Social Influence W/O Compliance Psychology AQA A-Level

What is Obedience?

Obedience is a form of social influence where individuals follow direct orders or commands from an authority figure, often without question.

Aim of Milgram’s Study

To investigate the extent to which people would obey an authority figure when asked to perform actions conflicting with their conscience, specifically to understand why many Germans followed Hitler’s orders during WWII.

What was the procedure of Milgram's Study?

Location: Yale University; Participants: 40 American males (aged 20–50), paid $4.50 for participation; Roles: Teacher (participant) and learner (confederate); Task: Teacher administers increasingly intense electric shocks for errors (15V to 450V). The authority figure used standard prods to ensure continuation.

What were the findings of Milgram's Study?

Though students predicted only 3% would go to 450V, 100% went to 300V and 65% to 450V. Participants showed extreme stress, with some experiencing seizures.

What is the conclusion from Milgram’s Study?

Authority figures can have a powerful influence on behavior, and ordinary people can obey orders that conflict with their moral values.

Strengths of Milgram's Study

Groundbreaking research inspiring further studies, and supported by Beauvois et al. (2012), showing 80% obedience in a replication in France.

Limitations of Milgram's Study

Validity concerns due to potential disbelief in the shock treatment, a sample bias (all male American participants), and ethical issues including deception, lack of informed consent, and psychological harm.

What Are Situational Variables?

External factors or circumstances that influence behaviour in a given situation, such as physical environment, social norms, cultural expectations, and proximity of authority figures.

Milgram’s Variations on Obedience

Milgram modified his original study to explore how different situational variables affected obedience levels.

Location Variation in Milgram's Study

When moved from Yale University to a rundown office block, full obedience fell to 47.5%. Suggests prestige and legitimacy of location increases obedience, but obedience remains significant even in less prestigious settings.

Proximity Variation in Milgram's Study

When the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%. In the touch proximity variation (teacher forced learner’s hand on shock plate), obedience dropped to 30%. In the remote instruction variation (orders given by phone), obedience dropped to 20.5%. Shows that face-to-face authority increases obedience.

Research Support for Situational Variables

Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) found 90% obedience when participants were ordered to say stressful things during a job interview, supporting Milgram’s conclusions. Bickman (1974) showed that people were twice as likely to obey a security guard compared to a man in a suit, demonstrating the impact of symbols of authority.

Limitations of Situational Explanations of Obedience

Concerns about internal validity due to demand characteristics, as argued by Orne & Holland (1968), and ethical considerations, such as downplaying responsibility, as noted by Mandel (1988).

What is the Agentic State?

A mental state where individuals see themselves as agents carrying out another person’s wishes, no longer feeling personally responsible for the consequences of their actions. Opposite: Autonomous State, which involves acting freely, guided by one’s own values, with full responsibility for behavior.

What is the Agentic Shift?

The movement from an autonomous state to an agentic state, occurring when an authority figure is seen as higher in the social hierarchy and responsibility is shifted onto the authority figure. Effect: Individuals may carry out actions they know are wrong or immoral, feeling powerless to resist despite awareness of their actions and accompanying feelings of anxiety, guilt, and moral conflict.

Research Support for the Agentic State

In Milgram’s Obedience Studies, participants administered (fake) electric shocks under instruction from an authority figure. Many experienced moral discomfort but continued, indicating they were in an agentic state. Obedience lowered from 62.5% to 20.5% when instructions were given over the phone, suggesting the role of authority presence in the agentic shift.

Real-World Applications of the Agentic State

Helps explain historical events like war crimes and atrocities, such as the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, where soldiers obeyed immoral orders under military authority. Also relevant in understanding corporate misconduct and societal compliance with unjust laws.

Evaluation of Agency Theory - Strengths

Explains why individuals obey even when facing moral conflict, supported by Milgram’s experiments showing higher obedience with face-to-face authority. Real-world relevance in understanding atrocities and authoritarian systems.

Evaluation of Agency Theory - Limitations

Not universal; Rank & Jacobson (1977) found 16/18 nurses disobeyed a doctor's order for an excessive drug dose, indicating people do not always experience an agentic shift. Also oversimplifies obedience; other factors such as personality and social identity may influence behavior.

What is Legitimacy of Authority?

Legitimacy of authority refers to the concept that people are more likely to obey commands if they believe the authority figure is legitimate. This legitimacy is based on society’s agreement that certain figures have the right to give orders, such as police officers, teachers, parents, and security guards. Legitimacy encompasses perceived right and expertise, not just power.

