social influence🚓

• types of conformity

  compliance, identification, and internalisation
• compliance

  you change your behavior to be accepted by the group, you publicly conform to to the behavior and view of others but remain original views privately. this is the lowest level of conformity
• identification

  when we identify with other members in a group so temporarily change our beliefs but these are not maintained when the individual leaves the group. this is an intermediate level of conformity
• internalisation

  when the views of the group are internalised and you can actually take on the new attitudes and behaviors of the group publicly and privately, the change in belief/behavior persists even in the absents of a group. this is the deepest level of conformity.
• explanations of why people conform

  normative social influence and informational social influence
• normative social influence

  people conform to be liked by the group
• informational social influence

  people conform to be right
• Asch (1951) normative social influence

  aim: 123 US male students Method: perception line task, all pp except one were confederates, after 6 trails with the real pp stating their answer last the confederates started saying the wrong answers results: conformed to unanimous incorrect answer 32% of the time and 74% conformed at least once
• evaluation of Asch


  low population validity (as all males), extraneous variables are controlled, he debriefed (made experiment ethically sound as they didn't know the true aim of the research)
• sherif (1935) information social influence

  used the autokinetic effect to see if people would conform to incorrect answers, tested individually then each person would estimate the the distance the line moved in a group with the real pp going last and they were tested individually. Results: when alone pp developed their own stable estimates which varied widely between pp, once in a group they became more alike with results and when retested again individually the guesses were more like the group than original results
• evaluation of sherif

  lab study so highly controlled so limits effects of extraneous variables making findings more valid. repeated measures (so no issue with participant variables). lacks population validity as only male pp used
• social identity theory


  we identify ourselves as part of an 'in group' (people we see as similar to ourselves) and everyone else is a member of an 'out group' (people we don't class as similar to ourselves). it suggests that we are more likely to conform when feeling pressured by our in group therefore another explanation to why people conform
• Variables affecting conformity (Asch)


  • Size of the majority ( 2 confederates - 14%, 3-4 confederates - 32%)
  • Unanimity of the majority (conformity reduced to 5.5% when another confederate gave a different answer to group)
  • Difficulty of the task (conformity increased because the task was more ambiguous)
• Zimbardo's Stanford prisoner experiment (1973) procedure

  24 male volunteers (12 guards and 12 prisoners, allocated by tossing a coin), Zimbardo was superintendent, police came to their home and told them a story before arresting them to make it believable, prisoners were dehumanized, chained up and only being addressed by numbers. was supposed to last 2 weeks but one prisoner left after 36hrs and the whole experiment only 6 lasted days
• Zimbardo's Stanford prisoner experiment (1973) findings

  people conformed to their roles to the point where they started to believe that they were either a guard or a prisoner that had actually committed a crime and deserved to be in the prison.
• Reicher and Haslam BBC prison study (2006)

  15 men and lasted 8 days. found that pp didn't conform automatically to their assigned role. the prisoners' worked as a group to challenge authority and established a more egalitarian set of social relations with prison. the guards failed to identify with their role and were reluctant to exert their authority. ethical guidelines were met and considered through the experiment making it more applicable to today as is more recent compared to Zimbardo.
• explanations for obedience

  situational, social-psychological (agentic state and legitimacy of authority), dispositional
• Milgram (1963) situation explanations for obedience

  aim was to see if they would obey authority figures. pps were 40 white males (20-50yrs). pp always teacher although thought they chose it at random by paper slips, Saw learner connected to electrodes and told a story, teacher placed in another room and learner took of electrodes and responses to shocks were tape recordings, pp was given a 45v shock. every time the learner was wrong they received a shock form 15v-450v
• Milgram (1963) situation explanations for obediencefindings

  65% of pp went to 450v
• evaluation of mailgrams situation explanations for obedience


  -ve low population validity, +ve high internal validity ( however could have caused demand characteristics), +ve informed consent/deception, +ve right to withdraw, +ve easy to replicate.
• Milgram's variations to situation factors

  the proximity of researcher to teacher (gave orders over the phone) (obedience- 21%), the proximity of teacher to learner (teacher and learner in the same room) ( obedience- 40%), location (48%), uniform (20%), two teacher condition (92.5%)
• social-psychological explanations

  agent state, legitimacy of authority
• agent state 


  when we act as 'agents' of the authority figure and hand over responsibility of our actions to them. (this is supported by milgrams two teacher condition as 92.5% obeyed to 450v as passed responsibility to the other teacher)
• autonomous state 


  when we are responsible for our own behaviour
• moral strain


  where the individual feels discomfort by going against their morals in order to obey
• evaluation of the agent state

  + milligrams research supports this theory

  + can apply to real life situations

  -other explanations

  -describes rather than explains

  -plain human cruelty may be a better explanation
• legitimacy of authority

  obedience is more likely when the individual believes the authority to be legitimate and credible ( supported by milgrams change of location where the researcher wore jeans and obedience reduced to 20%)
• factors that make authority legitimacy

  we obey people at the top of the hierarchy

  authorities have legitimacy through social agreement

  we hand control over behaviour to authority due to trust and upbringing
• evaluation of legitimacy of authority

  + research evidence to support

  + can explain real life obedience

  -other explanations may be more effective

  -may be used to justify harming others
• dispositional factors in obedience

  explanation of individual behaviour caused by internal characteristics that reside within the individual's personality (e.g. authoritarian personality)
• authoritarian personality

  distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority. this may form as a result of critical and harsh parenting
• authoritarian personality traits


  hostile to this who are of inferior status but obedient to those of a higher status, fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs (black and white thinking), conventional and upholding traditional values
• Elms and Milgram (1974): 'Investigated the background of disobedient participants in Milgram's first four experiments. Found that disobedient participants had a higher internal locus of control than the participants who obeyed. This suggests this personality trait impacted on their decision to resist pressure to obey'
• explanation for resistance to social influence

  1. locus of control
  2. social support
• Aim of the study (Adorno et al)

  To understand the anti-semitism of the Holocaust and to see whether obedience is a psychological disorder caused by the personality of the individual
• Procedure of the study (adorno et al)

  More than 2000 white middle-class Americans were studied using the F-scale (fascism scale), which investigated their unconscious attitude towards other racial groups
• Findings of the study (Adorno et al)

  Participants who scored high on the F-scale identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous of 'weak' people. They also showed excessive respect and deference to those of higher status. There was a strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
• Conclusion of the study (Adorno et al)

  People with an authoritarian personality tend to be especially obedient to authority. They are inflexible in their outlook and believe we need strong leaders
• Method of the study (elms and milgram)

  All participants (20 who went to 450v and 20 that refused to continue) completed the MMPI scale and the Californian F Scale to specifically measure authoritarianism. They were also asked a series of open-ended questions including questions about their relationship with their parents during childhood, and their attitude towards the experimenter and learner in the original study
• Results of the study (elms and milgram)

  Higher levels of authoritarianism in the obedient participants than those classed as defiant. Obedient participants reported to have less close relationships with their fathers during childhood. They saw the authority figure in Milgram's study as clearly more admirable and the learner less so. This was not the case among the defiant participants