Social Influence (1)

TYPES AND EXPLNATIONS OF CONFORMITY

types of conformity

compliance - outward agreement, private disagreement ( due to NSI)

identification - outward and private agreement, but only in presence of group

internalisation - true and permanent adoption of group norms ( due to ISI)

explanations of conformity

Normative social influence (NSI) - desire to be liked, leads to compliance

Informational social influence (ISI) - desire to be right in ambiguous situations; leads to internalisation.

A03:

AO3:

• ✅ Asch (1951) – line study: ppts conformed to obviously wrong answers to avoid rejection → supports NSI.

• ✅ Lucas et al. (2006) – asked students maths problems of varying difficulty. More conformity to wrong answers when tasks were hard, especially for those with low confidence → supports ISI.

• ❌ Turner (1991) – developed Referent Informational Influence (RII) from social identity theory. Suggests conformity can be due to identifying with a group norm, not just NSI/ISI.

• ❌ McGhee & Teevan (1967) – found people high in nAffiliation were more likely to conform → NSI affects individuals differently.

• ✅ Linkenbach & Perkins (2003) – anti-smoking campaign for teens using norm messages reduced smoking initiation → practical application of NSI​.

ASCH’S RESEARCH INTO CONFORMITY

What was Asch’s line study?

• Asch (1951) – lab study with 50 male American students. Line-judging task with 6–8 confederates who gave incorrect answers on 12/18 trials.

What were the findings of the Asch line study?

Findings: 36.8% conformed on critical trials. 75% conformed at least once.

What were the variations/ intentional changes in the Asch line study

Variations:

• Group size – more confederates increased conformity to a point (3 = 32%).

• Unanimity – a dissenter reduced conformity to 5%.

• Task difficulty – harder tasks led to increased conformity due to ISI.

A03:

• ❌ Perrin & Spencer (1980) – replicated Asch with British science students. Only 1 student conformed out of 396 trials → lacks temporal validity.

• ✅ Bond & Smith (1996) – meta-analysis showed collectivist cultures have higher conformity.

• ❌ Task lacks realism – line judgments are trivial, reducing ecological validity.

• ✅ Asch’s results actually showed independence – 67% of responses were correct despite pressure.

ZIMBARDO - CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES

Stanford prison study experiment - procedure and conclusion

• Zimbardo (1971) – 21 male volunteers randomly assigned as guards or prisoners in mock prison at Stanford.

• Guards were given uniforms and sunglasses. Prisoners were arrested, deloused, and given ID numbers.

• The study was stopped after 6 days due to extreme reactions: guards became brutal, prisoners showed psychological distress.

• Conclusion: People conform to social roles quickly; behaviour driven by the power of the situation.

A03:

• ❌ Banuazizi & Mohavedi (1975) – claimed ppts were acting to stereotypes, e.g., a guard based his role on a film character (“Cool Hand Luke”) → demand characteristics.

• ✅ Zimbardo countered – 90% of prisoner conversations were about prison life, suggesting psychological realism.

• ❌ Reicher & Haslam (2006) – BBC Prison Study found opposite results: prisoners rebelled and overthrew guards → challenges Zimbardo’s conclusions.

• ❌ Fromm (1973) – only a third of guards were truly aggressive. Suggests dispositional factors also mattered.

• ✅ Real-world relevance – Abu Ghraib prison abuses mirror SPE conditions.

MILGRAMS STUDY OF OBEDIENCE

Procedure of Milgram’s study

Milgram (1963) – 40 male ppts told they were in a memory study. Instructed to give increasingly severe electric shocks to a confederate (Mr Wallace) for wrong answers.

Findings and conclusion of milgram’s study of obedience

Findings: 65% gave 450V. Ppts showed visible distress (sweating, trembling, seizures), but still obeyed.

Conclusion: Obedience is high when authority is perceived as legitimate.

A03

• ❌ Orne & Holland (1968) – argued the setup was unrealistic and ppts knew shocks weren’t real → lowers internal validity.

• ✅ Sheridan & King (1972) – real shocks given to a puppy; 100% of females and 54% of males continued to give shocks → suggests Milgram’s results were genuine.

• ✅ Hofling et al. (1966) – real-world field study: 21/22 nurses obeyed orders from unknown doctor to give excessive drugs → supports external validity.

• ❌ Haslam & Reicher (2012) – obedience depended on which identity (science vs victim) ppts aligned with → supports social identity theory over blind obedience.

MILGRAM’S THEORIES: AGENTIC STATE AND LEGITAMCY OF AUTHORITY

Agentic state

where ppl see themselves as agents acting for an authority figure. Moral strain is displaced.

legitimacy of authority

ppl obey those seen as having rightful power (e.g. doctors, military, teachers)

binding factors

allow people to reduce guilt and stay in agentic state (e.g. “they made me do it”)

A03:

• ✅ Blass & Schmitt (2001) – showed Milgram’s study to students; most blamed the experimenter due to their perceived legitimate authority.

