Social Influence

• Conformity Asch ( 1951 ) - A01

  • three reasons for conformity - distortion of perception , distortion of judgement , distortion of action
  • group size - 1 or 2 ppts , conformity 13.6%, 3 ppts 31.8% , anything higher than 3 ppts didn't affect conformity
  • unanimity - when ppt was supported by another confederate giving the right answer conformity dropped to 5.5% , conformity dropped to 9% when confederate gave different but wrong answer
  • task difficulty - when it increased so did conformity due to ISI - informative social influence
• Conformity Asch 1951 A03 - strength

  • research was conducted in a controlled environment
  • they were in a lab which had high control over extraneous variables meaning it is easier to demonstrate cause and effect
• Conformity Asch 1951 A03 - limitation
• Conformity Asch 1951 A03 - LIMITATION

  • the task was artificial and therefore lacked mundane realism therefore Asch's findings cannot be generalised to every day situation
  • lack temporal validity because is was conducted when US was in the grip of McCarthyism which could've been the reason why people conformed.
  • limitation because is means that the Asch effect is not consistent across situations and may not be consistent across different time periods
• Kelman (1958) types of conformity A01

  • compliance - publicly conforming but privately keeping the same views , temporary form of conformity
  • identification - adopting views of a group both publicly and privately however this is temporary and completely dependent on the presence of the group
  • internalisation - a true change of one's public and private views, not dependent on the presence of the group, deepest form of conformity
• Informational Social Influence - conforming to be right , a cognitive process
• Normative Social Influence - conforming to be liked, emotional process
• Conformity A03 strength

  • Lucas et al (2006) research support for task difficulty and ISI , more people conformed as the mathematical problems got harder
  • real life application for NSI - using NSI through social norms intervention - shows NSI can be used in the real world to achieve desirable behaviour
• NSI limitation - McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation are more likely to be conformist however people who don't care to be affiliated are more likely to be non-conformist
• ISI limitation - Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted a study where they found that there was little conformity with students who were confident with their knowledge, ISI doesn't occur
• conformity to social roles A01

  • individuals learn how to behave by looking at the social roles other people play in these situations and conform to them
  • Zimbardo's prison experiment (1973) was to investigate the effect of giving someone an allocated social role on their behaviour
  • used all white, healthy , middle class men
  • payed $15 a day
  • volunteer sample
  • prisoners were given ID numbers to dehumanise them
  • study ended after 6 days instead of the planned 14 days
  • one prisoner had to leave after 36 hours
• conformity to social roles A03 : strength

  • can be used to explain real life situations of prison violence
  • for example in abu ghraib in iraq because the guards showed horrific behaviour and as did the guards in Zimbardo's study
  • this suggests that Zimbardo's research can be used to explain whyt people behave in such ways
• conformity to social roles A03 : strength

  • there was a lot of control of participant variables
  • ppts selected were emotionally and mentally stable with no history of mental health needs
  • this shows there was high levels of controlled
• conformity to social roles A03 : limitation

  • the study has been criticised for a lack of realism
  • some argue that the guards and prisoners conformed due to demand characteristics
  • therefore skews the validity of the study
• conformity to social roles A03 : limitation

  • ethical issues
  • protection from harm was violated as the participants underwent serious stress and anxiety - they did not leave in the same physical and mental state that they began with
  • also their right to withdraw was suspended as many prisoners said they'd forfeit their pay just to be released, this was ignored
• Milgrams' (1963) Obedience Study


  The aim was to establish whether ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order from a person in authority to inflict pain on another person
• Participants- Milgrams' obedience study


  • 40 male volunteers who took the role of the teacher and were paid $4.50 in total
• Procedure- Milgrams' obedience study


  1. Participants were instructed to inflict electric shocks on a confederate from 15 volts to 450

  2. They were warned that from 300 volts onwards it was lethal

  3. Participants thought the confederate had heart problems

  4. When the participant hesitated or expressed their want to stop, they were told to continue by Milgram for the sake of the study
• Milgrams' obedience study - 65% of the participants went to the end of the shock generator
• Milgrams' obedience study A03 - strength

