SOCIAL INFLUENCE

State the definition of conformity

Conformity is a type of social influence where we choose to go along with the majority of the group (majority influence ) e.g peer pressure or fashion trends . this causes a change in attitude.

State and explain Compliance

There are three ways in which we conform. Compliance is the first level of conformity. Here

a person changes their public behaviour and the way they act just to fit in but not their private beliefs.

The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us. For example,

one person may be a conservative whereas the group may belong to the labour party.

Outwardly, the conservative would agree with the group, whilst in private, they would

follow and vote for the conservative party. This is usually a superficial change and is often

the result of normative social influence (NSI).

State and explain identification

Identification is the middle level of

conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and their public beliefs, but only

when they are in the presence of the group. They act in the same way as the group because

we value it and want to be part of it. This is usually a short-term change as the behaviour reverts back to normal once they are away from the group

State and explain internalisation

Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. It occurs when an individual genuinely accepts the majority view as correct and changes both their public behaviour and private beliefs. This type of conformity usually results from informational social influence (ISI) and leads to a permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is no longer present. The majority opinion becomes part of the individual’s own belief system. For example, a person who converts to a religion after joining a group may continue to practise that religion even after leaving the group.

There are two explanations for conformity, outline and explain NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

1.People conform to the majority to gain social approval

and avoid rejection. Humans have a fundamental need

for social companionships and have a fear of

disapproval and rejection.

It leads to compliance - a temporary change where

individuals publicly alter behaviour without privately

agreeing. Away from the group, they revert to their

original behaviour

EXAMPLE: Changing behaviour as they want to be seen as

one of their colleagues/peers and not as an outsider

There are two explanations for conformity, outline and explain INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE

1.Based on the need to be right. People conform

because they are uncertain and believe the majority is

likely to be correct.

2.Individuals accept the opinions of others when they

believe they are correct, especially in ambiguous

situations where they lack knowledge.

3.This leads to internalisation, where individuals adopt

the group's beliefs as their own, continuing even when

away from the group

EXAMPLE: Using colleagues as a source of information for decision-making, so they change their behaviour to be correct).

a03- Informational social influence ( search support - Lucas at al) + individual differences

A strength of informational social influence as an explanation of conformity is that it is

supported by research.

For example, in the Lucas et al. study, participants conformed more often to incorrect

answers when maths problems were difficult.

This is a strength because it shows that when the problems were easy, the participants

'knew their own minds' but when the problems were hard, the situation became

ambiguous. The participants didn’t want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they

were given. This therefore supports ISI explanation, increasing the trust in it.

However, ISI cannot always predict conformity due to individual differences. People with

less confidence may look to other people quicker and assume that they are correct

whereas others may be confident in themselves and therefore be more likely not to

conform. This therefore decreases the usefulness of ISI as we cannot be sure that it affects

everyone in the same way.

Despite this, the ISI explanation has support from Lucas's study, which has high internal

validity. This therefore works to increase the external validity of the ISI explanation for

conformity as it is backed up by evidence, therefore encouraging more psychologists to use

it.

normative social influence ( research support + artificial stimuli)

A strength of normative social influence as an explanation of conformity is that it is

supported by research.

For example, when Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because

they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.

When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%.

This is a strength because it shows that removing the group and giving answers privately

means that there is no group pressure, making people less likely to conform. This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for

disagreeing with them, therefore increasing the trust in NSI.

However, this research was a lab study which used artificial stimuli, meaning that it has

little mundane realism, since people would not usually compare lines in their daily lives.

This means that it has low external validity and therefore limited application to the real

world. This limits the usefulness of NSI.

Despite this, the study still would have high internal validity due to the controlling of

variables. This therefore means that findings are valid even if they are not fully applicable.

This therefore increases the internal validity of the NSI explanation for conformity as it is

backed up by evidence.

explanations difficult to distinguish as normative and informational

A weakness of explanations of conformity is that it is difficult to distinguish between ISI

and NSI.

For example, Asch’s study found that the presence of a dissenter decreased levels of

conformity, which could have been a result of either NSI (because social support reduced

the need to fit in) or ISI (because there was alternative source of information).

This is a weakness because it means that the study did not make a strong distinction

between the two types of social influence. This decreases the usefulness of the

explanations as we cannot be sure that either of them is correct as they cannot be

distinguished between.

However, participants were interviewed after the study, and most said that they either

conformed to fit in or because they believed other people were correct. This suggests that

the study did make a distinction between the two types, therefore increasing the trust in

the study.

Despite this, there was still ambiguity in some areas of the study, which should be

acknowledged. This decreases the credibility of the different explanations of social

influence, therefore decreasing the external validity and discouraging psychologists to use

this to explain conformity.

outline search into conformity (1951)

Aim:
Asch aimed to investigate whether individuals would conform to a majority group answer when the correct answer was obvious, and therefore test the effects of normative social influence on behaviour.

Procedure:
Asch used a laboratory experiment with 123 male American undergraduate students. Participants were placed in groups of six confederates and one naïve participant who believed they were taking part in a vision perception task. They were shown one standard line and three comparison lines and asked to say aloud which comparison line matched the standard line. The naïve participant answered last or second to last, after hearing the confederates give identical incorrect answers on 12 out of 18 critical trials. A control condition was also used where there were no confederates.

