Contents
Conformity
- Types and explanations
- Conformity to social roles
Obedience
- Situational variables
- Situational explanations
- Dispositional explanations
Resistance to social influence
Minority influence
Social influence and social change
Conformity
Conformity - majority influence, a tendency to change what we do, think, or say in response to the
influence of real or imagined pressure from others
Majority influence – you are changing your behaviour to fit the behaviour that a larger group of
individuals are showing
Types of
conformity
Does it lead to
a public
change?
Do they agree
with the
behaviour?
Does it lead to
a private
change?
Does it lead to
a short term or
long-term
change?
Compliance
Just ‘going
along with it’
No
There is no
change in
private
Short term
Identification
Agreeing when
in the presence
of the group,
because of the
group
Yes, in public
There is no
change
Short term (in
presence of the
group)
Internalisation
Agree with the
group in public
Yes, in public
and in private
Agreeing with
the group in
private
Long term
change
2. Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity, where a person agrees with a change in
belief/behaviour in public and private on a long-term basis.
Kane, Dean and Sam have started ‘hanging out’ with a gang of lads from the same estate. Kane and
Dean are both 17 and Sam is 16, whereas the other boys in the group are 18-19. They spend their
evenings smoking, drinking cider, daubing graffiti and more recently engaging in petty crime such as
shoplifting and vandalism. The group is frequently in trouble with the police, something the older boys
see as a ‘badge of honour’, in that it raises their status as being ‘tough’ and ‘lawless’. The police are
also seen to be ‘always picking on’ the group just because they come from a tough estate.
The three boys have different reasons for joining in with the actions of the group. Dean accepts the
group’s view that the police target them and so sees their behaviour as a way of ‘hitting back’. Kane
joins in because he doesn’t want to be ridiculed for being immature by the older boys. Sam admires
the older boys and wants people to think of him as a member of a tough group from a tough estate.
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
Explanation of conformity
Two process theory (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955)
Social psychologists think we have psychological needs that lead to conformity:
- Normative social influence (to be liked)
- Informational social influence (to be right)
Normative Social Influence
- This occurs when we wish to be liked by the majority group, so we go along with them even
though we may not agree with them.
- This is just following the crowd to fit in with the ‘norm’ and be liked by the group.
- Changing our behaviour so that we are liked, and we fit in, even if we disagree or do not like the
specific behaviour personally
Informational Social Influence
- This occurs when we look to the majority group for information as we are unsure about the way
in which to behave.
- A person will conform because they genuinely believe the majority to be right as we look to them
for the right answer.
- This is common when you start a new job or go to a new place that you’ve never been before,
you will copy the behaviour of others because they know more than you.
AO2
Joseph, Jim, and Graham have just started new jobs at tutor2u and all three are keen to do well.
Graham laughs a lot at the jokes his colleagues tell, even though they’re not funny. Joseph watches his
colleagues closely and makes sure that he completes work exactly as they do, to avoid making
mistakes. Jim prefers to learn through trial and error. He believes that by it is only by making mistakes,
that he will really understand what he is doing.
Which persons behaviour is being influence by normative social influence and which person’s
behaviour is being influenced by informational social influence? Justify both choices. [6 marks].
- Graham’s behaviour of laughing at the jokes his colleagues tell is being influenced by normative
social influence as he wants to be liked by the majority group. Graham is changing his
behaviour, so he is liked even though he doesn’t think the jokes are funny. Graham is following
his other colleagues to fit in with the ‘norm’.
- Joseph’s behaviour of watching his colleagues carefully and completes the work exactly as they
do and avoiding mistakes is influenced by informational social influence. Joseph believes that
the majority is right and therefore looks to them for the right answer of how to behave. Joseph
as a result copies the behaviour of his colleagues as they know more than him.
Explanation of conformity AO3
A strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Todd Lucas et al. Lucas et
al (2006) found that people were more likely to conform to incorrect answers when the questions
posed were difficult compared to easy ones – even more true for students rated themselves poor at
maths. This suggests people look to others for support in situations where they feel they don’t know.
This is a strength as it shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what
ISI would predict. Some psychologists may argue that it is unclear whether it is ISI or NSI at work in
research studies (or in real life) as the participants may have changed their answers to be liked by
others, therefore conforming to incorrect answers. Therefore, we should try and refrain from separating
the two as they operate together. Or that this study cannot be generalised as it may only explain
students’ behaviour. Despite this, a strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the
study by Todd Lucas et al.
