SOCIAL INFLUENCE PSYCH P1

define conformity

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

why does a person conform?

• if they choose a course of action that is favoured by

the majority of other group members

what is conformity often referred to as?

majority influence

outline types of conformity

• internalisation

• compliance

explain compliance

• weak or temporary form of conformity where your personal opinions don’t change

• only done in presence of group

• involves going along with others in public

• superficial change

• public but not private change of behaviour/opinion

explain internalisation

• seen to be true conformity

• shown even in absence of group

• permanent change of behaviour/opinion

• private and public change of of opinion and behaviour

"How does compliance happen?"

• social comparison : concentrating on what others say or do so that they can adjust their actions

how does internalisation happen?

• validation process : consider own beliefs to see if they or the other are right - may be convinced that the beliefs of the group are right leading to acceptance.

what are the 2 explanations for conformity

• Normative Social influence

• informational social influence

explain Normative Social influence

• Norms - what is ‘normal’ or typical behaviour for a group

• Normative social influence is where a person conforms because they want to be liked and be part of a group.

• Emotional rather than cognitive process

• leads to compliance

• It is driven by a person's need to be accepted or have approval from a group/fear of rejection.

• happens in stressful situations

• unambigous situations (obvious)

explain informational social influence

• Informational social influence is where a person conforms because they have a desire to be right, and look to others who they believe may have more or better information.

• cognitive rather than emotional process

• new situations/ambiguity

• internalisation

• crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly

• It occurs in ambiguous, difficult, or novel situations where we lack the knowledge or expertise to make our own decisions.

what was the aim of asch’s study

• to investigate the effect of confederates giving incorrect answers to a task on participant responses.

describe the procedure of asch’s study

• 123 male US students

• There were 5-7 participants per group : participant always sat next to last with 6 confederates before and 1 after.

• Each group was presented with a standard line and three comparison lines.

• Participants had to say aloud which comparison line matched the standard line in length.

• In each group there was only one real participant the remaining 6 were confederates.

• The confederates were told to give the same incorrect answer on 12 out of 18 trails.

• those 12 trials were called crticical trials

• On the remaining 6 trials the confederates could say what they thought was the correct answer

• students didn’t know each other

describe the results of asch’s study

• On the 12 critical trials, the average conformity was 33%.

• when participants were interviewed afterwards most said they conformed to avoid rejection (normative social influence)

• pp made mistakes 1% of the time in non critical trials

what did ash conclude from his study

• Asch concluded that participants conformed and gave the wrong answers even when the answer was

unambiguous, to avoid social rejection, showing the power of normative social influence.

what are the evlauation points for asch’s study

low generalisability

highly reliable

unethical

lacks mundane realism

lacks ecological validity

high internal validity

application - bullying in schools

Q: How is Asch's study limited in terms of generalisability?

P: One weakness is that Asch's sample is not generalisable.

E: The sample consisted of male American undergraduates.

E: This does not represent how females, different age groups or cultures might conform differently.

L: Therefore, the findings may not generalise to the wider population.

C: However, the study used a relatively large sample of 123 participants, which gives some confidence that the findings are not based on only a few individuals.

Q: How is Asch's study reliable?

P: One strength is that Asch's study is highly reliable.

E: It used controlled, standardised procedures, such as confederates giving the same incorrect response on the 12 critical trials, with the naive participant always seated second-to-last and the same printed line stimuli being used.

E: This made the procedure easily replicable.

L: Therefore, researchers can repeat Asch's study to see whether they obtain similar conformity results, increasing confidence in its reliability.

Q: How was Asch's study unethical?

P: One weakness is that Asch's study was not fully ethical.

E: Participants were told the study was a visual discrimination task and were unaware of the confederates, so they were deceived.

E: This meant they could not give fully informed consent and may have felt embarrassed after giving an incorrect answer despite the lines being unambiguous, potentially causing psychological harm.

L: Theretore, the study did not fully follow BPS ethical guidelines.

C: However, participants were debriefed afterwards, which helped reduce the potential harm caused by the deception.