Findings:
Participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials. About 75% of participants conformed at least once, while 25% never conformed. In the control condition, incorrect responses occurred only 1% of the time, showing errors were not due to poor perception.

Conclusion:
Asch concluded that individuals are likely to conform to a majority opinion even when the answer is clearly incorrect, mainly due to normative social influence, where people publicly agree with the group to avoid rejection but privately believe the group is wrong.

a03 - para 1 ( internal validity+ ecological validity) that’s external validity

A strength of Asch's Variations is that it has high internal validity.

For example, Asch used a standardised procedure in a lab setting. The task included

deciding which out of the three lines matched the stimulus line. The answer was made very

clear and there was no ambiguity in the task.

This is a strength because the findings can be replicated, increasing their reliability. In

addition, as the task was clear, he was definitely measuring conformity and not people's

ability to perceive small differences in length, therefore increasing the reliability in Asch's

research.

However, some may argue that it has low external validity because the set up was artificial

and the task was an odd thing to be discussing around a table. This means that it has little

mundane realism and cannot be generalised as the conformity shown in the lab study may

be different to conformity in modern day life, therefore discrediting Asch's variations.

Despite this, it is still a strength as it has high internal validity, conformity was definitely

measured and the results were obvious so Asch's study shows the impact of the majority,

therefore encouraging more psychologists to use this.

a03- para 2 ( ethical reason + demand characterics)

Point:
One limitation of Asch’s research into conformity is the use of deception, as participants were told they were taking part in a vision perception task rather than a conformity study.

Evidence:
This meant participants were unaware of the true aim of the study and may have experienced psychological discomfort or embarrassment when their answers differed from the majority, which raises concerns about informed consent and protection from harm according to BPS ethical guidelines.

Explain:
This is a limitation because exposing participants to stress means the study did not fully meet modern ethical standards. However, deception was necessary to prevent demand characteristics, as participants might have changed their behaviour if they knew the true aim, meaning conformity levels would not have been measured accurately.

Link:
Therefore, although the study raises ethical concerns, the use of deception actually increases the internal validity of the findings because it ensured participants behaved naturally in response to group pressure.

a03- endocentric

A limitation is that the findings may be ethnocentric. The sample consisted of male American students from an individualistic culture that values independence. Conformity may differ in cultures that prioritise group harmony. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalised across cultures, reducing the external validity of conclusions about conformity.

factors affecting conformity - group size

Procedure:
Asch varied the number of confederates in the majority group to investigate the effect of group size on conformity. The number of confederates ranged from one to fifteen, while the naïve participant completed the same line judgement task, identifying which comparison line matched the standard line. Confederates deliberately gave the same incorrect answer before the naïve participant responded.

Findings:
Asch found that conformity increased as group size increased, but only up to a certain point. With one confederate, conformity was about 3%, but with three confederates, conformity rose to approximately 32%. However, increasing the group beyond three confederates made little additional difference, showing a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity. Asch concluded that a majority of around three people is sufficient to produce the highest level of conformity, and additional members do not significantly increase influence.

factors affecting conformity - unanimity

Procedure:
Asch investigated the effect of unanimity by introducing a dissenter into the group of confederates. In one condition, the dissenter gave the correct answer, and in another condition, the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer from the majority. The naïve participant then completed the same line judgement task, deciding which comparison line matched the standard line.

Findings:
Asch found that conformity dropped significantly when unanimity was broken. Conformity fell from 32% to about 5%when the dissenter gave the correct answer, and to around 9% when the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer. This shows that the presence of a dissenter provides social support, increasing the confidence of the naïve participant to respond independently, even if the dissenter is not correct.

factors affecting conformity - task difficulty

Procedure:
Asch investigated the effect of task difficulty by making the line judgement task more difficult. He did this by making the comparison lines more similar in length to the standard line, increasing uncertainty for the naïve participant. The participant then completed the same procedure, giving their answer aloud after hearing the confederates provide identical incorrect responses.

Findings:
Asch found that conformity increased when the task became more difficult because participants were less certain about the correct answer. This suggests that individuals are more likely to rely on the majority when they are unsure, demonstrating the role of informational social influence (ISI) in situations where the correct answer is ambiguous.

a03- provides causal exp + lacks mundane realism

A strength is that research provides clear causal explanations of how variables affect conformity Asch's study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting. This means the independent variables unanimity, group size and task difficulty can be fully operationalised and cause and effect relationships can be established. However, it also means the study lacks mundane realism due to the artificial setting and may not reflect the true effect of situational variables on conformity. Therefore, although the research has high internal validity, it may lack ecological validity, reducing its applicability to real-life conformity.

a03- reductionist

A limitation is that explanations based on research into situational variables are reductionist. Asch's study focuses solely on situational factors such as group size, unanimity and task difficulty, while neglecting dispositional factors such as personality and individual differences. This suggests that conformity cannot be fully explained by situational influences alone. Therefore, situational explanations lack explanatory depth, reducing their overall explanatory validity.

a03- lacks cross cultural validity

Another limitation is that the findings from research lack cross-cultural validity. Much of the research, including Asch was conducted in individualistic cultures that emphasise independence. In collectivist cultures, situational factors such as unanimity may exert a stronger influence due to a greater emphasis on group cohesion. This suggests the impact of the variables is culturally dependent and therefore, the findings may not be universally applicable.

a03- population validity and endocentric

A further limitation is that Asch's findings may lack population validity. He used an unrepresentative sample consisting of male American college students, meaning the findings may not generalise to females or individuals from different age groups. This makes the research androcentric, as it assumes that the effects of situational variables such as group size and unanimity apply equally to both genders. Additionally, the use of student participants means the findings may not reflect how other age groups respond to social pressure. Therefore, the findings may not be representative of the wider population, reducing the overall validity of conclusions about situational variables affecting conformity.