A strength of the explanations of conformity, especially normative social influence, is that there is
supporting evidence into nAffilators. The term nAffilators refers to an individual with a. greater need for
affiliation, such as having relationships with others. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students
with a higher need of affiliation were more likely to conform. This is a strength as it supports the idea
that desire to be liked underlines conformity which is a key characteristic of the normative social
influence explanation. However, McGhee and Teevan only used students in their research which limits
the generalisability of the findings as one could argue that younger people are more likely to conform
due to more social pressure as well as lower self-esteem. This is a weakness because it lowers the
ability to apply these findings to a wider population. Despite this, the supporting evidence of nAffilators
is still a strength of normative social influence as it supports the main theory of this explanation,
therefore, it increases the internal validity of the explanations of conformity.
A weakness of the explanations for conformity is that it cannot predict conformity in every case. For
example, some people are less likely influenced by normative social influence if they are less worried
about being liked whereas some people are nAffiliators and have a desire to be liked. This is a
weakness as is shows that there are differences in how much NSI underlies conformity. However, the
evidence of nAffilators was found within students, which means that nAffilators may only be a relevant
variable for conformity in students. Despite this, the lack of prediction of conformity is a weakness of
normative social influence.
Asch research – 1955 and factors affecting conformity AO1
Asch wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an
answer was obvious.
Procedure: In Asch’s study there were 5-7 participants per group. Each group was presented with a
standard line and three comparison lines. Participants had to say aloud which comparison line
matched the standard line in length. In each group there was only one real participant the remaining 6
were confederates. The confederates were told to give the incorrect answer on 12 out of 18 trails.
Results: Real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials where confederates
gave the wrong answers. Additionally, 75% of the sample conformed to the majority
on at least one trial.
Factors affecting conformity:
Group size
- Asch altered the number of confederates in his study to see how this effected conformity. The
bigger the majority group (number of confederates), the more people conformed, but only up to
a certain point.
- With one other person (i.e., confederate) in the group conformity was 3%, with two others it
increased to 13%, and with three or more it was 32% (or 1/3). However, conformity did not
increase much after the group size was about 4/5.
- Because conformity does not seem to increase in groups larger than four, this is considered the
optimal group size.
- Brown and Byrne (1997) suggest that people might suspect collusion if the majority rises
beyond three or four.
- According to Hogg & Vaughan (1995), the most robust finding is that conformity reaches its full
extent with 3–5-person majority, with additional members having little effect.
Group unanimity
- A person is more likely to conform when all members of the group agree and give the same
answer.
- When one other person in the group gave a different answer from the others, and the group
answer was not unanimous, conformity dropped. Asch (1951) found that even the presence of
ppjust one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity as much as
80%.
Difficulty of task
- When the (comparison) lines (e.g., A, B, C) were made more similar in length it was harder to
judge the correct answer and conformity increased. When we are uncertain, it seems we look to
others for confirmation. The more difficult the task, the greater the conformity.
Group size: conformity will increase
Unanimity: conformity will decrease
Task difficulty: conformity will increase
Asch’s research and factors affecting conformity AO3
A weakness of Asch’s research is that the study lacks ecological validity. This is because it was based
on peoples’ perception of lines which is not what everyday conformity will be. This is a weakness as it
does not represent the complexity of real-life conformity. Some may argue, despite this, a lack of
ecological validity in Asch’s research is a weakness.
A weakness of Asch’s research is sampling issues regarding this study. The study was only carried out
on men thus the sample was gender bias and therefore the results cannot be applied to females. This
is a weakness as the sample lacks population validity.
A weakness of Asch’s study is the ethical issues regarding Asch’s study. For example, there was
deception as participants were told the study was about perception of lines. As a result, they could not
give informed consent there is a chance the participants may have felt embarrassed when the true
nature of the study was revealed. Some may argue, Asch did consider ethics into his study as he
debriefed his participants at the end. Despite this, this is a weakness of Asch’s research as it could
potentially put them through some form of psychological harm.
Group size – Would increasing the number of confederates in the group lead to increased agreement.
Findings: Similar scores were found to the base line and the conclusion draw was that people are
sensitive to the view of others, but this is only important to an extent
Unanimity – Would a non-conforming confederate make the naive participant less likely to conform.