Q: How does Asch's study lack mundane realism?

P: One weakness of Asch's study is that it lacks mundane realism.

E: The line-judgement task was artificial and there were few consequences for giving the wrong answer.

E: Participants may have felt changing their answer was not very significant compared with real-life

situations where conformity can have more serious consequences.

C: However, the simple line-judgement task allowed Asch to isolate conformity and NSI, making it easier to study the effect of group pressure.

Q: How does Asch's study lack ecological validity?

P: One weakness of Asch's study is that it lacks ecological validity.

E: The study took place in a highly controlled laboratory environment, where Asch controlled the

confederates' responses, seating position and line-judgement task.

E: Real-life conformity happens in more natural and complex environments, such as around friends or people they know, which could affect willingness to conform.

C: However, the controlled environment allowed Asch to isolate the effect of normative social influence (NSI), making it easier to study conformity accurately.

Q: Why does Asch's study have good internal validity?

P: One strength is that Asch's study has good internal validity.

E: Participants made mistakes only 1% of the time in the 6 non-critical trials, compared with 33% conformity in the 12 critical trials.

E: This shows the increase in conformity was caused by the confederates' incorrect responses, which is what Asch intended to study.

L: Therefore, Asch can be confident he measured what he intended to measure: the effect of confederate responses on naive participants.

Q: How can Asch's findings be applied to bullying in schools?

P: One strength of Asch's research is that it has useful applications, such as bullying in schools.

E: In post-study interviews, some participants said they knew the correct answer but gave the wrong answer to avoid rejection.

E: Similarly, students may join in with bullying even though they know it is wrong because they want to fit in and avoid social rejection.

L: Therefore, Asch's research can help schools understand how peer pressure and NSI can encourage harmful group behaviour and help develop strategies to reduce bullying.

what are the factors that affect conformity?

group size

unaminity of the majority

task difficulty

Q: How did Asch investigate the effect of group size on conformity? (variation of his study)

Asch varied the number of confederates to see whether there was a minimum group size

needed to produce conformity.

• 1-2 confederates: very little conformity.

• 3 confederates: conformity rose to about 30%.

• More than 3: conformity did not increase substantially.

Conclusion: A group of around 3 confederates was enough to produce conformity, but

increasing the majority beyond this had little additional effect.

Q: How did Asch investigate the effect of unanimity of the majority on conformity? (variation of his study)

Asch varied whether all confederates gave the same wrong answer to see whether social

support reduced conformity.

• A confederate giving the correct answer → conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5%.

• A lone dissenter giving a different incorrect answer - conformity dropped to 9%.

Conclusion: Conformity is strongly affected by unanimity. Having even one other person

disagree with the majority makes it easier for the participant to resist conformity.

Q: How did Asch investigate the effect of task difficulty on conformity? (variation of his study)

Asch made the differences between the lines smaller, making the correct answer less

obvious and the task more difficult.

• As the task became more ambiguous, conformity increased.

• This suggests participants were more likely to rely on the majority when they were

uncertain about the correct answer.

Conclusion: Task difficulty increases conformity and provides evidence for informational

social influence (ISI).

what was the aim of milgram’s study of obedience

• To investigate how far people would go to obey an instruction from an authority figure even it involves harming another person.

describe the procedure of milgram’s study of obedience

• 40 male participants (from new haven area), aged 20-50, from range of jobs, were paid $4.50.

• Participants were told the study was about how punishment affects learning.

• The participant met the confederate learner and the experimenter.

• Lots were drawn to decide who would be the teacher and learner, but this was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and the confederate was always the learner.

• The learner was strapped into a chair with electrodes in another room, while the participant and experimenter were in a separate room with the shock generator.

• The participant (teacher) was given a 15-volt shock to make the procedure seem believable.

• The learner was given a list of word pairs to learn.

• The participant (teacher) then tested the learner on the word pairs.

• Every time the learner made a mistake, the participant (teacher) had to administer an electric shock, increasing by 15 volts each time, from 15 to 450 volts.

