Social influence

• Compliance


  Lowest level of conformity - change in public bvr but not private beliefs (ISI and NSI)
• Informational social influence


  agree with opinion due to belief it is correct/ right - most likely to lead to internalisation
• normative social influence


  agree to opinion of majority due to desire to gain social approval
• identification


  middle level of conformity - acceptance of group norms/ change in public bvr and beliefs within group - conforms to demands of given society
• internalisation


  deepest level of conformity - long term acceptance

  change in public and private bvr and beliefs

  • conforming due to agreement of views (ISI)
• Asch’s line study AO1

  • 1951 - 123 american Ps - groups w/ 6-8 confed
  • two white cards - standard and comparison lines - asked matching line
  • first few rounds confed right answer then errors
  • Ps giving wrong answer - 36.8%
  • 75% conform due to NSI - asked later ’ did not want to to be rejected’
  • variations - group size, unamity, task difficulty
• Asch variations

  1. group size - curnivillear relationship - conformity increased only to a point - 3Ps - 31.8%
  2. unanimity - Ps conformed less w/ dissenter (less than 1/4 when unanimous wrong answer)
  3. task difficult - conformity increased when difficult as more ambiguous (ISI)
• Asch AO3

  • artificial stimulus - lacks mundane realism
  • limited application ( fiske - asch groups not ‘groupy’ )
• NSI and ISI AO3

  -individual differences in NSI -some desire to fit in more than others (nAffiliators - need for association)

  -ISI and NSI work together
• conformity to social roles - Zimbardo

  • stanford prison exp.
  • 24 Ps - emotionally stable random assignment guards/prisoners
  • prisoners arrested from home, strip searched guards told to mantain order - zimbardo superintendant
  • guards and prisoners both conformed to roles due to envt.
• zimbardo ethical issues AO3

  • not full informed consent
  • inhumane treatment - mental and emotional state of prisoners deterioated
  • zimbardo overlooked abusive bvr - r. bias role of superintendant
• Zimbardo further AO3

  • control over key variables - emotionally stable Ps - high int. validity
  • H/ lack of realism - Banuazini ‘play acting’ - yet evidence suggests from interviews prisoner 416 believed it real
  • steve reicher + alex haslam - does not account for non brutal guards - repeat - 15 men did not conform automtically - prisner shift in power (temporal validity)
• explanations for obedience milgram

  -40 Ps, confed learner - electric shock for wrong answer

  • 36 buttons 15v incraments up to 450v
  • labelled danger - xxx
  • prods - ‘please continue’
  • confed fake cried up to 300v then silent
  • all Ps up to 300v, 65% to 450v
• Milgram variations

  1. uniform- normal clothes exprimenteer - obedience dropped to 20%
  2. location - moved from yale to rundown office building - 47.5%
  3. proximity - force learners hand on shock plate 30%
  4. absent experimenteer - telephone prompts 20.5%, less v than ordered
• Milgram AO3

  • highl controlled - high int validity
  • tapes from expt show Ps may have doubted if shocks real - demand characteristics
  • lacks mundane realism - support Holfing nurses would adminstor fatal dose if ordered
• legitimacy of authority

  • obey those above in social hierarchy as ‘right to give orders’ - aided by uniform
• agentic state - milgram


  agentic shift from autonomous state to agentic state - no longer feel responsible for actions
• AO3 of social psychological factors of obedience

  -agentic state limited explanation - does not explain those who do not obey

  -cultural diff. when milgrams study replicated in Australia - 16% to highest voltage,German 85%- shows obedience to authority fig. diff by envt - supports situational factors
• dispositional explanation for obedience AO1

  • Adorno - prejudice result of personality type
  • f scale - testing authoritarian personality
  • more authoritarian higher f scale score, more likely to obey to authority
  • abnormal prejudice, hostile to inferior, obedient to percieved higher status
  • rigid in opinions and belief
  • result of harsh parenting in childhood, hostlity displaced onto inferior
• authoritarian personality AO3

  • Fscale - r. 2000 middle class strong positive correlation of upbringing and ap
  • milgram and ellis - orginal milgram sample tested w/ f scale fully obedient higher score - h/ correlation
  • political bias- fscale measure extreme right tendency - h/ extreme left authoritarism e.g bolsheviks - not comprehensive
  • correlation does not equal causations
• resistance to social change - social support AO1

  • if others do not conform easier to follow own consciousness as pressure to conform reduced - dissent give rise to more dissent
  • e.g milgram resistance to obedience if seen others disobey obedience fell to 10% when disobedient confed
• resistance to social change - locus of control AO1

  • extent to which individuals think can exert control over events that affect them
  • internal LOC - belief can control what happens can resist pressure
  • external LOC - belief everything due to outside forces - more likely to be influenced
• resistance to social influence AO3

  • research support for social support - allen and levine found in asch line study conformity decreased when more than one dissenter even with thick glasses yet with good eyesight but no support only 3% resisted
  • LOC linked w/ obedience in R. Holland 1967 - milgrams sample int LOC 37% refused, ext LOC 23% refused - correlation 0.37 - significant
  • limited role of LOC
• minority influence AO1


  needs three factor

  1. consistency - over time (diachronic) and people (synchronic)
  2. commitment - to cause, augmentation principle - engaging in extreme activities draws attentions e.g suffragette hunger strike
  3. flexibility - strike balance and compromise - accept reasonable counter argument

  • change occurs in a snowballing affect - more people adopt way of thinking (ISI) becomes majority (NSI)
• Minority influence AO3


  r. support - Moscovici 1969, green/blue slide, confd in groups w/ ps - consistent green - 8.42% conform, inconsistent 1.25%

  H/ artificial tasks - stimulus lacks mundane real ext. validity

  limited application - differences in minority and majority more than just numbers - real life social influence situations complicated