Findings: The dissenter freed the naive participant to stop conforming as as a result, conformity
dropped significantly compared to the baseline results
Task difficulty – Would making a task harder lead to an increased level of agreement. Findings:
Compared to the baseline, there was an increase in conformity, which may be due to Informative Social
Influence due to the nature of the task
Conformity to social roles AO1
Zimbardo’s research – the Stanford prison experiment
Aim
-
Whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner when placed in
that environment. Also, whether it was due to their sadistic personalities or their social role and
a prison guard which created this brutal behaviour.
Methodology
- Zimbardo turned the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison to increase the realism
of the study. 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert
took part in the study and were selected based on their physical and mental stability and were
paid $15 a day to take part. The participants were randomly assigned to one of two social roles,
prisoners, or guards.
- The ‘prisoners’ were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a
numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed around their ankles.
- The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs, and a truncheon. The
guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was
set to run for two weeks.
Results
- Zimbardo found that the prisoners and guards identified with their social roles quickly. However,
within days the prisoners rebelled, but was quickly crushed by the guards. As a result, the
guards became more abusive towards the prisoners and dehumanised them by waking them
during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands. The prisoners became
more submissive, identifying further with their allocated role as a prisoner.
The conclusions about conformity
- Social roles clearly have a large influence on individuals’ behaviour as the guards became more
brutal and the prisoners more submissive.
- The roles were easily and quickly taken on and represented a ‘real life’ prison
- He also concluded that situational factors were responsible for the behaviour as none of the
participants showed these behaviours beforehand
Zimbardo was unethical
- Five of the prisoners were released early due to experiencing extreme anxiety. There was a lack
of protection from harm and the study should’ve been stopped earlier.
Conformity to social roles AO3
v
A strength of the research into conformity to social roles is the high control over key variables. For
example, after emotionally stable individuals were selected, they were randomly assigned to either a
guard or prisoner. This is a strength as it rules out the explanation to the findings that there were
individual differences thus increasing the internal validity of the study as we are able to confirm a
cause-and-effect relationship. Some may argue that Zimbardo’s study was unethical and is therefore
heavily criticized. Despite this, high control over variables allows us to be more confident in our
conclusions surrounding the influence of roles on conformity.
A weakness of Zimbardo’s is that it has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines
such as protection from harm. For example, five of the prisoners left the experiment early due to
experiencing extreme anxiety and guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt. This is a weakness as it
meant that 5 people left early which may have altered the findings of the study. Some may argue that
these adverse reactions display what occurs in a real prison and therefore has higher aspect of realism
to the study meaning we can rely on the findings more. Despite this, although Zimbardo followed the
ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he acknowledged
that the study should have been stopped earlier which is a weakness.
A final limitation of the study is that Zimbardo’s research is be criticised for lacking ecological validity.
For example, the participants were placed in an unfamiliar artificial setting and were expected to carry
out an artificial task. This is a weakness as the study is not reflective of the participants real life
behaviour as prisoners knew they were in a fake prison meaning the findings cannot be generalized to
the outside world. Some may argue it was a way to standardise the experiment. Despite this, findings
regarding social roles from the study cannot be generalised beyond the artificial setting which is a
weakness of the study.
Obedience: Milgram’s research – 1963 AO1
Obedience: Direct response of an instruction from an authoritative figure. This is often a direct
instruction who has the power to punish
Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures
as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.
Aim: To see if people will obey orders, even those requiring them to harm others.
Procedure
- 40 American males were recruited through a newspaper advert. They were told that the study
was to do with how punishment affects learning.
- The experimenter assigned the participant to the role of ‘teacher’ through a rigged draw, whilst
another person (another confederate) was given the role of ‘learner’.
- The learner must answer word-pairing questions, and it they gave an incorrect answer, the
teacher was told to administer an electric shock. They are in separate rooms so could hear each
other but not see each other.
- The electric shocks increase in intensity, from 15-450 volts and each time the learner answered
incorrectly, the teacher was instructed to give the next highest shock. In reality, no shocks were
administered, the learner only pretending to receive shock. At 300 volts, the learning began
banging on the wall and protesting, and after 315 he gave no further response.
- Four prods were used to encourage the participant to continue. If they still protested after this,
they could withdraw from the study.
Findings
- 65% of the participants went to the maximum (450 volt) shock.
- None stopped before 300 volts.
