Social Influence Master Set

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

The influence of others that leads to conformity in order to be accepted and liked by the group, often resulting in public compliance.

Informative Social Influence (ISI)

The influence of others that leads to conformity based on the desire to be correct, resulting in private acceptance of the group's beliefs or behaviours.

Internalisation

The process of adopting the beliefs or behaviours of a group as one's own, leading to permanent change in attitudes.

Identification

A social influence process where individuals change their beliefs or behaviours to align with a group while still maintaining some independence. This often occurs in the context of group membership.

Compliance

A change in behaviour in response to a group or individual, often without changing personal beliefs, typically due to social pressure.

Obedience

A type of social influence where an individual follows direct commands or orders from an authority figure, often leading to changes in behaviour without personal agreement.

Agentic State

A psychological concept where an individual sees themselves as an "agent" carrying out the orders of an authority figure, thus relinquishing personal autonomy and moral responsibility

Autonomous State

The opposite of the agentic state, where an individual is free to act on their own conscience and takes personal responsibility for their actions.

Legitimacy of Authority

The idea that people are more likely to obey those perceived to have a higher position in a social hierarchy, like a uniform or a title.

Authority

A person or group who has power or control over others.

Social Influence

A broad concept that includes conformity and obedience, examining how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by others.

Deindividuation

A state in which individuals become less self-aware and accountable for their actions, often when in a group.

Locus of Control

An individual's belief about the extent to which they can control events affecting them, which can affect their resistance or conformity to social pressure.

Authoritarian Personality

A personality type characterized by a rigid adherence to conventional, conservative values and a strong belief in the power of authority. 

What was the aim of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?

To investigate whether people conform to social roles of guard and prisoner in a simulated prison environment.

How were participants selected for the SPE?

24 male university students were screened for psychological health and randomly assigned to guard or prisoner roles.

Where was the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted?

In the basement of Stanford University, converted into a mock prison.

How were prisoners treated at the start of the study?

They were unexpectedly arrested at home, fingerprinted, stripped, deloused, and given prison uniforms and ID numbers.

What were guards instructed to do?

Maintain order in the prison but use no physical violence. They wore uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, and carried wooden batons.

How did Zimbardo participate in the experiment?

He acted as the prison superintendent, overseeing the study and interacting with participants.

What were the main findings of the SPE?

Guards quickly became abusive, humiliating prisoners, who became submissive, anxious, and depressed. The study ended after six days instead of two weeks.

What behaviours did prisoners display during the experiment?

Emotional breakdowns, rebellion, crying, and passivity — showing distress and loss of personal identity.

How did guards’ behaviour change during the experiment?

They became increasingly aggressive and authoritarian, using punishment and humiliation to maintain control.

What did Zimbardo conclude about conformity to social roles?

People readily conform to social roles, and situational factors can produce extreme behaviour even among psychologically stable individuals.

What explanation did Zimbardo give for the participants’ behaviour?

The power of the situation and social roles, rather than individual personality, caused the behaviour.

What are the strengths of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

Controlled conditions, high realism, and valuable insights into the influence of roles and institutions on behaviour.

What are the weaknesses of the SPE?

Ethical issues (psychological harm, lack of informed consent), experimenter bias, and lack of realism (role play).

What did Haslam and Reicher (2006, BBC Prison Study) find that challenges Zimbardo’s conclusions?

Participants did not automatically conform; some resisted authority, suggesting group identification and leadership are more important.

What ethical issues were raised by the SPE?

Participants experienced distress, humiliation, and loss of autonomy. Zimbardo’s dual role created conflict of interest.

How does the SPE apply to real

world events?

What criticisms exist regarding validity in the SPE?

Low internal validity due to Zimbardo’s involvement, and low population validity (small, male, American sample).

Was the SPE reliable or replicable?

Not reliably replicated; later studies (BBC, 2006) produced different results, questioning reliability.

How might demand characteristics have influenced the SPE?

Participants may have acted in ways they thought were expected rather than natural responses.

What alternative explanation challenges Zimbardo’s situational account?

Dispositional factors — some guards remained fair, suggesting personal morality also played a role.

What overall conclusion about social influence can be drawn from the SPE?

Behaviour can be shaped strongly by situational pressures and social roles, but individual differences and context still matter.

What year was the study?

1963

What was the aim of the Milgram Study?

To determine the extent to which people would obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform actions that conflicted with their personal conscience.

What was the procedure of the Milgram Study?

The procedure involved participants ("teachers") administering what they believed were electric shocks to a "learner" (a confederate) when the learner answered incorrectly.

What were the findings of the Milgram Study?