• ❌ Hofling’s nurses didn’t show moral strain → suggests agentic state doesn’t apply in all cases.

• ✅ Kelman & Hamilton (1989) – explained My Lai massacre in Vietnam (500 civilians killed) through hierarchy and legitimacy of military authority.

• ✅ Cross-cultural support: Kilham & Mann (1974, Australia – 16% obeyed); Mantell (1971, Germany – 85%) → shows different levels of obedience due to cultural attitudes to authority.

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY (DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION)

Procedure of Adornos authoritarian personality study

Adorno et al. (1950) – 2000 white American males completed F-scale measuring authoritarianism.

Findings and conclusion of Adornos authoritarian personality study

• Found correlation between authoritarian traits (submission to authority, hostility to outgroups) and obedience.

• Believed strict parenting caused displaced hostility → projected onto weaker groups (psychodynamic explanation).

A03

• ✅ Milgram & Elms (1966) – obedient ppts from Milgram’s study scored higher on F-scale.

• ❌ Greenstein (1969) – F-scale suffers from acquiescence bias. Agreeing with statements in one direction increases score regardless of true belief.

• ❌ Political bias: Christie & Jahoda – F-scale only measures right-wing authoritarianism, ignores left-wing regimes.

• ❌ Situational factors ignored – not all Nazis had AP; social identity theory may be more realistic.

RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Social support

Dissenting allies break unanimity (Asch: conformity dropped from 32% to 5%, Milgram variation with dissenters: 10% obeyed).

Locus of control

construct which is part of our personality. it is the perception of how much control people have over their own behaviour.

Internal Locus of control

belief that outcomes depend on their actions → more resistance

external locus of control

belief that outcomes depend on fate, luck, others → more conformity/obedience

AO3

AO3:

• ✅ Holland (1967) – replicated Milgram’s study. 37% of internals resisted compared to 23% of externals → supports LOC.

• ❌ Twenge et al. (2004) – young people now more external but also more resistant → challenges link.

• ✅ Allen & Levine (1971) – even when dissenter wore thick glasses and claimed bad eyesight, conformity dropped → shows it's the dissent, not credibility, that matters.

• ✅ Gamson et al. (1982) – in group situations, 88% resisted unethical orders → shows peer support increases resistance.

MINORITY INFLUENCE

minority influence

form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. it tends to lead to internalisation, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.

procedure + findings of Moscovici slide experiment

Moscovici et al. (1969) investigated minority influence by showing groups of 6 participants 36 blue slides; in the consistent condition, 2 confederates said "green" on all trials, leading to 8.4% conformity, while in the inconsistent condition (saying "green" on 24/36 slides), conformity dropped to 1.25%, showing that consistency increases minority influence.

Key factors for success of minority influence

Key factors for success:

• Consistency – diachronic and synchronic.

• Commitment – extreme sacrifices (augmentation principle).

• Flexibility – compromise increases effectiveness.

AO3:

• ✅ Nemeth & Brilmayer (1987) – in mock jury, confederates who were flexible had more influence than those who were rigid.

• ✅ Martin et al. (2003) – ppts less likely to change views if influenced by a minority than a majority → supports deeper processing.

• ❌ Xie et al. (2011) – computer models show 10% minority needed for tipping point → vague in real life.

• ❌ Low external validity – lab tasks (e.g., slide colour) do not reflect complex real-world change.

SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH SOCIAL INFLUENCE

steps in social change via minority influence

• Draw Attention – The minority raises awareness of an issue (e.g., through protests or campaigns).

• Consistency – They stay committed to their message over time and across members.

• Deeper Processing – The public begins to think more deeply about the issue and question the status quo.

• Augmentation Principle – The minority shows commitment by making sacrifices, increasing their credibility.

• Snowball Effect – Support grows gradually until the minority view becomes the majority.

• Social Cryptoamnesia – People accept the new social norm but forget where it originally came from.

What are the two types of social influence used in campaigns?

Normative Social Influence (NSI) and Informational Social Influence (ISI).

Q: What did Schultz et al. (2007) find about hotel towel reuse?

A: Reuse increased when guests were told “75% of people reuse their towels,” showing the effect of NSI.

How can obedience to authority drive social change?

Through legislation or government action that people follow due to perceived authority (e.g., plastic bag ban).

AO3

• ✅ Nolan et al. (2008) – energy usage dropped when people saw neighbours reducing use → NSI effective.

• ❌ Schultz – Boomerang effect: Low energy users increased their use after seeing others’ higher usage.

• ✅ Bashir et al. (2008) – people avoid eco-behaviours to not appear “tree huggers” → minorities must avoid negative stereotypes.

• ❌ Methodological weaknesses: Moscovici, Asch, Milgram = artificial tasks → may not reflect real-life change.