Outline a study done into conformity to social roles - Zimbardo (1973) — Stanford Prison Experiment

Aim:
To investigate whether conformity to social roles could explain aggressive behaviour.

Procedure:
He used a controlled observation by creating a realistic mock prison at Stanford University. The guards arrived first, set up the prison and decided the rules butwere not allowed to use physical violence.

Zimbardo transformed Stanford University’s psychology department basement into a simulated prison and used American student volunteers who were paid to take part in the study. 24 male students were selected from 75 volunteers for their mental stability and lack of antisocial tendencies. They were randomly issued one of two roles, guard or prisoner. Both groups wore uniforms; prisoners were identified by numbers, and guards were given props such as handcuffs and sunglasses to emphasise social roles. Zimbardo also took on the dual role of experimenter and prison superintendent. The study was intended to run for 2 weeks.

Findings:
The study was stopped after 6 days due to guards escalating brutality and the prisoners’ deteriorating mental health.

Conclusion:
Zimbardo concluded that individuals conform strongly to social roles, and situational factors such as assigned roles can lead to aggressive behaviour.

a03- demand characterics

A weakness of Zimbardo's research is that the participants were aware that they were in

an experiment and so may have shown demand characteristics.For example, guards were given some guidance of how they could treat the prisoners at

the start of the experiment. Therefore, their behaviour may be a result of what they

thought Zimbardo wanted to see.

This is a weakness because it means that the findings may not accurately represent the

guard's real behaviour, meaning it cannot be generalised to real life. The behaviour shown

when guards don't know that they are being observed may be different to the behaviour

shown by the guards in Zimbardo's experiment as they could have been trying to please

him. This therefore decreases the usefulness of this observation.

However, some may argue that some of the guards failed to identify with their role and

were reluctant to impose their authority. The guards were eventually overcome by the

prisoners. This therefore suggests that the behaviour shown by the guards was natural and

wasn’t influenced by the knowledge of the experiment or the guidance given beforehand.

Therefore, there is still credit in the research.

Despite this, it is still a weakness as we can't be sure that the guard's behaviour was

natural so it may not reflect real-life situations, therefore decreasing its credibility. This

decreases the external validity of the observation, discouraging psychologists to use it to

explain conformity to social roles.

a03- internal validity + ecological

> Furthermore, a strength is that Zimbardo's study was highly controlled and standardised laboratory experiment. Variables such as uniforms, environment and role allocation were carefully operationalised, reducing the influence of extraneous variables. This means that cause-and-effect relationships can be established between social roles and behaviour, increasing internal validity.

However, the artificial nature of the simulated prison means the study lacks mundane realism.

Therefore, although the findings demonstrate the effect of social roles, they may not reflect behaviour in real-life settings, reducing the generalisability of the findings.

a03- ethical concerns

> A limitation of research into conformity to social roles is that it raises ethical issues. During Zimbardo's study, participants experienced psychological harm, with prisoners showing signs of emotional distress and some being released early. This suggests that participants were not fully protected from harm, violating ethical guidelines. Additionally, Zimbardo took on the role of prison superintendent, which may have reduced objectivity and delayed the termination of the study.

Therefore, ethical issues and researcher bias may reduce the credibility of the findings.

a03- endocentric

A limitation is that Zimbardo's research can be criticised as androcentric. The study used an all-male sample, meaning the findings cannot be generalised to females, who may respond differently to authority and social roles. This demonstrates a gender bias in the research, as it assumes that conformity to social roles operates similarly across both genders. Therefore, the findings may lack population validity, reducing the generalisability of conclusions about conformity to social roles.

a03- demand charactistrics

Another criticism of Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles is the presence of demand characteristics. Participants knew they were taking part in a simulated prison and may have behaved in ways they believed were expected of their roles. For example, guards may have acted aggressively because they thought this was how guards should behave. This suggests that their behaviour may not have been a genuine response to the situation. Therefore, the findings may lack internal validity, as they may not provide a valid explanation of conformity to social roles.

define obedience

Obedience refers to a type of social influence where someone acts in response to a direct order from a figure of authority.

Outline Milgram's Experiment 1963

Aim:
To investigate whether people would obey an authority figure even when instructed to harm another person, and to measure the level of obedience shown.

Procedure:
Milgram conducted the study at Yale University using 40 male volunteers recruited through a newspaper advert. Participants believed the study investigated memory. A rigged draw assigned participants the role of teacher, while a confederate played the learner. The teacher asked the learner questions and delivered electric shocks for incorrect answers, increasing in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts. The shocks were fake, but participants believed they were real. If participants hesitated, the experimenter, dressed in a grey lab coat, used standardised verbal prompts such as “You must continue” to encourage obedience. Obedience was measured by the maximum voltage participants were willing to administer.