• The learner gave mainly wrong answers and received the fake shocks in silence until

300 volts.

• At 300 vots, the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response.

• From 315 volts upwards there was no banging on the wall

• At 315 volts, the participant was instructed to treat no response as a wrong answer and continue administering shocks.

• If the participant questioned or refused to continue, the experimenter used standardised prods, such as "It is absolutely essential that you continue", "Please continue", "The experiment requires that you continue", "You have no other choice, you must go on".

describe the findings of milgram’s study of obedience

• All 40 participants continued to 300 volts, where the learner banged on the wall.

• Only 5 participants stopped at 300 volts after hearing the

banging.

• 35 participants continued beyond 300 volts.

• 65% (26/40) continued all the way to the maximum 450 volts.

• Key finding: Despite the learner showing signs of distress, 65% obeyed the experimenter and continued to 450 volts.

describe the conclusion of milgarm’s study

Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure even to the extent of killing an innocent human. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.

what are the evaluation points for milgram’s study

• low generalisability

• high internal validity

• lacks mundane realism

• lacks ecological validity

• participnat right to withdraw compromised

• there was psychological harm

• deception

• application to real life - nazi germany

• higly reliable

Q: How is Milgram's study limited in terms of generalisability?

P: One weakness is that Milgram's study has low generalisability.

E: The sample consisted of 40 males aged 20-50 from New Haven, recruited from a

limited geographical area.

E: This means the findings may not represent how females, different age groups or

people from different locations would respond to an authority figure.

L: Therefore, Milgram's findings may not generalise to the wider population.

C: However, the sample had a range of social classes which shows that obedience is the same from social class to social class.

Q: How is Milgram's study highly reliable?

P: One strength is that Milgram's study has high reliability.

E: It used standardised procedures, including the four prods, the participant always being

the teacher, the confederate always being the learner, and the shocks increasing by 15

volts each time.

E: This meant the procedure could be easily replicated by other researchers.

L: Therefore, similar levels of obedience can be tested again, increasing confidence in the

reliability of Milgram's findings.

Q: How does Milgram's study lack mundane realism?

P: One weakness is that Milgram's study lacks mundane realism.

E: The task of learning word pairs and administering electric shocks is artificial and not

something people would normally do in everyday life.

E: Participants may therefore have behaved differently from how they would when faced

with real-life obedience situations.

L: Therefore, Milgram's findings may not accurately represent obedience in everyday life.

Q: How does Milgram's study lack ecological validity?

P: One weakness is that Milgram's study lacks ecological validity.

E: The study took place in a highly controlled laboratory environment, with the

experimenter giving standardised instructions and prods.

E: Real-life obedience occurs in more natural and complex environments, where factors

such as relationships and the situation may affect obedience.

L: Therefore, participants may behave differently in real-life situations, meaning Milgram's

findings may not accurately reflect real-world obedience.

Q: How was Milgram's study ethically problematic due to psychological harm?

P: One weakness is that Milgram's study may have caused psychological harm.

E: Participants believed they were giving increasingly strong electric shocks to the learner,

who banged on the wall at 300 volts and then gave no response.

E: This could have caused extreme distress, as participants may have believed they were

seriously harming or even killing another person.

C: However, participants were debriefed afterwards, and Milgram reported that participants were interviewed and reassured that their behaviour was normal. Follow-up contact also found no evidence of lasting psychological harm.

Q: How was Milgram's study ethically problematic due to deception?

P: One weakness is that Milgram's study involved deception.

E: Participants were told it was a study into how punishment affects learning, and they did

not know the experiment was rigged or that the learner was a confederate.

E: Therefore, participants could not give fully informed consent because they did not know

the true aim or what would actually happen.

C: However, deception was necessary to make participants believe the situation was

genuine, allowing Milgram to investigate obedience realistically.

Q: How did Milgram's study limit participants' right to withdraw?

P: One weakness is that participants' right to withdraw was compromised.