- Many showed signs of tension and anxiety e.g., sweating, shaking, and nervous laughing, but
the majority continued to the end
Conclusions:
- People will obey orders from an authority figure (the experimenter, who was wearing a white lab
coat), potentially fatally harming a stranger in doing so.
AO2 questions
1. Where was the research conducted? Yale
2. Who were the participants? 40 American males
3. What were participants told was the hypothesis or predictions behind the conducting of the
experiment? They were told that the study was a memory test
4. What were the two conditions (the two different groups) that ‘participants’ were split into?
Learners and teachers
5. What does the machine do? Deliver fake shocks to the learner (actor)
6. All subjects are given identical instructions – what is this known as within research methods?
Standardisation
7. Why do you think participants were given a sample shock? To increase realism and therefore
minimise demand characteristics
8. It seemed to the pairs of participants were being randomly assigned to one of two conditions.
This was not true, what was the role of the accomplice (the actor)? What was the role of the
naive participant?
9. How were participants being deceived? Through lack of informed consent and deception
10. What were the psychiatrics predictions of the number of participants who would give the deathly
shocks? 3% (anywhere between 1% and 10% is valid to give as an answer due to varying
sources)
11. What were participants told when they questioned whether they wanted to carry on, or seemed
concerned about the ‘learners’ safety’? ‘Prods’ such as ‘carry on with the experiment’
12. How can we explain why the participants completed a task that they “didn’t like one bit” but
continued to administer the shocks? A fear of an authority figure, meaning they are more likely
to obey
Obedience: Milgram’s research - 1963 Evaluation
A strength of the study is the use of a lab study. This meant that the study used a standardised
procedure where all participants experienced the same thing and was treated in the same way. This is
a strength as it improves the reliability of the study and the internal validity through establishing a
cause-and-effect relationship. Some may argue that using artificial stimuli is a weakness and limits the
ecological validity of the study, meaning it may not be possible to generalise the findings to a real-life
setting as people do not usually receive orders in real life to hurt someone. Despite this, the use of a
lab is a strength for Milgram’s study as it increases the reliability.
A weakness of Milgram’s experiment is that the sample was biased. Milgram used a sample of all male
participants to study obedience. This is a weakness as the findings will not represent obedience of all
genders due to differences in men and women, biologically. Some may argue, there have been replicas
of Milgram’s experiments to represents obedience in women. Despite this, using all male participants
in Milgram’s study limits the external validity of the study.
A weakness of Milgram’s research is ethical issues. Participants were deceived and there was a lack of
informed consent as they didn’t know the shocks weren’t real and didn’t know what they were letting
themselves in for. This is a weakness as the research does not comply with BPS code of ethics which
limits the ecological validity. Some may argue that Milgram debriefed his participants afterwards, telling
them what had really happened and also, when questioned, 84% felt glad to have taken part. Despite
this, a weakness of Milgram’s research is ethical issues as therefore limits the ecological validity.
Obedience: Milgram’s research – situational variations
Proximity
Milgram varied his experiment so that the teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience
dropped to 40%, because the teacher could see the consequences of their actions.
In another variation (remote instruction), the experimenter was not in the same room, instead giving
orders by phone. In this variation, obedience dropped to 20.5%, as the teacher did not feel the
pressure to obey. Some even lied to the experimenter in this condition, claiming they were giving
stronger shocks than what they were.
The final variation is touch (holding hand down)
Concluded that the greater the proximity between the teacher and experimenter, the lower the levels of
obedience.
Location
The experiment was moved from the prestigious Yale University to a run-down office block. Obedience
fell to 47.5%, because the lack of prestige of the location made it seem less important to obey.
Concluded that the less official the location, the less likely people will obey
Uniform
The experimenter was called away to answer an ‘important telephone call’ and was replaced by a
‘member of the public’ (another confederate) wearing ordinary clothes, rather than a lab coat.
Obedience dropped to 20%, because participants did not see the authority figure as legitimate.
Concluded that
Obedience: Milgram’s research – situational variations AO3
A strength of Milgram’s research and the situational variations is supporting evidence, Bickman (1974)
supports the influence of uniform, passers-by were asked to perform actions (e.g., picking up litter) by a
confederate dressed as a security guard, milkman, or just in a jacket and tie. This is a strength as it
clearly shows the effect of uniform as there was more obedience in the security guard condition
A weakness of Milgram’s variations is that they lack internal validity. Participants may have worked out
that the procedure was faked. This was perhaps most likely in the uniform variation, which was very
contrived. This is a weakness as it means that obedience was not truly being measured, limiting the
internal validity.