Findings:
All participants administered shocks up to 300 volts, and 65% continued to the maximum level of 450 volts, showing high levels of obedience. Participants also showed signs of extreme tension, such as sweating, trembling and stuttering. Before the study, psychology students predicted only 3% would continue to 450 volts, showing the results were unexpected. After the study, 84% said they were glad to have taken part.

Conclusion:
Milgram concluded that ordinary people are capable of obeying authority figures even when this involves harming another person, demonstrating that obedience to authority is a common feature of human behaviour.

a01- para 1 internal validity + ecological

A strength of Milgram's research is that it has high internal validity.

For example, Milgram used a standardised procedure in a lab setting. The task included

getting the teacher, the naïve participant, to electric shock the learner every time they

answered a memory question incorrectly. (The shocks increased by 15 volts each time and

the machine clearly indicated the danger of the shocks. Maybe save for ao1?) The

participants were given the exact same instructions and the experimenter repeated the

same 4 prompts.

This is a strength because the high level of control shows a clear cause and effect

relationship so we can be sure that obedience was definitely being measured as the

confounding variables were limited. This therefore increases the trust in Milgram's

research.However, some may argue that it has low external validity because the set up was artificial

and the memory test was an artificial stimulus so may not relate to real life. This means

that it has little mundane realism and cannot be generalised as the obedience shown in the

lab study may be different to obedience in modern day life, therefore discrediting

Milgram's research.

Despite this, it is still a strength as it has high internal validity, obedience was definitely

measured and the findings were obvious so Milgram's research shows the obedience of

the majority, therefore encouraging more psychologists to use this.

a03- unethical + demand characteristics

One weakness of Milgram's research is that it was highly unethical.

For example, Milgram collected qualitative data including observations such as the

participants showing signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to sweat, tremble,

stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands. Three participants

had seizures.

This is a weakness because it breaks the protection from psychological ethical guideline,

meaning that participants suffered harm and were deceived. This created trauma and

distress to the participants, making it unlikely that Milgram's study would be allowed to be

conducted today. This decreases the reliability and credibility of the study.

However, some may argue that breaking the deception and protection from harm

guideline was essential as otherwise demand characteristics would have influenced the

findings. There was a full debrief afterwards and the participants were assured that there

behaviour was normal. 84% said that they were glad to take part. This therefore increases

the trust in the research.

Despite this, it is due to the fact that the ethical guidelines were breached and participants

were harmed that means that it cannot be repeated and the findings in 2025 may differ to

the original study, therefore decreasing its usefulness. This decreases the external validity

of the observation, discouraging psychologists to use it to explain obedience.

a03- andocentric

> A further limitation of Stanley Milgram's research is that the findings may be androcentric. Milgram used an all-male sample, meaning the findings may not generalise to females, who may respond differently to authority. This suggests that gender differences in obedience are not accounted for.

Therefore, the findings may lack population validity, reducing the generalisability of conclusions about obedience.

Milgram's Variations situational (proximity)

Proximity Variation

Procedure:
Milgram varied the distance between the teacher and learner. In the voice feedback condition, the learner was in a separate room. In the proximity condition, the learner was placed in the same room as the teacher. In the touch proximity condition, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate. Milgram also varied the proximity of the experimenter, giving instructions by telephone instead of being present in the room.

Findings:
Obedience fell from 65% in the voice feedback condition to 40% when the learner was in the same room, and to 30% in the touch proximity condition. When instructions were given by telephone, obedience dropped further to 22.5%, and some participants lied about the level of shocks they delivered.

location

Procedure:
Milgram moved the study from Yale University to a run-down office building to investigate whether the prestige of the location affected obedience.

Findings:
Obedience dropped from 65% at Yale University to 48% in the run-down office building, suggesting that a less prestigious location reduces the perceived legitimacy of authority and therefore reduces obedience.

uniform

Procedure:
Milgram replaced the experimenter’s grey lab coat with a casually dressed person to investigate whether uniform affected obedience.

Findings:
Obedience dropped from 65% to 20%, suggesting that the lab coat acted as a symbol of authority and higher status, and without it participants were more likely to see the experimenter as a peer rather than an authority figure.

For example, this could be used to explain the difference in behaviour when someone is

arrested by a police officer on duty compared to a police officer not on duty (not wearing

uniform).

a03- speech support and field experiment

A strength of Milgram's variations is the supporting evidence found from Bickman's

experiment.

For example, in Bickman's experiment, subjects were stopped by an experimenter dressed

as a civilian, milkman or guard and asked to do a task such as pick up a paper bag. The

results indicated that the subjects complied more with the guard than the milkman or the

civilian.This is a strength because the findings of this experiment are the same as the findings in

Milgram's experiment- a prestigious and professional uniform increases the level of

obedience. This support therefore increases the trust and credibility of Milgram's

variations.

However, some may argue that it was a field experiment so the environment is less

controlled, increasing the chance of extraneous variables and the participants wouldn’t

have known they were being studied, creating ethical issues. This decreases the utility of

Bickman's experiment, therefore making Milgram's variations less useful.