The key findings were that a surprising majority of participants (65%) would administer the highest voltage shock (450V), and most participants showed extreme signs of stress (such as trembling, nervous laughter), even while continuing to obey.

What are the conclusions from the Milgram Study?

The conclusion was that ordinary people are highly likely to obey orders from a legitimate authority, even if those orders involve harming another person. 

How many participants were there?

40 in the original study

Where did the study take place (not variation)

Yale University

What were the roles of the real participants?

“Teacher”- delivering the electric shocks

What were the roles of the confederates?

“Learner”- paid actors who intentionally got the answers wrong and faked the pain.

Were the participants deceived?

Yes, they were unaware of the confederates and the true aim of the study. Ethical Issue

Did the participants have the right to withdraw?

Technically yes, but if they tried to leave they were told that the experiment required them to stay. This pressured the participants and made them feel as if they couldn’t leave. Ethical Issue, Evaluative Ethical Weakness.

Did the Participants have informed consent?

No, they weren’t informed about the true purpose of the study and the confederates. Ethical Issue.

The Participants were deceived. Is this a strength or a weakness?

Both- Ethical Weakness and Methodological Strength

Strength or weakness? The experiment was repeated in a French documentary (Le Jeu de la Mort) about reality TV, and very similar results were found. 80% of participants delivered the fatal shock. The participants also exhibited the same nervous behaviour that Milgram found- nervous laughter, trembling, nail biting etc.

Methodological Strength- Replicability, more generalisable 

The study may appear to lack external validity as it was conducted in a lab, but the central feature of the study was the relationship between the authority figure and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. One other research study found that 21/22 nurses obeyed unjustified by doctors on a hospital ward (until they were stopped). Strength or weakness?

Methodological Strength- Real world study

Proximity Variation procedure

Teacher and Learner in same room

Teacher forced the Learner’s hand onto a Shock Plate (Touch)

Experimenter gave instructions over the phone (remote)

What were the Proximity Variations findings?

Same room- Obedience dropped to 40%

Touch- Obedience dropped to 40%

Remote- Obedience dropped to 20.5%

What were the Proximity Variations Conclusions?

When a person is aware of, and can see the harm they are causing to another person, they are less obediant.

What were the Location Variations Procedure

Move the location of the study from the prestigious Yale University, to a run down office block.

What were the Location Variations Findings?

Obedience fell to 47.5%

What were the Locations Variations Conclusions?

The decrease is because the location is less prestigious, so has less legitimate authority.

Still high due to perceived scientific nature.

What were the Uniform Variations Procedure?

What were the Uniform Variations Findings?

What were the Uniform Variations conclusions?

What was the aim of Asch’s (1951) study?

To investigate the extent to which people conform to the majority even when the correct answer is obvious.

Who were the participants in Asch’s study?

123 male American undergraduates who believed they were taking part in a vision test.

What was the procedure of Asch’s conformity experiment?

Participants were shown a standard line and three comparison lines, then asked to say which matched. Each group had 6–8 confederates who deliberately gave wrong answers on 12 of 18 critical trials. The real participant answered second to last.

How often did participants conform to the wrong majority?

On average, participants conformed 36.8% of the time on critical trials.

What percentage of participants never conformed?

25% of participants never conformed.

What explanation did Asch give for participants’ conformity?

Participants conformed to avoid rejection and gain social approval — an example of normative social influence (NSI).

What did Asch conclude from his findings?

People conform to majority opinions even in unambiguous tasks, showing the power of group pressure and the influence of NSI.

What variation of group size did Asch test and what was the result?

Conformity increased with group size up to three confederates (31.8%), then plateaued.

What happened when Asch introduced an ally (unanimity variation)?

When one confederate gave a correct or different answer, conformity dropped to about 25%.

What happened when the task difficulty was increased (Asch)?

When line lengths were more similar, conformity increased — suggesting informational social influence (ISI) plays a role when the task is ambiguous.

What were the main strengths of Asch’s study?

High control over variables, replicable, and provided clear evidence for normative and informational influence processes.

What were the main weaknesses of Asch’s study?

Lacked ecological validity (artificial task), suffered from sample bias (all male, American), and included deception.

What ethical issues are present in Asch’s research?

Participants were deceived about the true nature of the study and exposed to potential embarrassment or stress.

How did Perrin and Spencer (1980) challenge Asch’s findings?

They found very low conformity (1 out of 396 trials) among British engineering students, suggesting low temporal validity.

How can Asch’s study be applied to the real world?

It helps explain conformity in juries, workplace decisions, education, and social group dynamics.

What type of validity did Asch’s study have?