Research Support for Legitimacy of Authority – Milgram’s Study

In Milgram’s Study, the authority figure was the experimenter in a white lab coat, representing expertise and science. The association with Yale University enhanced the experimenter's credibility, leading participants to believe he had the right to give orders, which contributed to their obedience despite moral conflict.

Cultural Differences in Perceived Authority

Western cultures typically view police as legitimate protectors of the law, while in Eastern cultures with authoritarian regimes or corruption, citizens may view authority with suspicion or distrust. This indicates that the legitimacy of authority is not universal and varies according to cultural and social context.

Limitations of the Legitimacy of Authority Explanation

Disobedience can occur despite the presence of authority; for example, Rank & Jacobson (1977) found nurses who refused to obey a doctor’s order for an excessive drug dose, showing that individuals may resist authority based on professional knowledge or autonomy. Additionally, the perception of legitimacy can vary across contexts, which means this explanation does not account for all cases of obedience or disobedience.

Dehumanisation and Obedience

Dehumanisation refers to viewing others as less than human, which reduces empathy and moral concern, making it easier to follow harmful orders. This can manifest in seeing others as 'objects,' 'enemies,' or 'threats,' and is often used to justify violence, mistreatment, or cruelty under authority.

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

People conform to group norms to fit in and gain approval, which can shift societal standards over time. Example: Recycling - as more adopt eco-friendly behaviors, others conform to avoid rejection and gain approval, leading to cultural change.

Authority and Social Change

Authority figures can enforce rules that lead to large-scale behavior change. Example: Milgram’s research demonstrated how people obey authority even against their conscience; laws like compulsory seatbelt use enforced by legitimate authority led to mass behavioral change and improved road safety.

Processes of Minority Influence

Minorities can drive change through:  1. Drawing attention - focusing on the issue.  2. Consistency - presenting a stable message.  3. Commitment & Augmentation Principle - making sacrifices increases credibility.  4. Deeper processing - encourages critical thought.  5. Snowball Effect - minority views spread to become majority.  6. Social Cryptoamnesia - people adopt the new norm but forget its origin from the minority.

Example of Minority Influence

The LGBTQ+ Rights Movement - consistent advocacy led to cultural acceptance and legal changes, including marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws.

Research Support for NSI

Nolan et al. (2008) found that energy conservation messages ('most people are reducing energy use') led to decreased household consumption, showing that conformity and NSI can drive social change.

Research Support for Minority Influence

Nemeth (2009) suggested that minority influence stimulates creative and independent thinking, challenging norms and driving transformation.

Evaluation of Social Influence - Strengths

Evidence supports the roles of conformity, obedience, and minority influence. Minority influence is especially powerful in encouraging critical reflection and has real-world applications in law, politics, and business.

Evaluation of Social Influence - Limitations

Foxcroft et al. (2015) found that social norm campaigns had little impact on reducing student drinking, suggesting norms do not always change behavior. Mackie (1987) argued that majority views may encourage deeper thinking more than minority views. Additionally, entrenched beliefs, cultural values, and fear of the unknown can block social change.

Real-World Applications of Social Influence

In business and organizations, minority perspectives encourage innovation and creativity. Diversity of thought improves problem-solving and competitiveness, helping companies adapt to changing markets and customer needs.

Consistency in Minority Influence

Minorities must express the same viewpoint repeatedly over time. Two types: 1. Diachronic consistency – saying the same thing over a long period. 2. Synchronic consistency – all members of the minority group agree. Consistency makes the majority begin to re-examine their own views, often leading to internalisation (genuine change in beliefs).

Commitment in Minority Influence

Demonstrating dedication, even when facing opposition or criticism, shows seriousness and can persuade others to take the minority seriously. Known as the Augmentation Principle – minorities may engage in extreme (but non-harmful) actions to show dedication.

Flexibility in Minority Influence

Being reasonable and open to compromise makes the minority more persuasive. A rigid, dogmatic approach can backfire, whereas flexibility shows cooperation and rationality.

The Snowball Effect in Minority Influence

Minority influence starts small but grows like a snowball rolling downhill. As more people adopt the minority view, it gains momentum, eventually leading the minority view to become the majority view.

Research Support for Minority Influence

Moscovici et al. (1969) conducted a study on color perception, showing that a consistent minority influenced participants’ judgments, demonstrating the power of consistency. Martin et al. (2003) found that participants exposed to minority viewpoints were less likely to change their opinions when later challenged, suggesting minority views are processed more deeply.