Despite this, it is due to the fact that there is supporting evidence for Milgram's variations

which increases their utility, therefore increasing their external validity. This encourages

more psychologists to use this to explain obedience.

a03- internal and external

A strength of Milgram's variations is that the experiments were highly controlled and

standardised.

For example, every participant was given the same instructions and prompts such as 'you

must continue'. The set up for each variation for each participant was identical. For

example, in the proximity variation, the learner stayed the same distance away from the

teacher.

This is a strength because it means that every participant experienced the procedure in the

same way, therefore limiting confounding variables. This makes the cause and effect

relationship clearer, e.g. we can be sure that the obedience shown was a result of the

proximity of the learner, therefore making the research more reliable and credible.

However, some may argue that the memory tasks and electric shocks were artificial stimuli

and so are not applicable to real life. This makes the findings not generalisable, therefore

making Milgram's research less useful to explain obedience.

Despite this, it is still a strength because the high level of control and standardisation make

the results more reliable and credible, increasing its internal validity, this therefore

encourages more psychologists to use this to explain obedience

andocentric

A further limitation of research into situational variables affecting obedience is that the findings may be androcentric. Milgram used an all-male sample, meaning the influence of variables such as proximity and authority may differ for females. This suggests that gender differences in obedience are not accounted for. Therefore, the findings may lack population validity, reducing the generalisability of conclusions about situational variables affecting obedience.

Give 2 reasons why people are less likely to obey

not accepting that the person giving the order haslegitimate authority and

questioning the motives of the person giving the order.

Situational explanations for obediance ( agents state)

Agentic state is a state where individuals feel no responsibility for their actions as they act on behalfof an authority figure. The opposite is the autonomous state, where individuals act based on theirown principles.

The agentic shift occurs when individuals transfer responsibility to an authority figure, justifyingactions with statements like "I was just following orders. " This reduces guilt and responsibility fortheir actions and preserves a positive self-image. However, conflicting orders and moral conscience cause moral strain, creating tension between obedience and recognizing immoral actions.

Milgram proposed that a person may stay in their agentic state due to binding factors, which areaspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the effect of their behaviour,reducing moral strain.

Milgram used the agentic state to explain why participants in his study continued to administer shocks, with 65% obeying up to 450 volts, despite showing signs of anxiety such as sweating and trembling.

a03- research support

A strength of the agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that it is supported by research evidence. In Milgram's study, many participants continued to administer shocks despite showing signs of distress, suggesting they were not acting autonomously. This supports the idea that individuals enter an agentic state when under the influence of an authority figure, Therefore, the agentic state provides a valid explanation of why individuals obey orders even when they conflict with their own morals.I

a03- deterministic

Another limitation is the agentic state explanation is overly deterministic. It suggests individuals automatically obey authority once they have entered the agentic state, leaving little room for personal choice or free will. However, in Millgrams study, some particpants refused to continue, demonstrating that individuals can resist authority, This suggests that obedience cannot be fully explained by the agentic state alone. Therefore, the explanation may lack completeness, reducing its explanatory validity.

a03- cannot be measured

A limitation of the agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that it cannot be directly measured or observed. The agentic state is an internal mental process, meaning there is no objective way to determine whether an individual has entered this state. This makes it difficult to test scientifically or gather empirical evidence to support the explanation. Therefore, the agentic state may lack scientific validity, reducing the overall credibility of the explanation of obedience.

Legitimacy of authority

It suggests we are more likely to obey individuals we perceive as having authority or social control.This authority is considered legitimate due to the person's power within societal institutions, like

universities or the military.

Authority is reinforced by visible symbols, such as uniforms, which enhance perceived legitimacy and increase obedience rates.

Most societies are hierarchical, and we are socialized from childhood to obey authority figures like police or judges, seen as trustworthy or powerful. While this maintains social order, legitimacy ofauthority can lead to destructive obedience

Milgram suggested participants obeyed the experimenter because he appeared to have legitimate authority as a scientist at Yale University.

a03- ignores persoanltiy

A weakness of the situational explanations is that it ignores personality.

For example, the situational explanations only take into account the environment and the

situation yet they do not take into account personality. The Authoritarian Personality

(Adorno et al.) is where people believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce

traditional values such as love of the country and family.

This is a weakness of the situational explanations because there is a contradicting

explanation provided by Adorno suggesting that having a certain personality type makes

you more likely to obey orders from a source of authority. This therefore decreases the

usefulness of the situational explanations as they are less comprehensive.

However, some may argue that it is better just to focus on one explanation (situational)

rather than both because this creates a clear cause and effect relationship. If more factors

were considered, this would introduce confounding variables and confuse the results when

explaining obedience. This therefore strengthens the argument for situational variables.