  • high in internal validity
  • milgram reported 75% of the ppts said they believed the shocks were real in post - study interviews
  • videos of the study show the ppts in serious distress
• Milgrams' obedience study A03 - strength

  • research support Hofling et al. (1966) 21/22 nurses administered what they thought was a lethal drug
  • this supportes Milgram's study because the nurses were ordered by am authority figure ( a doctor ) to inflict pain onto another person
  • this supports the findings that people will ignore their own conscious and obey authority figures
• Milgrams' obedience study A03 - limitation

  • ethical issues
  • Baumrind ( 1964 ) attacked Milgrams' study claiming he put his ppts under great emotional strain - this violates the protection from harm the ptts should have gotten
  • the ppts left in a different emotional state to when they entered
  • also their right to withdraw was suspended as ppts were commanded to continue when they asked to stop
• Obedience - situational explanations A01

  • look at external reasons for a behaviour
  • agency theory that obedience is due to a shift from the autonomous state to the agentic state
  • autonomous individuals behave voluntarily and are aware their actions have consequences
  • agentic individuals see themselves as the agents of others and not responsible for their actions
  • people remain in the agentic state due to binding factors ( e.g. not wanting to appear rude )
• Obedience - situational explanations A03 - strength

  • Milgram (1963) supports as teacher ppts is autonomous at the start but then becomes the agent of the experimenter as they start obeying
• Obedience - situational explanations A03 - strength

  • Hofling et al. (1966) supports legitimacy of authority because the nurses respect the credentials of the doctors and realise their place in the social hierarchy
• Obedience - situational explanations A03 - limitation

  • weakness of agentic shift is that obedience may be better explained by 'plain cruelty '
  • Milgram's ppts may have used the situation to express their sadistic tendencies
  • this suggests that it may not be agentic control which causes obedience instead it may be certain aspects of human nature
• Obedience - situational explanations A03 - limitation

  • legitimate authority can be used to justify harming others
  • when directed by a legitimate authority figure to engage in immoral actions, people are willing to do so
  • this implies that when people authorise another person to make judgment for them about appropriate conduct they no longer feel that their own moral values are relevant to their conduct
• Explanations for resistance to social influence


  • Situational explanation - social support
  • Dispositional explanation - locus of control
• Locus of control


  The personality dimension which concerns the extent of which someone believes they are in control of their own actions
• Internal locus of control


  • Understand they are responsible for their actions and consequences
  • Less likely to conform
• External locus of control

  • Believe things happen to them by luck or fate regardless of their actions
  • More likely to conform
• explanations for resistance to social influence A03: strength

  • research supporting the idea that social support reduces the likely-hood of conformity - Asch's 1956b study shows that conformity dropped to 5.5% when the unanimity of confederates broke
• social support - explanation of the resistance to social influence

  • When others defy attempts to make them conform, it's easier for an individual to resist social influence
• Resistance to social influence A03: strength

  • research support for locus of control - Miller 1975, participants with an external locus of control were more obedient and gave themselves electric shocks
• authoritarian personality - dispositional explanation for obedience A01

  • respect authority
  • highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender
  • aggression towards those who violate traditional norms
  • Adorno et al. introduced the F-scale which is used to measure AP in 1950
  • they state an AP is a result of harsh parenting in childhood
• dispositional explanations for obedience - A03: limitation

  • F-scale is methodologically flawed. People who agree with a lot of the question could possibly just be acquiescers instead of having an AP
• dispositional explanations for obedience - A03: limitation

  • F-scale is methodologically flawed. People who agree with a lot of the question could possibly just be acquiescers instead of having an AP
• dispositional explanations for obedience - A03: limitation

  • refuting research ( Midden Dorp and Meloen 1990 )
  • suggest a third factor such as lack of education can be reason for obedience instead of an authoritarian personality
• Asch's research into conformity A01:

  • distortion of perception - ppts believe their perception was wrong so conformed
  • distortion of judgement - ppts believe the accuracy of their judgements was wrong so conformed
  • distortion of action - ppts privately trusted their own perception but publicly conformed to avoid disapproval
• Asch's research into conformity A03: strength

  • experiment done in a controlled environment and therefore there was control of extraneous variables increasing validity of the study
  • real life application - the bandwagon affect. Buying something based on peer recommendation