order to administed an excessive drug dose, even though the doctor was clearly an authority figure.
E This suggests that not all obedience can be explained by the agentic shift, as many participants remained in an autonomous state despite the presence of authority.
L Therefore, the agentic state may only apply to certain situations and cannot fully explain obedience in real-world scenarios.

Legitimacy of authority

• We obey those in socially agreed positions of power, such as teachers and police

• This helps society function smoothly

• Some people are granted power to punish others due to their place in the social hierarchy

• We learn obedience to authority from childhood

Destructive authority

• When authority is misused to order harmful behaviour, e.g. Hitler

• People may obey even when it goes against their conscience, due to percieved legitimacy

Legitimacy of Authority - Explains cultural differences

P A strength is that it can account for cultural differences in obedience.
E Kilham and Mann (1974) found only 16% obedience in Australian women. However, Mantell (1971) found 85% obedience in German participants.
E This shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
L Therefore, the legitimacy of authority research offers an explanation for the ways different societies are structured and how children are reaised to percieve authority figures.

Legitimacy of Authority - Cannot explain all (dis)obedience

P A limtiation is that it cannot account for all instances of disobedience.
E In Rank and Jacobson’s (1977) study, most nursers disobeyed even though the doctor held clear authority in a hierarchial setting.
E This suggests that other factors, such as individual personality traits or moral reasoning may have more influence than the authority figure’s legitimacy.
L Therefore, while useful, the legitimacy of authority explanation is incomplete on its own and cannot explain all obedience behaviour.

Authoritarian Personality

• Adorno et al. (1950) proposed that a high level of obedience is related to a personality type, not the situation

  People with AP show:

• Extreme respect for authority and obedience to it

• View society as weaker than it once was

• Are hostile to lower-status people and show contempt for inferiors

• Often have rigid views, dislike uncertainty and favour strong leadership to restore traditional values

Origins of the Authoritarian Personality

• Thought to result from harsh parenting, strict discipline, conditional love, high standards

• Leads to resentment which is displaced onto weaker groups, known as scapegoating

• This is a psychodynamic explanation, where hostility towards parents is redirected to others

Adorno et al (1950) - Aim

To investigate whether a dispositional explanation could account for high levels of obedience, specifically the Authoritarian Personality

Adorno et al (1950) - Procedure

• Studied over 2000 middle-class, white American participants using questionnaires, including the F-scale

• Examples of items from F-scale include “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children.” and “There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel love, respect and gratitude for his parents.”

Adorno et al (1950) - Findings

• High scorers on the F-scale showed strong respect for authority and were contemptuous of the weak

• They held rigid stereotypes and had “black” and “white” cognitive styled thinking

• Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Authoritarian Personality - Research Support

P One strength is that there is research evidence linking authoritarianism and obedience.
E Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed participants who had been fully obedient in Milgram’s original study. These individuals scored significantly higher on the F-scale than those who had resisted authority.
E This supports Adorno et al’s theory that people with an AP are more likely to obey authority figures due to shared traits like respect for authority and traditional values.
L Therefore, this provides support for a dispositional explanation of obedience.

Authoritarian Personality - Consistency with some characteristics

P Another strength is that the AP explanation matches certain observed behaviours.
E Milgram’s obedient participants were more likely to identify with the authority figure and showed less empathy for the victim, which aligns with authoritarian traits like submission to authority and aggression to outgroups.
E This consistency suggests that personality traits such as rigidity and hostility to those lower in status may genuinely contribute to obedience levels in some individuals.
L Therefore, this gives face validity to the AP explanation.

Authoritarian Personality - Limited Explanation

P A key limitation is that the AP cannot explain obedience on a mass scale.
E In Nazi Germany, millions of people displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behavioir, but it’s unlikely they all had an AP.
E This suggests that obedience in such contexts is better explained by situational factors rather than personality traits alone.
L Therefore, Adorno’s theory is limited and may not be useful for explaining widespread obedience.

Authoritarian Personality - Political Bias

P Another limitation is that the F-scale used to measure authoritarianism is politically biased.
E Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that the F-scale only measures a tendency towards right-wing authoritarianism, ignoring similar obedience tendencies from left-wing ideologies like communism or socialism.
E This means the theory lacks ideological neutrality and cannot fully account for obedience across the political spectrum.
L Therefore, the theory may not be a comprehensive dispositional explanation for obedience.

Social Support - Resisting conformity

• Conformity is reduced when others disobey or dissent from the majority

• Seen in Asch’s study: the prescence of a non-conforming confederate made participants less likely to conform

• The dissenter acts as a model for indepentdent behaviour and shows that the majority is not always correct

Social Support - Resisting obedience

• Obedience decreases when another person disobeys authority

• In Milgram’s variation: obedience dropped from 65% to 10% with a disobedient confederate

• The disobedient role model gives confidence and challenges the authority’s legitimacy

Social Support - Real-world Research Support

P One strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support.

E Albrecht et al (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Those with a ‘buddy’ providing social support were significantly less likely to smoke than those without.
E This supports the idea that social support can promote resistance to conformity in real-world settings, showig it has practical benefits beyond the lab.
L Therefore, social support is a valid and useful explanation for resisting conformity, supported by everyday evidence.

Social Support - Doesn’t always work

P A limitation of social support as an explanation is that it doesn’t always effectively help people resist social influence
E Allen and Levine (1971) found that when a dissenter in an Asch-type task had poor eyesight (wore thick glasses), 36% resisted conformity and when the dissenter had good eyesight, 65% resisted conformity.

E This suggests that the effectiveness of social support depends on how credible or competent the supporter appears. If the dissenter is seen as unreliable, they may not influence others to resist.
L Therefore, social support may not always be a valid or reliable explanation for resistance to conformity, especially when the dissenter lacks authority or credibility.

Locus of Control (LOC)

Proposed by Rotter (1966) - refers to how much control a person believes they have over events in their life

Internal LOC

• Believe they control what happens to them

• More likely to resist social influence as they take personal responsibility

External LOC

• Believe external forces (luck, others, fate) control events

• More likely to conform or obey

LOC Continuum

• LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it

• High internal and High external LOC are at opposite ends of the continuum

LOC resistance to social influence

• People with a high internal LOC are more confident, achievement-oriented and resist pressure better

• More likely to act independently and less affected by social approval

LOC - Research Support

P A strength of the LOC explanation is that there is supporting research evidence.
E Holland (1967) found that 37% of participants with an internal LOC resisted going to the maximum voltage in a Milgram-type study, compared to only 23% of externals.
E This shows that internals are more likely to resist authority, supporting the link between internal LOC and resistance to social influence.
L Therefore, LOC is a valid dispositional explanation of resistance to obedience.

LOC - Contradictory Research

P A limitation of LOC is that some research contradicts its predictions.
E Twenge et al (2004) reviewed American LOC studies over 40 years and found that people have become more external over time yet also more resistant to authority.
E This is the opposite of what LOC would predict, suggesting that other factors may influence resistance more than LOC.
L Therefore, LOC may not be a complete or consistent explanation of resistance to social influence.