Despite this, it is due to the fact that the Authoritarian Personality contradicts the

situational explanations which decreases their external validity, therefore discouraging

psychologists to use this to explain obedience.

a03- real world applicability

A further strength of LOA is that it has real-world applicability. People are more likely to obey authority figures such as police officers who are seen as legitimate due to their uniform and position in society. The uniform acts as a symbol of authority, increasing the perceived legitimacy of the individual. This demonstrates that people are more likely to obey when an authority is seen as legitimate. Therefore legitimacy of authority provides a useful explanation of obedience in real-life contexts.

a03- deterministic

Another limitation of LOA is that it may be overly deterministic. It suggests that individuals will obey authority figures automatically if they are perceived as legitimate, leaving little room for personal choice or free will. However, in Milgram's study some participants refused to continue, demonstrating that some individuals can resist authority even when it appears legitimate. This suggests that obedience cannot be fully explained by legitimacy of authority alone therefore, reducing its explanatory validity

dispositional explanation ( authoritariban personality )

Dispositional explanation – obedient behaviour due to internal personality traits rather than external factors

The authoritarian personality is a dispositional explanation for obedience proposed by Theodor Adorno.

It suggests that obedience is caused by personality traits that develop through harsh and strict parenting,

where discipline and high expectations of behaviour are emphasised. As a result, individuals become obedient towards authority figures but hostile towards people of lower status, a process known as scapegoating

. Adorno measured authoritarian traits using the F-scale questionnaire, which assessed attitudes towards authority, minorities and social values.

People who scored highly showed black-and-white thinking, strong respect for authority and contempt for the weak.

This personality type helps explain why some individuals are more likely to obey authority figures than others.

a03- search support + correctional study limitation

> A strength of the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience is that it is supported by research evidence. Adorno found that individuals who scored highly on the F-scale were more likely to show obedience to authority. This demonstrates a relationship between personality traits and obedient behaviour. Therefore, the authoritarian personality provides an empirically supported explanation for individual differences in obedience.

> However, a limitation of this evidence is that it is correlational. The relationship between F-scale scores and obedience does not demonstrate causation. This means it's unclear whether an authoritarian personality leads to higher levels of obedience. Therefore, the explanation cannot establish a clear cause and effect relationship, reducing its scientific validity and overall credibility.

a03- lacks universality

Another limitation of the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience is that it lacks universality. Not all individuals who obey authority have an authoritarian personality. For example in Milgram's study, many participants obeyed despite not necessarily having authoritarian traits. This suggests that obedience is not limited to a specific personality type. Therefore, the authoritarian personality may not provide a complete explanation for obedience, reducing its explanatory validity and generalisability.

a03- reductionist

A further limitation of the explanation is that it may be reductionist. The explanation focuses solely on dispositional factors such as personality traits, while ignoring situational influences on obedience. In Milgram's study it demonstrates that obedience can be influenced by situational factors such as proximity and authority. This suggests that obedience is influenced by situational variables father than just fixed personality traits alone. There the authoritarian personality may lack explanatory depth reducing its overall explanatory validity.

resistance to social influence ( social support)

Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of individuals to withstand pressure to obey an authority figure or conform to the majority

Social support refers to the presence of other people who resist social influence and act as role models, giving individuals confidence to also resist conformity or obedience.

In conformity situations, the presence of a dissenter reduces normative social influence by making individuals feel less isolated. For example, Asch found conformity dropped from 32% to about 5% when a confederate gave the correct answer, and even when the dissenter gave a different wrong answer conformity still reduced. Social support also reduces obedience to authority. In Milgram’s variation, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when a disobedient confederate was present. This shows resistance to social influence often depends on the presence of others who challenge the majority or authority figure.

aa03- lacks universality >

> However, a limitation of social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence is that it lacks universality. Not all individuals resist social influence even when a dissenter is present, suggesting that the effect of social support is not consistent across all individuals or situations. This indicates that resistance is influenced by additional factors beyond the presence of a dissenter.

Therefore, social support may lack explanatory power, as it cannot fully account for resistance to social influence.

a03- research support

A strength of social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that there is supporting research evidence.

For example, Gamson et al.'s participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. The researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than in Milgram's due to group discussion.

This is a strength because it shows that when given the chance to discuss, 88% (29 out of 33 groups of participants) did not obey. This suggests that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of the authority figure. This increases the trustin the social support explanation.

However, some may argue that the two studies cannot be compared because there areconfounding variables such as individual differences. This makes the conclusion lessreliable, therefore decreasing the credibility of the social support explanation.

Despite this, it is due to the fact that there is a clear difference in the obedience rate in thisstudy and Milgram's study, therefore being able to discuss in groups must have some influence on obedience.

This therefore increases the external validity of the social supportexplanation being applied to other's behaviours, encouraging more psycholog

locus of control

Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe they have control over events in their lives and was proposed by Rotter. It explains why some people are more likely to resist social influence than others.

External locus of control:
People with an external locus of control believe their behaviour is controlled by external factors such as luck, fate or other people, making them more likely to conform or obey authority. For example, if they fail a test they may blame the questions being too difficult rather than their own actions.

Internal locus of control:
People with an internal locus of control believe their behaviour is controlled by their own decisions and effort, making them more likely to resist social influence and act independently. For example, if they fail a test they may believe they did not revise enough and take responsibility for the outcome.

a03- loud of control

One strength of the Locus of Control explanation to resistance to social influence is that there is supporting research evidence.

For example, Holland repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. The internals showed more resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation.

This is a strength because the results of the study align with the concepts of this explanation. The results can be explained by the fact that internals hold themselves accountable and believe that the things that happen to them are a result of their own actions. This therefore increases the trust in the locus of control explanation.