Evaluation of Minority Influence - Strengths

Supported by strong research evidence from studies like Moscovici and Martin. It explains how social change movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, succeed.

Evaluation of Minority Influence - Limitations

Socioeconomic factors: Minorities often have less power or influence, which may reduce their ability to persuade. Artificial tasks: Lab studies, like those on color perception, lack real-world validity, as social and political issues are far more complex.

Other Influencing Factors in Minority Influence

Style of thinking: People who think systematically or analytically are more open to minority influence, while those relying on intuition are more resistant to it.

Social Support

The presence of others who share the same views or resist authority/group norms helps individuals resist social influence. Effect: Breaks the unanimity of the majority, reducing both normative and informational influence.

Research Evidence for Social Support

Asch (Conformity studies) found that the presence of a dissenting confederate reduced conformity. Milgram (Obedience variation) showed that when a participant was paired with a disobedient confederate, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% (only 10% gave maximum 450V). Albee et al. (2006) studied pregnant teens in the Teen Fresh Start programme, finding those with mentor support were less likely to continue smoking, showing social support reduces pressures to conform. Gamson et al. (1982) reported that 88% disobeyed when in groups asked to produce evidence for an oil company smear campaign, indicating peer support encourages resistance. Allen & Levine (1971) found that in a visual judgement task, the presence of a dissenting partner cut conformity to 64% resistance compared to only 3% when alone.

Locus of Control (LOC)

Refers to how much control people believe they have over their lives. Exists on a continuum: 1. Internal LOC (Internals) - Believe they control outcomes through their own actions; they are more independent and more likely to resist conformity and obedience. 2. External LOC (Externals) - Believe life is controlled by external forces (fate, luck, powerful others); they are more likely to conform or obey.

Research Evidence for LOC

Holland (1967) replicated Milgram’s study and found that 37% of internals refused maximum shocks vs. 23% of externals, supporting the link between LOC and resistance. Shute (1975) found that internals were more likely to express independent views on drug use compared to externals, indicating that internals resist conformity better.

Limitations of Locus of Control

Twenge et al. (2004) conducted a review from 1960 to 2002 showing that while people became more resistant to obedience, they also became more externally oriented, challenging the simple link between LOC and resistance. Other factors may also influence resistance: Reactance Theory suggests people resist more when choices are restricted, and social status indicates that higher social standing leads to more confidence to resist influence.

Dispositional Explanation

Attributes behaviour to internal personality traits such as attitudes, beliefs, or temperament, rather than external situational factors. Example: Saying someone obeys because of their personality type, not because of the environment.

Authoritarian Personality

Introduced by Adorno et al. (1950s) to explain why some people are more obedient and prejudiced. Key characteristics include rigid adherence to conventional values, submission to authority figures, intolerance of ambiguity, conventional views of social hierarchy, and hostility towards out-groups.

Development of the Authoritarian Personality

Developed through family dynamics (strict, authoritarian parenting), socialisation (reinforced by authoritarian institutions), societal factors (economic instability), and psychodynamic views (rooted in early childhood experiences).

Adorno et al. (1950) – F-Scale Study

Aim: Examine psychological characteristics of authoritarian personality. Participants: Over 2,000 American, middle-class white individuals. Method: Developed the Fascism Scale (F-Scale), where higher scores indicated stronger authoritarian traits. Findings: High scorers exhibited rigid values, submission to authority, and hostility to out-groups, supporting the existence of a distinct authoritarian personality.

Research Support for Authoritarian Personality

Elms & Milgram (1966) found obedient participants from Milgram’s studies scored highly on the F-Scale, suggesting a link between authoritarian personality and obedience. Zillmer et al. (1995) showed Nazi war criminals scored highly on three F-Scale dimensions, providing partial support for Adorno’s theory.

Limitations of the Authoritarian Personality

Not universal; pre-war Germany saw widespread obedience without authoritarian traits, suggesting situational factors also play a major role. The F-Scale is politically biased, measuring only right-wing authoritarianism while ignoring left-wing authoritarianism. Methodological flaws include acquiescence bias due to items worded in one direction, potentially inflating authoritarian scores.

Improvement – Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale

Developed by Altemeyer (1981) to balance pro- and anti-authoritarian statements, reducing bias and giving a more accurate measure of authoritarian tendencies. Example: Pro - 'People who break the law should be punished swiftly and severely.' Anti - 'People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions freely.'