A strength of Milgram’s research is that he controlled his variables closely. Milgram only altered one
thing at a time in his variations. This is a strength as it increases the validity of his findings.
Obedience: Milgram’s research – situational explanations
Situational explanation: factor within the environment causing a person to obey
Milgram’s theories
- Agentic state
- Legitimate authority
Agentic state
Autonomous is freely behaving based on one’s own ideals
Perceives authoritative figure with greater power
Thus, we will experience agentic shift and moral strain, when you do something that is against your will
just because an authority figure tells you to do so
Leading to an agentic state, acting in the place of another (doing as they tell you)
Binding factors: aspects of situation help them to minimise the effects on their behaviour, reducing
moral strain
Legitimate authority
Milgram argues our society is broken down into a hierarchy, some groups have more authority than us.
Legitimate authorities that society agrees upon e.g., doctors or the prime minister
People we trust to act appropriately, we respect because of assumed knowledge or legal power
We hand over our free people we trust and follow their orders
Legitimate authorities abuse this obedience, known as destructive authority e.g., hitler
Outline one or more explanations of obedience (6 marks)
Milgram proposed that one reason why people obeyed in his study was due to the ‘agentic state’. The
opposite to the agentic state is the autonomous state, where people do feel responsible for their
actions. However, when a person is under the control of an authoritative figure, perceiving them with
greater power, they experience agentic shift and moral strain, when you do something that is against
your will just because an authority figure tells you to do so. Milgram proposed binding factors, which are
aspects of situation help them to minimise the effects on their behaviour, reducing moral strain.
Milgram’s participants perhaps underwent an agentic shift, allowing them to blame the authority figure
and absolving themselves of responsibility. Milgram also proposed ‘binding factors’ which are used by
the participant to justify their actions (for example, the ‘learner’ gave consent to take part, so it’s ok to
carry on shocking him).
Obedience: Milgram’s research – situational explanations AO3
Agentic shift
A weakness of situational explanations is that the agentic shift cannot explain why some participants in
Milgram’s study did not obey, as in theory they should all have been in an agentic state. This is a
weakness as the theory cannot explain all obedience, or obedience over long periods of time (such as
in Nazi Germany), reducing credibility of the theory. Some may argue that there is contrasting evidence
to show the agentic shift working. For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) asked observers to explain
who they thought was responsible for the harm caused to the learner in Milgram’s study. Most though
the experimenter was responsible, so supporting the agentic state explanation. Despite this, the
agentic shift is a weakness as not all participants did not obey, reducing the internal validity of the
theory.
Blass and Schmitt (2001) asked observers to explain who they thought was responsible for the harm
caused to the learner in Milgram’s study. Most though the experimenter was responsible, so supporting
the agentic state explanation.
A strength of situational explanations is that legitimacy of authority is supported by cultural differences.
For example, in countries where obedience and deference to authority is less valued (such as
Australia), obedience rates are much lower than in countries that value legitimate authority figures
(such as Germany). This is a strength as it is suggesting legitimacy of authority does play a part in
obedience, increase internal validity of the explanation.
Obedience: Dispositional explanation
Key terms
Dispositional explanation: A factor within the person causing them to obey, any explanation of
behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality e.g., their disposition. Such
explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations.
Authoritarian personality: AP, a type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to
obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher
status and dismissive of inferiors.
Authoritarian personality and obedience
Adorno felt that dispositional factors rather than situational factors could explain obedience. He
proposed that there was such a thing as an authoritarian personality, i.e., a person who favours an
authoritarian social system and admires obedience to authority figures. Such people view society as
weaker than it once was so believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values
such as love of country and family.
One of the various characteristics of the authoritarian personality was that the individual is hostile to
those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status.
Origins of the authoritarian personality
Adorno et al believed the AP type forms in childhood mostly because of harsh parenting. This parenting
style typically features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high
standards and severe criticism of perceived failings. Parents give conditional love, which is love that
depends upon how their child behaves (e.g., ‘I will love you if…’).
Adorno also argued that these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child, but the
child cannot express their feelings directly against their parents because they fear punishment. So,
their fears are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker, in a process known as
scapegoating. This explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior or who belong
to other social groups, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority. This is a psychodynamic
explanation.