However, some may argue that there was only a 14% difference between the obedience rate of externals and internals and this does not show a clear cause and effect relationship between locus of control and resistance. This therefore decreases the credibility of theresearch, therefore discrediting the locus of control explanation.

Despite this, it is due to the fact that the results showed that internals are more likely toresist which supports the locus of control explanation. This increases its internal validity, encouraging more psychologists to use this to explain resistance to social influence.

a03- holistic approach

A strength of locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence is that it takes a more holistic approach. It considers dispositional factors such as personality, recognising that individuals differ in their tendency to resist social pressure. Individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist, whereas externals are more likely to conform. This demonstrates that resistance is influenced by individual differences rather than solely situational factors. Therefore, locus of control provides a valid dispositional explanation of resistance to social influence

reductionist A03

A limitation of locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence is that it may be reductionist. The explanation focuses on dispositional factors such as personality whilst neglecting the role of situational variables. Milgram's study demonstrates that situational factors can exert a powerful influence on behaviour regardless of personality. This suggests that resistance cannot be fully explained by locus of control alone. Therefore, the explanation lacks explanatory depth. reducing its overall explanatory validity.

Minority Influence

Minority influence refers to situations where one person or a small group of people (i.e. a

minority) influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people. It is most likely to lead to

internalisation-

Moscovici et al. (1969) — Minority Influence Study

Aim:
To investigate whether a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception task.

Procedure:
Moscovici used 172 female participants who were placed in groups of six and told they were taking part in a colour perception task. Each group consisted of four naïve participants and two confederates (the minority). Participants were shown 36 slides, all different shades of blue, and asked to state the colour aloud. In the consistent condition, the confederates called the slides green on every trial. In the inconsistent condition, the confederates called the slides green on two-thirds of the trials and blue on the remaining one-third.

Findings:
In the consistent condition, participants agreed with the minority on 8.4% of trials. In the inconsistent condition, agreement fell to 1.25% of trials, which was similar to the control condition where there were no confederates.

Conclusion:
Moscovici concluded that a consistent minority is more influential than an inconsistent minority, showing that minority influence can occur, although it is weaker than majority influence.

3 behaviours enabling a minority to influence a majority - consistency

The minority must consistently repeat the same message, which can

create doubt among the majority if all members share the same view

(synchronic consistency) and maintain it over time (diachronic

consistency). This consistency increases interest from others and

encourages them to reconsider their views.

commitment

Demonstrating dedication to their position by making personal

commitments/sacrifices (augmentation principle – drawing attention

to the cause). A minority that suffers for their beliefs is seen as more

genuine, increasing their influence. The majority is more likely to listen

to a minority making sacrifices, as it signals deep commitment to their

cause.

flexibility

Being willing to compromise makes the minority appear reasonable

and cooperative, allowing them to balance consistency with

adaptability, avoiding dogmatism in their views

what is snowball effect

The snowball effect is where you are flexible and consistent,

leading to more and more people believing your view.

the augmentation principle

The augmentation principle is where minorities will engage in extreme activities to draw

attention to their views. This presents risk to the minority influence, showing greater

commitment.

a01 example

Minority influence refers to situations where one person or a small group of people (i.e. a

minority) influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people. It is most likely to lead to

internalisation- where both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed. The first

process is consistency- the minority must be persistent with their views. This increases the

amount of interest from other people, making them rethink their own views. Moscovici, in

his blue green study, found that a consistent minority is much more influential at changing

the majority view than an inconsistent one. Synchronic consistency is where the minority

group all believe and say the same thing. Diachronic consistency is where the person or

group have held the same view for a long period of time. The minority must demonstrate

commitment to their cause or views, which is dedicating their time and effort to support it.

The augmentation principle is where minorities will engage in extreme activities to draw

attention to their views. This presents risk to the minority influence, showing greater

commitment. Nemeth argued that extreme consistency may be seen as rigid, unbending

and dogmatic. Instead, the minority group should be prepared to adapt their point of view

and accept reasonable and valid counterarguments. The key is to strike a balance between

consistency and flexibility. The snowball effect is where you are flexible and consistent,

leading to more and more people believing your view.

a03- support for flexibility

Nemeth found that when a confederate in a group compromised

on their stance, the majority was more likely to change their

opinion. When minorities show flexibility in their views, they are

more likely to be seen as reasonable, which makes the majority

more open to reconsidering their position. This shows that

flexibility, rather than rigidity, is key to minority influence.

support for consistency

A strength of consistency is that there is supporting research evidence demonstrating its

importance.

For example, Moscovici et al.'s blue/green slide study showed that a consistent minority

opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent

opinion. Wood et al. carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found

that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential.

This is a strength because it provides evidence for the importance of consistency, suggesting it must be of great significance. This increases the trust in consistency leading to

minority influence.

However, some may argue that Moscovici's sample was biased as he used 172 American

females. This has gender bias and culture bias meaning that it isn't very comprehensive

and cannot be generalised, making it less useful and practical.

Despite this, it is due to the fact that there is a lot of supporting research evidence which

suggests that consistency is a key process in minority influence. This increases its external

validity, encouraging more psychologists to use it

real world applicability

> A strength of minority influence is that it has real world applicability in explaining social change.