High internal validity due to control, but low ecological and population validity.

Was Asch’s study reliable and replicable?

Yes, due to its standardised procedure, but replication results vary by culture and era.

What cultural factors affect conformity based on Asch’s paradigm?

Collectivist cultures show higher conformity rates than individualistic ones, supporting cultural influence on social behaviour.

What overall conclusion about social influence can be drawn from Asch’s research?

Both group pressure and social norms can lead individuals to conform, demonstrating the strength of normative and informational influences.

Conformity

The process of adjusting one's beliefs or behaviours to match those of a group or social norm, often in response to real or imagined pressure.

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

The influence of others that leads to conformity in order to be accepted and liked by the group, often resulting in public compliance.

Strengths of the NSI explanation

The NSI explanation effectively accounts for the reasons individuals conform in social settings, such as the desire for social acceptance and fitting in. It is supported by empirical research showing that people are more likely to conform when they feel they are being observed by the group.

Limitations of the NSI explanation

The NSI explanation may not account for instances where individuals conform despite being independent or having personal convictions. Additionally, it may oversimplify conformity by not considering other influencing factors such as culture and situational contexts.

Informative Social Influence (ISI)

The influence of others that leads to conformity based on the desire to be correct, resulting in private acceptance of the group's beliefs or behaviours.

Strengths of the ISI explanation

The ISI explanation provides a solid framework for understanding conformity rooted in the desire to be correct, as it emphasizes cognitive processes. It is supported by evidence that shows individuals often conform when they are uncertain. This explanation highlights that people look to others as a source of information in ambiguous situations, leading to more adaptive behaviour.

Limitations of the ISI explanation

The ISI explanation may not fully explain conformity in all cases, particularly when individuals prioritize social norms over accuracy. It can also overlook the role of emotional factors in the decision-making process.<span>Additionally, the ISI explanation may not account for cultural differences in conformity, as people from collectivist cultures may prioritize group harmony over individual correctness.

Internalisation

The process of adopting the beliefs or behaviours of a group as one's own, leading to permanent change in attitudes.

Compliance

A change in behaviour in response to a group or individual, often without changing personal beliefs, typically due to social pressure.

Agentic State

A psychological concept where an individual sees themselves as an "agent" carrying out the orders of an authority figure, thus relinquishing personal autonomy and moral responsibility

Autonomous State

The opposite of the agentic state, where an individual is free to act on their own conscience and takes personal responsibility for their actions.

Legitimacy of Authority

The idea that people are more likely to obey those perceived to have a higher position in a social hierarchy, like a uniform or a title.

Authority

A person or group who has power or control over others.

Social Influence

A broad concept that includes conformity and obedience, examining how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by others.

Deindividuation

A state in which individuals become less self-aware and accountable for their actions, often when in a group.

Locus of Control

An individual's belief about the extent to which they can control events affecting them, which can affect their resistance or conformity to social pressure.

Authoritarian Personality

A personality type characterized by a rigid adherence to conventional, conservative values and a strong belief in the power of authority. 

Dispositional explanation of obedience

The dispositional explanation of obedience focuses on individual personality traits, such as authoritarianism, which may predispose some people to follow orders despite ethical concerns. It suggests that those with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey authority figures, often due to their upbringing and adherence to societal norms.

Aim of Milgram’s study

• Investigate Obedience: To measure the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.

• Understand Authority: To understand how ordinary people could be coerced into harming another human being under the pressure of an authority figure.

• Contextualize Behaviour: To investigate if Germans were "different" or if anyone would follow orders

Procedure of Milgram’s study

• Participants: 40 male volunteers via newspaper ads for a study on "memory and learning".

• Roles: Assigned the role of "teacher" via a rigged lottery, while a confederate was the "learner".

• Task: Teacher read word pairs, if learner answered incorrectly, the teacher gave electric shocks from 15V up to 450V.

• Setup: Teacher saw the learner being strapped into a chair and received a sample 45V shock.

• "Prods": When teachers hesitated or asked to stop, the experimenter used a scripted series of four "prods" to force them to continue, such as: "The experiment requires that you continue".

• Reaction: The learner didn’t receive shocks, but screaming up to 300V and going silent after 315V

Findings of Milgram’s Study

• High Obedience Rates: Contrary to predictions that only 3% would go to 450V, 65% (26 of 40) of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock.

• 100% Threshold: All 40 participants (100%) continued to at least 300 volts.

• Psychological Distress: Participants showed extreme tension, including sweating, trembling, stuttering, and biting their lips.

• Follow-up Data: 83.7% of participants stated they were "glad to have taken part" in the debriefing