Adorno et al.’s research
Procedure: He investigated 2000 middle class, white Americans, and their unconscious attitudes
towards other racial groups. The researchers developed several measurement scales including the
potential for fascism scale (F-scale. This scale is still used to measure authoritarian personality. Two
examples of items from the F-scale are: ‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important
virtues for children to learn’, and ‘there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great
love, gratitude, and respect for his parents’. High on the f scale = more obedient than others
Findings: people with authoritarian leanings (e.g., those who scored high on the f-scale and other
measures) identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak. They were veery
conscious of status (their own and others) and showed extreme respect, deference, and servility to
those of higher status – these traits are the basis of obedience.
Adorno et al. also found that authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style (way of perceiving
others) in which there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people. They had fixed and
distinctiveness stereotypes about other groups. Adorno et al, found a strong positive correlation
between authoritarianism and prejudice.
AO2 practice
A group of protesters are fixing a banner to the top of a tall crane. A plain clothed police officer on the
ground uses a loud hailer to order them to stop and to come down, but the protesters refuse.
Describe and discuss at least two explanations of defiance of authority, refer to the description above
in your answer.
The height of the crane reduces the proximity of the police officer.
The presence of other protesters creates group (conformity) pressure to continue.
Being in an autonomous state
Not recognising an authority as legitimate/regarding order as illegitimate.
The absence of uniform
Maybe dispositional explanation - Displacement of anger
Dispositional explanation of obedience AO3
Research support
One strength is evidence from Milgram supporting the Authoritarian personality.
Milgram and Alan elms interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original
obedience studies and been fully obedient. They all completed the f-scale as part of the interview.
These 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the overall F-scale than a comparison
group of 20 disobedient participants.
This is a strength as the findings support Adorno et al.’s view that obedient people may well show
similar characteristics to people who have an authoritarian personality.
Some may argue that, however when researchers analysed the individual subscales of the f-scale, they
found that the obedient participants had several characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians
e.g., not glorifying their fathers. This means that the link between obedience and authoritarianism is
complex. The obedient participants were unlike authoritarians in so many ways that authoritarianism is
unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience.
Despite this, the findings from Milgram and Alan elms show a link between obedience and
authoritarianism, which increases internal validity.
Limited explanation
One limitation is that authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in most of a country’s
population.
For example, in pre-war, millions of individuals displayed obedient, racist, and anti-Semitic behaviour.
This was even though they must have differed in their personalities in all sorts of ways and seems
unlikely that they could all have authoritarian personalities. An alternative approach is that most
Germans identified with the Nazi state and scapegoated the outgroup of Jews. This is a weakness of
Adorno’s theory as an alternative explanation, being social identity theory approach.
Some may argue,
Despite this, a limitation is that authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in most of a
country’s population therefore limited ecological validity
Political bias
A limitation is that the f-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing
ideology.
Christie and Jahoda argued that the f-scale is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian
personality. They point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian bolshevism
or Chinese Maoism. In fact, extreme right wing and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common. For
example, they both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority.
This is a weakness as it means that Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation
that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum.
Some may argue,
Despite this, a limitation is that the f-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of
right-wing ideology, limiting internal validity.
Resistance to social influence
Resistance to social influence – refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to
conform to most people. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and
dispositional factors.
Social support – the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do
the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.
Locus of control – refers to the sense of control we each have about what directs events in our lives.
Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control).
Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external focus of control).
Social support
Resisting conformity - Pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present not
conforming. The fact someone else is not following the majority is social support and allows the naïve
participant to be free to follow their own conscience.
Resisting obedience - Pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to
disobey. In Milgram’s variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine
participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
Locus of control
Two types of LOC - Julian rotter proposed locus of control as a concept concerned with internal control
versus external control. Some people have an internal locus of control and believe the things that
happen to them happen to them are controlled by themselves. For example, performing well in an exam
would be due to you working hard and if you didn’t do well, would be due to not working hard. Some
people, on the other hand, have an external locus of control and believe that things that happen to
them are out of their control. So, if they did well in an exam, it would be due to using an excellent
textbook, and if they failed, may be blamed on the use of a poor textbook or down to the questions
being hard.
The LOC continuum - People are not just either internal or external. LOC is a scale and individuals vary
in their position on it. So, high internal locus of control is at one end of the continuum and high
external, on the other, low on either lie in-between.