Minority influence can be seen in movements such as the civil rights movement, where consistent and committed minorities gradually influence the majority over time. This demonstrates how minority influence can lead to internalisation and long term change. Therefore, the explanation has high external validity, as it can be applied to real world social change.

social change

Finally, a limitation of minority influence as an explanation of social influence is that it may be reductionist. The explanation focuses on minority processes such as consistency, commitment and flexibility, while ignoring other factors that can lead to social change. For example, social change can also occur due to authority figures or situational pressures. This suggests that minority influence alone cannot fully explain how social change occurs. Therefore, the explanation may have limited explanatory validity, as it does not account for the full range of influences on behaviour.

Social

cryptomnesia

Social

cryptomnesia is where people do not remember how behaviour changed but just that

there is a social change.

a01 example

The first way we can influence social change is through minority influence. The first step is

drawing attention to an issue. For example, teenage boys wore skirts to protest about the

shorts ban in heatwave. The second step is to be consistent, e.g. skirts were worn every

day. The third step is deeper processing which is where ideas are thought about on a more

meaningful level by other people. The boys displayed the augmentation principle as they

were embarrassed and were given detentions for wearing skirts. The snowball effect is

where more and more people followed their view, causing social change. Social

cryptomnesia is where people do not remember how behaviour changed but just that

there is a social change. One way social change can be influenced is through obedience,

which can be seen in Milgram's study. Gradual commitment, also known as foot in the

door, is where encouraging someone to obey a small behaviour request, makes them more

likely to obey a larger behaviour or request, leading to social change. Social change can be

influenced through conformity via majority, which can be seen in Asch's study. Normative

Social Influence can be used, for example, telling people 'this is what everyone else is

doing' causes social change because you don't want to be the odd one out. People are

likely to tweak their behaviours to fit the norm. Behaviour is based on what people think

others believe and do, rather than their own beliefs.

social change

Social change is when whole societies change and adopt new beliefs through minority influence processes

It occurs when a minority view, such as anti-smoking advocates, gradually persuades the majority

using strategies like commitment (long term health efforts), consistency (repeated evidence of

harm), and flexibility (supporting phased restrictions). They use ISI where people are influenced by

those with greater knowledge / credible sources, like scientists providing evidence on the dangers of

smoking.

The augmentation principle strengths minority influence if they make sacrifices, their message is

more likely to be taken seriously.

As the majority begins to adopt the anti-smoking stance, holdouts face NSI through social pressure.

Campaigns like "Secondhand smoke harms others – stop smoking here" encourage conformity by

emphasizing societal expectations.

Law changes, such as smoking bans in public spaces, reflect new social norms. Obedience to these

laws is enforced by legitimate authorities, like the police, ensuring compliance and reinforcing the societal shift.

Social cryptoamnesia occurs as the original source of influence is forgotten over time, leaving onlythe new norm of smoking being harmful.

A snowball effect accelerates this change, as initial minority influence grows in acceptance andshifts societal norms to discourage smoking

a03- search support

A strength is that there is empirical research evidence supporting the role of social influence in social change. Research into social influence processes such as minority influence and resistance to authority, demonstrates how individuals can challenge existing norms and influence others. For example, Moscovici found that a consistent minority was able to influence participants responses in a colour perception task. This demonstrates that minority influence can lead to internalisation and contribute to social change. Therefore, there is empirical support for the role of social influence in producing social change. Increasing the validity of the explanation.

a03- reductionist

However, a limitation is that the explanation may be reductionist. It focuses on social influence processes such as minority influence and social norms intervention, while ignoring other factors such as economic, political and cultural influences. This suggests that social change cannot be fully explained by social influence alone. Therefore the explanation has limited explanatory scope, as it cannot account for the complexity of social change.

a03- real world applicability

A further strength of social influence is that it has real world applicability in explaining social change. Processes such as social norms intervention can be observed in real life contexts such as campaigns to reduce smoking or promote environmental behaviour. These approaches have been successfully used to change behaviour by correcting false beliefs such as 'smoking is not harmful" and encouraging individuals to resist harmful practices. Therefore, the explanation has high external validity, as it can be applied to real-world social change.

a03- iifuclt empirically

Finally, a limitation is that the role of social influence in social chnage is difficult to research empirically. Many social changes occur over long periods of time and are influenced by multiple interacting variables, making them difficult to study under standardised conditions. This means much of the evidence is based on laboratory research which may not accurately reflect real world social change. Therefore, the explanation may lack ecological validity, reducing the extent to which findings can be generalised to real life social change.

lacks applicabiloty

A weakness of the use of social influence processes to explain social change is that the

research it is based on lacks applicability.

For example, Milgram and Asch's lab studies are highly controlled. Participants often know

they are part of a study, which can cause demand characteristics. Some samples, such as

college students may not be representative of the broader population. (need in ao1)~

This is a weakness because social change in the study may differ to social change in real

life. People may behave differently when they know that they are not being watched and

over a longer period of time. This therefore decreases the trust in the processes explaining

social change.

However, some may argue that in lab studies, there is tight manipulation of the variables,

therefore we can be sure of the cause-and-effect relationship. This increases the reliability

of social influence processes as there is a clear link between them and social change.

Despite this, it is due to the fact that the research may not be generalisable to the

population which decreases its usefulness, therefore decreasing the external validity of

social influence processes.