social influence

• what are the 3 types of conformity

  compliance, identification, internalisation
• what is compliance?


  • most superficial type of conformity

  • agrees publicly but disagrees privately

  • changes behaviour to be accepted

  • short term change
• what is identification?


  • moderate type of conformity

  • conforms because they identify with the group & want to be a part of it

  • mostly privately accepts the views but conform to be accepted
• what is internalisation?


  • deepest level of conformity

  • genuinely accept the views publicly and privately

  • known as ‘conversion’ as change their private beliefs

  • long lasting change
• asch’s research into conformity

  aim - to test whether people would conform to group pressure in an unambiguous line judgement task

  ppts - 123 american male undergrads

  method - shown a series of lines including a standard & 3 comparison. 7 males (6 confeds, 1 ppt). confeds unanimously gave same incorrect answer on 12/18 trials
• what did asch find?

  mean conformity rate of 37%.

  individual differences:

  5% conformed on every critical trial

  25% remained completely independent

  concluded they showed compliance
• what are the variables affecting conformity?

  unanimity, group size & task difficulty
• unanimity


  gave the participant a dissenter. dissenter sometimes gave correct answer and sometimes gave a different incorrect answer.

  conformity dropped to 25%
• group size


  small group of 1 or 2 confeds - low conformity rates

  3 confeds - conformity increased to 32%

  beyond 7 confeds & conformity decreased
• task difficulty 


  more likely to conform if the task is more ambiguous as they are less confident in their own opinion so more likely to look to others
• evaluation of asch’s study

  • well controlled - high internal validity
  • low ecological validity
  • high demand characteristics
  • deception
  • easy to replicate
• what are the two explanations for conformity

  normative social influence & informational social influence
• normative social influence 


  • conforming to be accepted & gain approval

  • desire to be liked

  • involved public compliance
• evaluation of NSI


  support from asch line study - furthermore, conformity fell to 12.5% when asked to write down answers rather than say out loud

  cant explain individual differences - found a mean conformity rate but there were wide variations - e.g 25% remained completely independent
• informational social influence


  • looking to others who seem to have more information than you

  • desire to be right

  • involves private acceptance
• evaluation of ISI

  support from asch variations - task difficulty increased led to higher conformity rate - ppts had less confidence in their answer - however artificial setting
• zimbardo’s conformity to social roles (stanford prison experiment)

  aim - to test whether ordinary people would conform to the social roles of prison guard and prisoner in a mock prison

  ppts - 24 most “emotionally stable” volunteers

  method - ppts unexpectedly arrested, blindfolded, strip searched, deloused, given uniform & number. guards given uniforms, clubs, handcuffs, keys & reflective sunglasses
• zimbardo study findings

  found the guards grew increasingly abusive towards prisoners - woke them in the night, forced them to clean toilets with bare hands.

  5 prisoners left early due to extreme crying, rage & anxiety

  study terminated after 6 days

  both guards & prisoners conformed
• evaluation of zimbardo

  • high degree of control

  • demand characteristics

  • evidence against from a replicated study - prisoners took control and harassed guards - prisoners developed shared social identity

  • ethical issues

  • practical applications - highlighted ways people can behave extremely differently in the right social context - can be used to prevent brutality in prisons
• what is obedience?


  acting in response to a direct order from a perceived figure of authority
• milgrams research into obedience

  aim - to test if germans are different

  ppts - 40 american male volunteers

  method - confed always learner & ppt always teacher - ppt punished learner by giving an electric shock for incorrect answers on a memory test involving word pairs - shocks ranged from 15-450 volts - researcher responded with verbal prods if ppts refused to continue
• milgram findings

  ppts showed signs of extreme tension e.g shaking, sweating and stuttering

  obedience rate of 65%

  concluded we are all capable of blind & destructive obedience
• what are the 3 situational variables affecting obedience

  proximity, location & uniform
• proximity


  physical closeness to the authority figure

  close proximity increases obedience

  giving orders over telephone decreased obedience to 21%
• location

  the place an order is issued

  high obedience level could be contributed to by the prestigious location of yale university. variation in a run down office block - obedience dropped to 47.5%
• uniform


  authority figured have a symbol of their authority e.g uniform

  variations - experimenter called away & replaced with ‘ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes - obedience dropped to 20%
• evaluation of milgram

  • high control

  • easy to replicate

  • lacks ecological validity

  • demand characteristics

  • deception
• legitimacy of authority 


  more likely to obey people we perceive to have ‘real’ authority over us

  authority justified by the individuals position in social hierarchy

  demonstrate social power through appearance and manner e.g uniform

  more likely to obey as we trust & respect them

  may obey as they have power to punish
• evaluation of legitimacy of authority

  • support from milgram variations - obeyed more in prestigious setting (65%) compared to run down office (47.5%)

  • however many still obey when lacks legitimacy of authority - still obeyed in run down office - must be other reasons for obedience

  • can explain real life war crimes - My Lai massacre can be explained - soldiers told to obey commanding officer as legitimate authority
• agentic state

  mental state where you are more likely to obey as you see yourself as having no personal responsibility & are acting on behalf of an authority figure

  go through agentic shift from autonomous state to agentic state

  believe they are “just doing as told”
• evaluation of agentic state pt1


  • support from milgram - asked a range of people before the study to predict how far ppts would go - predicted only 1 in 1,000 would go to 450v (autonomous state) - 65% continued when faced with authority figure (agentic state)

  • fails to explain individual differences - many did not obey in milgrams study - some personality types may be more susceptible to agentic state than others - explanation may be limited
• evaluation of agentic state pt 2

  • cannot explain some real life cases - nazi german reserve police shot civilians even though told they didn’t have to - obeyed despite not being able to fully shift responsibility to authority figure
• authoritarian personality

  • personality type especially susceptible to obeying people in authority.

  • hostile to people of inferior status but obedient to people of higher status

  • rigid in their beliefs & opinions

  • measured by the F scale questionnaire

  • have a tendency to be obedient to authority as they believe they need strong leaders to enforce traditional values
• evaluation of authoritarian personality pt 1

  • fails to explain obedience in majority of a country’s population - e.g in Germany millions of people obeyed the nazi’s despite having different personalities - can’t explain obedience on a larger scale

  • cannot account for situational factors - e.g studies like milgran show altering situation changes levels of obedience such as legitimacy of authority - suggests social institutions can influence obedience regardless of personality
• evaluation of authoritarian personality pt 2

  • evidence to support - 20 obedient ppts from milgrams study (who went to 450v) did F scale questionnaire - scored higher on authoritarianism

  • support - ppts with authoritarian personality ordered to give themselves shocks gave higher shocks than others

  • cannot establish cause and effect - cannot say this personality causes obedience e.g a “third” variable could be involved e.g lower level education
• what is locus of control

  people’s perception of personal control over their own behaviour
• what is high internal locus of control


  • perceive themselves as in control of their own behaviour - more likely to take personal responsibility

  • less in need of social approval
• what is high external locus of control


  • perceive their behaviour as being controlled by external influences e.g luck or other people

  • more likely to conform to social influence
• evaluation of locus of control pt 1

  • meta analysis of studies involving locus of control & resisting conformity - found internal less easily persuadable and less likely to conform

  • support from Holland - replicated milgram’s study and measured if internal or external - 37% internals did not continue to 450v whereas only 23% externals did not continue
• evaluation of locus of control pt 2

  • criticism from Twenge - analysed findings from obedience studies over 40 year period - people become more resistant to obedience but also more external