Resistance to social influence
People with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. If a person takes
responsibility for their own actions and experiences, they tend to base their decisions on their own
beliefs rather than depending upon the opinions of others.
Another explanation is that people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more
achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence. These traits lead to greater resistance to social
influence. These are also characteristics of leaders, who have much less need for social influence than
followers.
Resistance to social influence AO2
One of the explanations for resistance to social influence is the locus of control. Asgarth has an internal
locus of control meaning that they believe whatever happens is because of their behaviour, as they
mentioned, ‘your fate is under your control’. This belief is shown through his behaviour of him putting
his name forward to be his tutor group’s representative on the school council. On the other hand,
Hyacinth has an external locus of control meaning whatever happens is out of their control. This belief
is shown through her comment that it is just down to luck whether she wins as tutor group rep.
Resistance to social influence AO3
Real world research support
A strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support.
For example, Susan Albrecht et al evaluated teen fresh start USA, and eight-week programme to help
pregnant young people resist the pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older
mentor or ‘buddy’. Those with a buddy at the end of the programme were less likely to smoke than a
control group of participants who did not have a buddy.
This is a strength as it shows how social support can help young people resist social influence as part
of an intervention in the real world.
Some may argue,
Despite this, a strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support which increases
ecological validity.
Research support
A strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.
For example, Holland (1967) found that 37% of ‘internals’ refused to obey to the maximum shock level
in a Milgram-type study, compared to 23% of ‘externals.
This is a strength as it shows a link between locus of control and resistance to obedience, thus
increasing internal validity.
Some may argue,
Despite this, a strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to
obedience, which increases internal validity.
Contradictory research
A weakness is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance.
For example, Twenge et al (2004) found that over time, Americans have become more resistant to
obedience, but have also become more external in their locus of control.
This is a weakness as it weakens the suggestion that having an internal locus of control leads to
resistance to social influence.
Some may argue,
Despite this, a weakness is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance, this
decreasing internal validity.
Minority influence
Minority influence
Consistency
Commitment
Flexibility
Minority influence
 Minority influence is when a small group (or individual) influences the behaviour and beliefs of a
larger group of people. This usually has a smaller effect than conformity to a majority, but an
effect is possible. To be successful, minorities need to be:
 Consistent - Say the same message over and over as this is more likely to draw the majority’s
attention to the issue/problem/belief
 Committed - Be prepared to make sacrifices or undertake ‘extreme’ activities as this shows the
majority how important the minority thin their view is, and may make the majority process the
issue more deeply (the augmentation principle)
 Flexible - Being reasonable and non-dogmatis as this means the majority are more likely to take
the group seriously, and not dismiss them.
Explaining the process of change
All three factors outlined above make people think about the minority’s view. Hearing something you
don’t agree with usually doesn’t make you stop and think. But if you hear something new, then you
might think more deeply about it.
Deeper processing is the important part in the process of conversion to a different, minority viewpoint.
Over time increasing numbers of people switch from the majority viewpoint to the minority position
meaning they have been ‘converted’.
The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion. This is called the snowball effect and
gradually the minority view has become the majority view and change has occurred.
Minority influence AO2
The one jury (minority) who believes the defendant is innocent was able to convince the majority that
the defendant was innocent through being consistent. Repeatedly saying the person is innocent is
more likely to draw the majority’s attention to the issue, thus increasing chances of the majority
changing their minds.
Secondly, the minority jury was committed under this extreme activity of deciding whether the
defendant be charged with murder. This is important for change as it means the majority processes the
issue more deeply.
Thirdly, the minority jury was flexible. This means they were reasonable meaning the group is more
likely to influence the majority to process the issue more deeply, this being more likely to change their
mind.
Finally, these three factors together done by the minority jury was able to make the majority think more
deeply about it which is important in the conversion process. The more this happens the faster the rate
of conversion and eventually the minority view became the majority view, and the change has occurred.
Minority influence AO3
Research support for consistency
A strength is research evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency
Moscovici blue/green slide study shows that a consistent minority had a greater effect on changing the
views of other people than an inconsistent opinion.
This is a strength as it shows how presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority
trying to influence a majority
Some may argue,
Despite this, a strength is research evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency which
increases external validity.
Research support for deeper processing
Another strength is evidence showing that a change in the majority’s position does involve deeper
processing of the minority’s ideas.