E: When participants tried to stop, the experimenter used the four standardised prods,

including "It is absolutely essential that you continue" and "You have no other choice, you

must go on."

E: This placed pressure on participants to continue even when they wanted to stop.

L: Therefore, the study may not have fully followed BPS guidelines on the right to

withdraw.

Q: How can Milgram's findings be applied to Nazi Germany?

P: One strength of Milgram's research is that it has useful applications to real-life

obedience, including Nazi Germany.

E: Milgram found that 65% of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts, despite

believing the learner was being seriously harmed, when instructed by the experimenter.

E: This suggests that ordinary people may obey an authority figure even when carrying

out harmful actions, which can help explain how people may participate in harmful

behaviour within an authoritarian system.

L: Therefore, Milgram's research can help us understand how obedience to authority may

contribute to harmful actions such as those carried out under Nazi rule.

Q: Why does Milgram's study have high internal validity?

P: One strength is that Milgram's study has high internal validity.

E: The procedure made participants genuinely believe the shocks were real: they received a

15-volt shock, saw the learner strapped into the electric chair, and heard the learner pound

on the wall at 300 volts.

E: This means their obedience was more likely to reflect a genuine response to an authority

figure, rather than participants simply pretending to obey because they knew the shocks

were fake.

L: Therefore, Milgram could be more confident that he was measuring obedience to

authority, which was what he intended to investigate.

C : However participants could have obeyed because they thought that there was no way the experimenter would actually allow them harm someone so their behaviour may have been influenced by demand characteristics rather than genuine obedience to authority.

how many variations of milgram’s study do you need to know and their names and what are the situational variables that affect obedience

PROXIMITY

• Both teacher and learner sat in the same room, obedience levels ( pp who actually went to 450V) drop to 40%. (variation 1)

• The teacher forced the learner’s hand onto the shock plate, obedience levels drop to 30%. (variation 2)

• Why? - they feel responsible for the harm caused because they can see it happening so they are more likely to disobey.

• experimenter and teacher are not in the same room so prods are given over the phone - obedience levels drop to 21%. (3)

• some people didn’t increase the volts and just lied to the experimenter.

• why? - less pressure = less likely to obey

LOCATION

• moved his research from yale uni to a more run down office building in bridgeport, conneticut - obedience levels drop to 48% (4)

• Why? - university environment gave milgram’s study and milgram legitimacy and authority. Obedience was still quite high because the participants percieved the scientific nature of the procedure.

UNIFORM

• Experimenter dressed in their own clothes, obedience levels drop to 20%. (5)

• Why?- Uniforms are widely recognised as symbols of authority.

explain a stregth of nsi

Point: NSI has research support.

Evidence: Asch found participants conformed to an obviously wrong answer 33% of

the time with confederates, compared with less than 1% without them. Post-study

interviews showed participants conformed to avoid disapproval and gain social

acceptance.

Explanation: This supports NSI because participants complied to fit in socially while

privately maintaining their own views, rather than internalising the majority's beliefs.

Counter-argument/Evaluation: However, Asch's research was conducted in 1950s

America, a highly conformist era, so conformity may have been influenced by

historical social norms. This reduces the generalisability of the support for NSI.

Q: What is a weakness of ISI as an explanation for conformity?

Point: ISI depends heavily on the nature of the task.

Evidence: Laughlin (1999) found majorities had greater influence over social

consensus judgements (e.g. how "fun" a city is) than objective judgements (e.g. a

city's population).

Explanation: ISI assumes ambiguity makes people seek the correct information, but

with subjective tasks, people may conform due to NSI instead.

Evaluation: This suggests ISI and NSI can operate together, so ISI alone cannot fully

explain conformity without considering the type of task.

Q: What is a weakness of ISI?

Point: Internalisation is not limited to informational need, as people can also

internalise majority views due to NSI.

Evidence: Wittenbrink & Henley (1996) found participants exposed to negative

information about African Americans, presented as a majority opinion, later reported

more negative personal beliefs. Fein et al. (2007) found presidential debate

candidate ratings shifted based on fellow participants' on-screen reactions.

