Social influence

• Conformity: Types and Explanations

  • Weak Conformity
  • Strong Conformity
  • Internalisation - Genuinely accepts the group norms. It results in a private and public change of opinions/behaviour
  • Identification - We admire something about the group and want to become like them so we internalise their views and behaviour
  • Compliance - 'going along with others' but not privately changing behaviour
• Explanations for Conformity


  • Informational Social Influence - People conform because they want to be right
  • Normative Social Influence - People conform because they want to be liked
• Lucas et al found that there was more conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were more difficult
• Asch found that students were less conformist than other participants
• When Asch asked participants to write their answers down conformity levels dropped
• The desire to be liked underlies conformity and one theory does not cover all the differences
• Conformity: Asch's Research


  • 123 American male students were tested individually with a group of 6-8 confederates
  • On each trial they identified the length of a standard line
  • Confederates started to make obvious mistakes on 12 of the 18 trials
• Conformity: Asch's Research Results


  • Naïve participant gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time
  • 25% of participants never gave a wrong answer
  • 75% conformed at least once
• Variables Affecting Conformity


  • Group Size - With 2 confederates conformity was 13.6% and with 3 it was 31.8%. Adding more made little difference.
  • Unanimity - Presence of a dissenter reduced conformity to 25%
  • Task Difficulty - Making the task more difficult increased conformity
• The situation and task were artificial
• Asch's research had ethical issues
• Conformity: Zimbardo's Research


  • Mock prison was set up in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University
  • 24 'emotionally stable' students were recruited and randomly assigned to roles of prisoner or guard
  • Prisoners were arrested from their homes and delivered the prison blindfolded , strip-searched, deloused, and issued a uniform and number
  • Prisoners daily routines were heavily guarded and rules were enforced by guards working in shifts, three at a time. Prisoners names were never used, only their numbers
  • Guards had their own uniform with mirror shades so you couldn't see their eyes (de-individuation)
• Conformity: Zimbardo's Research Findings

  • Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled. They ripped their uniform and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers
  • Guards harassed the prisoners constantly and highlighted the differences in social roles
  • Guards took up their roles with enthusiasm; their behaviour threatening the prisoners psychological health
  • Prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed
  • 3 Prisoners were released early due to fragile mental health
  • One prisoner went on a hunger strike
  • The study was closed down after 6 days instead of 8
• Researchers had some control over variables in Zimbardo's research. This increases their internal validity
• Zimbardo's research lacked realism
• Zimbardo understated dispositional influences in his research
• Zimbardo's research lacks research support. Other reproductions have found different results
• Zimbardo's research had ethical issues
• Obedience: Milgram's Research


  • Milgram recruited 40 male participants. He advertised it as a study into memory
  • Participants played the 'teacher'; a confederate played the 'learner and there was an 'experimenter' in a lab coat
  • The learner was strapped into a chair and wired with electrodes in a separate room than the teacher. Every time the learner got an answer wrong the teacher had to give them an electric shock. The participants did not know that the learner was receiving no shocks. Shocks varied from 15 volts to 450
  • If the teacher was unsure about leaving the experimenter would give them prods to stay in the experiment
• Obedience: Milgram's Research Findings

  • No participants stopped below 300 volts
  • 12.5% stopped at 300
  • 65% continued to 450
• Milgram's research had good external validity
• Replications have supported Milgram's findings
• Milgram's research lacked internal validity
• Milgram's research had ethical issues
• Obedience: Situational Variables


  • Proximity Variation: teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience dropped to 40%
  • Touch Proximity Variation: teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. Obedience dropped to 30%
  • Remote-Instruction Proximity Variation: Experimenter left the room and gave instructions via telephone. Obedience dropped to 20.5%
  • Location was changed to a run-down building. Obedience fell to 47%
  • The experimenter was called away and the role of the experimenter was taken over by a 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes. Obedience dropped to 20%
• Research supports the influence of situational variables (Bickman and Hofling)
• Milgram's research has been replicated in other countries
• Milgram's research had control over variables
• Milgram's research may lack internal validity
• Milgram underestimates participant variables
• Obedience: Social-Psychological Factors


  • Agentic State - Obedience occurs because people become an 'agent' for someone else. They act in place of another and feel no personal responsibility
  • Autonomous State - To be independent and people act according to their own principles
  • People go through the agentic shift where one goes from the autonomous state to the agentic state
  • Binding Factors - Aspects of a situation that allow people to minimise and ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour
• Agentic state has research support
• The agentic state doesn't explain Hofling's findings
• The agentic state cannot explain real life situations, such as the Nazi's
• Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority

  • We obey people at the top of the social hierarchy
  • Authorities are perceived as legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society
  • We hand over control of our behaviour to authority figures due to trust
  • Charismatic leaders, such as Hitler, use their legitimate powers for destruction
• The legitimacy of authority account is a useful account of cross-cultural differences in obedience
• The legitimacy of authority account can explain real-life obedience
• The legitimacy of authority account can provide a justification for behaviours that are harming to others
• Obedience: Dispositional Explanations


  • The Authoritarian Personality - Unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder and could be a personality type
  • People with an Authoritarian Personality have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness towards it. They express contempt for people of inferior social status and they have conventional attitudes towards race and gender
  • It originates in childhood from 'Harsh Parenting' - They feel fear of parents and they become hostile and displace it onto those who are inferior
• Obedience: Authoritarian Personality Findings

  • Authoritarians identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous of the 'weak'. They were conscious of other status and showed excessive respect to those of a higher status
  • They had a cognitive style where there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people. They were extremely stereotypical