For example, martin et al presented a message (minority) supporting a particular viewpoint and
measured participants agreement. One group of participants then heard a minority group agree with
the initial view whilst another group heard a majority group agree with it. Participants were finally
exposed to a conflicting view and the attitudes were measured again. People were less willing to
change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority
group.
This is a strength as this suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had
a more enduring effect.
Some may argue
Despite this, a strength is evidence showing that a change in the majority’s position does involve
deeper processing of the minority’s ideas.
Artificial tasks
One limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved are often just as artificial as
Asch line judgement task.
For example, the stimuli used in Moscovici’s study is far removed from how minorities attempt to
change the behaviour of majorities in real life e.g., political decisions and jury decision making, this can
sometimes mean life or death.
This is a weakness as it means findings from minority influence studies are lacking in external validity
and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real life.
Some may argue
Despite this, a limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved are often just artificial
which decreases external validity.
Social influence and social change
Social influence – the process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and
behaviours. Includes conformity, obedience, and minority influence.
Social change - when whole societies adopt new attitudes/beliefs/behaviours, for example changing
attitudes on issues such as women’s suffrage, views on homosexuality and ethnicity, or beliefs about
the importance of recycling or environmental issues.
Social change
Lessons from minority influence research
1. Drawing attention
2. Consistency
3. Deeper processing
4. Augmentation principle
5. Snowball effect
6. Social crypto amnesia - The concept of ‘social crypto amnesia’ is the idea that the population
does not remember how/why the change has happened- because it has become accepted as
‘the norm’.
Lessons from conformity research
This shows the importance of a dissenter, who encourages other people to not conform and therefore
lead to social change. The role of normative influence can also be used to affect social change, for
example by suggesting that others are behaving in a certain way.
Lessons from obedience research
This shows the power of a disobedient individual, for example in Milgram’s variation. A real-life example
would be Rosa Parks, who was used as a disobedient role model. She encouraged many other people
to refuse to give up their seat in white-only areas of buses during the era of segregation in the USA,
eventually leading to the civil rights movement.
Social influence and social change AO2
Lessons from conformity research show that if social change is wanted, a dissenter is required, a
person who encourages other people to not conform and therefore lead to social change. Thus, an
improvement in the situation would require someone suggesting that others are behaving in a way that
they shouldn’t i.e., eating too much or eating the wrong foods, which is bad for them which can
influence social change.
Also, lessons from minority influence show us that for change, we must draw attention to the situation
that 65% of men and 58% of women are now overweight or obese. If the minority are consistent with
their belief that this is wrong, then this will cause the majority (the obese people) to realise their
behaviour which will result in deeper processing. As more change their mind (conversion), the rate of
conversion increases, which is called the snowball effect.
Social influence and social change AO3
Research support for normative influence
A strength is that research has shown that social influence processes based on psychological research
do work.
For example, Nolan et al (2008) found that displaying messages encouraging less energy use were
more effective when they suggested that other people were doing the same thing. This is a strength as
it supports the idea that normative influence can be a factor in effecting social change.
Some may argue, some studies show that people’s behaviour is not always changed through exposing
them to social norms. David Foxcroft reviewed social norms interventions as part of the gold standard
Cochrane collaboration including 70 studies where the social norms approach was used to reduce
student alcohol use. The researchers found only a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect on
drinking frequency. Therefore, it seems that using normative social influence does not always produce
long term social change.
Despite this, a strength is that research has shown that social influence processes based on
psychological research do work, increasing external validity.
Minority influence explains change
A strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change.
For example, Nemeth claims social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire. When
people consider minority arguments, people engage in divergent thinking. This type of thinking is broad
rather than narrow, in which the thinker actively searches for information and weighs up ore options.
Nemeth argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues.
This is a strength as it shows why dissenting minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas and
open minds in a way that majorities cannot.
Some may argue,
Despite this, a strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social
change which increases external validity.
Role of deeper processing
A limitation is that deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change.
For example, some people are supposedly converted because they think more about the minority’s
views. Diane Mackie disagrees and presents evidence that it is majority influence that may create
deeper processing if you do not share their views. This is because we like to believe that other people
share the same views as us and when we find that the majority don’t, we are forced to think about their
arguments and reasoning.
This is a weakness as it means that a central element of minority influence has been challenged,
casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change.