Explanation: This shows internalisation can result from a desire to fit in with a group,

not simply from wanting to be correct, leading to long-term adoption of majority views.

Evaluation: However, both studies involved socially sensitive topics such as race and

politics, which may have increased conformity compared with low-stakes situations.

Q: What is a strength of NSI?

Point: NSI has high real-world application and ecological validity.

Evidence: Linkenbach & Perkins (2003) found adolescents told that most of their

peers did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking. Schultz et al. (2008) found

hotel guests reduced towel-reuse requests by 25% after being told that 75% of guests

reused their towels daily.

Explanation: This shows NSI operates in real-life situations, where people change

their behaviour to fit in with the majority and avoid social disapproval.

Q: What is a strength of NSI?

Point: NSI can occur below conscious awareness, giving it high real-world validity.

Evidence: Nolan et al. (2008) found participants believed their neighbours' behaviour

had the least influence on their energy conservation, yet it actually had the strongest

influence.

Explanation: This shows NSI can automatically influence behaviour without

conscious awareness. People may believe they are acting independently, while the

behaviour of the majority subtly influences their actions.

what are the 3 explanations for obedience.

• agentic state and legitimacy of authority

• situational variables affecting obedience : proximity, uniform, location

• authoritarian personality

define key terms : Autonomous, Autonomous state, Agentic state, Agentic shift and Binding factors

• Autonomous = right or condition of being self governing. Ability to make your own decisions.

• Autonomous state = state in which a person sees himself or herself as responsible for their own actions.

• Agentic state = state in which a person sees himself as an agent for carrying out another person’s wishes.

• Agentic shift = moving autonomous to an agentic state. Only happens when you percieve someone else as an authority figure.

• Individuals show moral strain

• Binding factors = individual fears that disobeying would be breaching the contract they have entered into and would appear arrogant and rude.

• These emotions bind the subject to obedience.

discuss legitimacy of authority

What is it?

• We are more likely to obey someone we recognise as having legitimate power within a social hierarchy.

• Most societies are hierarchical, so people in certain positions have authority over others, e.g. parents,

teachers and police officers.

• People generally accept that authority figures have the right to exercise social power and issue

demands, helping society function smoothly.

• Legitimacy occurs when a person recognises their own and others' positions within the hierarchy.

• Some authority figures are given the power to punish others, which can be destructive.

What makes authority seem legitimate?

• Visible symbols of authority, e.g. a uniform.

• The setting or institution itself.

Milgram:

• Experimenter wore a grey lab coat symbol of scientific status.

• Study took place at Yale University prestigious institution.

• Legitimacy has limits: potentially harmful commands are more likely to be accepted when backed by an institutional structure, e.g. a university or military.

explain a strength and weakness of agentic state

P: A strength of the agentic state explanation is that it is supported by research evidence.

E: In Milgram's study, when participants asked who was responsible if the learner was harmed and the

experimenter replied "I'm responsible", participants often continued with no further objections.

E: This supports the idea that participants entered an agentic state because they believed the authority figure

was responsible for their actions.

P: A weakness of the agentic state explanation is that it cannot explain all cases of disobedience.

E: Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to administer an

excessive drug dose.

E: This suggests that an agentic shift is not inevitable, so the explanation cannot fully account for why

people sometimes remain autonomous and refuse to obey.

describe a weakness and strength of legitimacy of authority

P: A strength of legitimacy of authority is that it has real-world validity.

E: Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argued that crimes of obedience, such as the My Lai Massacre, can be

understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army.

E: This shows how people may accept the legitimacy of authority figures within recognised institutional

hierarchies and obey even destructive commands.

Weakness 1 - Cannot explain disobedience

P: A weakness of legitimacy of authority is that it cannot explain all cases of disobedience.

E: Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to administer an

excessive drug dose.

E: The doctor was a legitimate authority figure, yet most nurses refused to obey, suggesting that legitimacy

of authority cannot fully account for disobedience.

what is the f scale

• measures an individual’s potential for facism (a right wing political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business , labour and opposition is not permitted).

• scale has been used in research into authoritarian personality type.

• high scores on the f scale are associated with being authoritarian.

what is the dispositional explanation for obedience

• authoritarian personality

describe authoritarian personality

• A personality type characterised by obedience and submission to authority, strong respect

  for people of higher status, and contempt for those seen as weak.

• they show extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status.

• Adorno: Authoritarians have rigid thinking and fixed stereotypes about different

groups.

• They show a strong positive correlation with prejudice.

• Often associated with being raised by authoritarian parents, including the use of

physical punishment.

Altemeyer - Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA):

• Conventionalism

→ adherence to traditional norms and values.

• Authoritarian aggression

→ aggression towards people who violate these norms.

• Authoritarian submission

→ uncritical submission to legitimate authorities.

describe 2 strengths of an authoritarian personality

• Point: A strength of the dispositional explanation is supporting evidence from Elms and Milgram (1966) showing a link between obedience and an Authoritarian Personality.

• Evidence: They interviewed a sub-sample of participants from Milgram's original study and found that fully obedient participants scored significantly higher on the F-scale and saw the authority figure as more admirable compared to defiant participants.

• Explain: This strengthens the theory because a strong positive correlation exists between high levels of authoritarianism and a greater likelihood to obey authority.

• Counter-argument: However, this link is merely correlational, meaning we cannot conclude that an authoritarian personality causes obedience; a third factor, such as a lower level of education, could be responsible for both.

• 
  

• 
  

• Point: Supporting evidence shows a clear relationship between political orientation, personality, and levels of obedience.

• Evidence: Bègue et al. (2014) replicated Milgram's study using a fake game show setting and found that participants who identified as left-wing administered shocks of lower intensity to other contestants.

• Explain: This supports the theory by showing that individuals with right-wing leaning traits (associated with authoritarianism) are consistently more obedient to authority figures than those with left-wing views.

describe 2 weaknesses of authoritarian personality

• Point: There is evidence that contradicts Adorno's theory regarding the

developmental origins of the Authoritarian Personality.

• Evidence: When Elms and Milgram questioned fully obedient participants about their childhoods, many reported having good, loving relationships with their parents rather than growing up in an overly strict or punitive family environment.

• Explain: This weakens the theory because it directly challenges Adorno's claim that authoritarian traits stem strictly from severe, strict parenting and displaced childhood hostility.

• 
  

• 
  

• Point: A limitation of the Authoritarian Personality explanation is that it ignores the powerful influence of social situations on obedience.

• Evidence: Milgram argued that variations in his study-such as proximity to the learner or location-dramatically altered obedience rates (e.g., dropping to 21% when the experimenter gave orders by phone) regardless of the participants' personality traits.

• Explain: This is a weakness because personality alone cannot explain why large groups of people change their behavior based on situational variables, suggesting dispositional factors offer an incomplete explanation.

what are the explanations for resistance to social influence

social support

locus of control

explain social support

• Perception that an individual has assistance available from other people and that they are part of a supportive network.

• The presence of people who resist pressure to conform or obey can help others to do the same.

• These people act as model to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.

explain social support and conformity together as a concept

• Asch found: when an ally gave a different answer from the rest of the majority,

conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5%.

• Breaking the unanimity of the majority shows the individual that there are other

equally legitimate ways of thinking/responding.

• This makes the individual more confident in their own decision and better able to

resist the majority.

• The individual also feels less isolated or humiliated because they are not the only

person giving a different answer.

explain Social Support and Obedience as a concept together

• Disobedient peers act as role models, showing the individual that it is possible to

resist the authority figure.

• In one of Milgram's variations, the participant was part of a team of three

administering shocks to the learner.

• The other two people were confederates who refused to continue and withdrew from

the experiment.

• Their disobedience had a liberating influence on the real participant.

• As a result, only 10% continued to the maximum 450V.

• Diffusion of responsibility: responsibility for disobedience is spread across several

people, so the individual may feel less personally responsible and less likely to be

punished.

describe a strength and 2 weakness for social support and conformity

• Point: Supporting evidence for social support comes from Albrecht et al. (2006),

showing that having a supportive peer can reduce conformity to social pressure.

• Evidence: They evaluated an eight-week Fresh Start USA programme for pregnant

adolescents aged 14-19, where social support was provided by a slightly older mentor

or "buddy". At the end of the programme, adolescents with a buddy were significantly

less likely to smoke than those in the control group without a buddy.

• Explain: This supports the role of social support because having a supportive person

reduced the adolescents' likelihood of giving in to social pressure to smoke.

Point: However, research by Allen and Levine (1969) suggests that the response

position of the ally affects how effective social support is.

Evidence: When a confederate gave the correct answer first, while the other

confederates gave the same incorrect answer, participants were more likely to resist

conformity than when the ally gave the correct answer fourth, immediately before the

participant.

Explain: This suggests that social support is not always equally effective, as the

position of the ally can influence how confident the participant feels about resisting

the majority.

Point: Allen, Allen and Levine (1971) found that social support is more effective when

the ally is seen as a valid source of support.

Evidence: In one condition, the confederate providing social support wore glasses with

very thick lenses, suggesting poor vision, while in the other condition the confederate

had normal vision. Although both conditions reduced conformity, the ally with normal

vision had a much greater effect.

Explain: This suggests that people are more likely to resist conformity when they

believe the ally's support is credible and valid, meaning social support does not

always have the same effect.

describe strength for obedience and social support

Point: Supporting evidence for social support in obedience comes from Gamson

(1982), showing that having other people who resist authority can encourage

disobedience.

Evidence: Participants were put into groups and asked to produce evidence that would

help an oil company carry out a smear campaign. Because they could discuss what to

do, 29 out of 33 groups rebelled against the orders.

Explain: This supports social support because being part of a group allowed

participants to discuss and challenge the orders, making it easier to resist the

authority figure.

explain locus of control

Locus of control = a person's perception of how much control they have over their

own behaviour and life events.

It is measured on a dimension from high internal to high external, with most people

falling somewhere in between.

explain Internal Locus of Control

People with a high internal locus of control believe they have control over what

happens in their lives.

They believe outcomes are mainly due to their own ability, effort and decisions.

They tend to be more independent and rely less on others.

explain external locus of control

People with a high external locus of control believe that what happens to them is

mainly determined by external factors.

These factors can include luck, chance or other people.

They are therefore more likely to be influenced by social pressure.

Locus of Control and Social Influence

People with a high internal locus of control are generally more resistant to social

influence.

People with a high external locus of control are generally more influenced by others.

explain Minority Influence

Minority influence = when one person or a small group influences the beliefs and

behaviour of the majority.

The minority is the group doing the influencing.

Minority influence is most likely to lead to internalisation, where both private beliefs

and public behaviour change.

what 3 things need to happen for minority to influence the majority

consistency

commitment

flexibility

explain consistency

A minority is more influential when they are consistent in their views.

Synchronic consistency = the minority are consistent with each other and give the

same message.

Diachronic consistency = the minority are consistent over time and continue to give

the same message.

Consistency makes the majority pay attention and rethink their own views.

The majority may begin to think, "Maybe they have a point."

A consistent message can make the minority seem more confident and trustworthy.

explain commitment

The minority must show commitment to their cause or views.

They may demonstrate commitment by making sacrifices or inconveniencing

themselves, such as risking friendships.

The greater the risk or sacrifice, the greater the commitment appears.

Augmentation principle = when the majority pay more attention to a minority because

they have suffered or taken risks for their cause.

explain flexibility

Nemeth (1986) argued that although consistency is important, being too consistent

can be off-putting.

A minority who constantly repeats the same argument may appear rigid, unbending

and dogmatic.

The minority should be willing to adapt their views and accept reasonable and valid

counter-arguments.

Therefore, effective minority influence requires a balance between consistency and

flexibility.