Higher Psychology
Social Behaviour
Conformity and Obedience
”The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it is
conformity” Rollo May
R. Auchnie and S Regnart 2016
Contents Page
1.1
1.1
What is conformity?
Types of Conformity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2.
1.1
Types of non-conformity
Sheriff study (1935)
N5 Study 1: Solomon Asch (1951)
N5 Study 2/ Higher Study 1: Mori and Arai (2010)
Individual factors
Social and Cultural factors
Minority influence
Case study Rosa Parks
The difference between majority and minority influence
Research into minority influence
How does minority influence work?
1.3
Talking Points – bringing it all together
Examples of everyday behaviour
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
The nature of Obedience
Key study 2 for Higher – Stanley Milgram (1963)
Real life studies – Charles Hofling (1966)
The Stanford prison experiment - Philp Zimbardo (1973)
Why do people obey
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
Strategies for resisting social pressure
Research intro groups – Gamson (1982)
Applying our understanding of Social Psychology to every day life
Bringing it all together
Past paper questions – Higher
Assessment Standards and Mandatory content
Outcome 1
Analyse topics relating to human social behaviour by:
1.1
1.2
1.3
Explaining concepts and/or theories associated with a topic in social psychology
Evaluating psychological research evidence relating to the topic
Applying understanding of social psychology to everyday behaviour
Conformity and Obedience. Psychological concepts and/or theories which must include:
♦ types of conformity which must include: identification; compliance; internalisation
♦ factors affecting conformity which must include: normative influence; informational influence; social influence; individual
factors; situational factors; cultural factors
♦ factors affecting obedience which must include: types of authority; perceived legitimate authority; socialisation;
authoritarian parenting; autonomous and agentic levels of behaviour; situational factors
♦ strategies for resisting social pressure/coercion which must include: responsibility for own actions; moral reasoning and
awareness of own values; questioning motives of others including advertisers and peer groups; disobedient models
Studies
The aims, methods, results and conclusions of at least two relevant psychological studies which must include:
♦ Mori, K, and Arai, M (2010) No need to fake it: Reproduction of the Asch experiment without confederates. International
Journal of Psychology, 45 (5), 390–397.
♦ Milgram, S (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–78 and
relevant knowledge from Milgram’s subsequent related studies.
1.1. What is Conformity?
2
Conformity is a form of social influence that results from exposure to the majority position.
David Myers (1999) defines conformity as: ‘a change in behaviour or belief as a result of real
or imagined group pressure’. Zimbardo et al (1995) state that it is: “a tendency for people to
adopt the behaviour, attitudes and values of other members of a reference group’. Our
reference group are the people we refer to, our peers, friends and family. These people have
more impact on us than strangers.
We conform every day
We take on the beliefs and behaviour of the society we live in,
and change our behaviour in different situations to fit
expectations. For example we:
 wear school uniform or ‘fashionable’ clothes
 ‘choose’ gendered hairstyles
 encourage girls to shave their legs and armpits
 queue at bus stops and cash machines
Many of these things are a result of socialisation or
conditioning.
Socialisation refers to the lifelong process of passing on norms, beliefs, customs and
ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary to fit in to our society.
So - why do we conform?
Informational influence
People conform because they believe the majority is right. This occurs especially in ambiguous
situations and/or where the majority is known to have superior knowledge. There is a belief
that others are better informed about a certain issue (e.g. music and fashion), and have made
a better choice (better music/fashion taste) and that their choice is the correct one.
Normative social influence
People conform in order to be liked and accepted as part of a group, for example a pupil at
school may want to fit in and be accepted by a group and go along with others to avoid
ridicule/rejection.
Classwork
1)
Define the term ‘Conformity’
2) Give 2 examples from everyday life of how you conform due to informational influence
and 2 examples of how you conform due to normative influence.
1.1 Types of conformity
1. Compliance - This is conforming to majority opinions and behaviour in public but privately
maintaining your own attitudes e.g. agreeing with a parent that your bedroom is untidy just for
a quiet life, wearing a tie to school even though you think they’re uncomfortable.
2. Identification - An individual takes on the majority beliefs and behaviours both publicly and
privately but this may only be temporary and will not be maintained when the individual leaves
the group e.g. you join an animals right campaign group with your friends at college, but stop
your subscription to the charity when the group disperses after the course ends.
3
3. Internalisation - This occurs when an individual privately accepts the majority view. The
new attitudes and behaviours become part of the individuals personal value system.
Some conformity is a good thing for society to run smoothly
 Stopping at a red light
 Telling a white lie to protect someone’s feelings e.g. ‘no your bum does NOT look big
in that’
 Laughing at a bad joke told by the host of a party
 Not attacking people in the street - behaving in an appropriate manner
Some conformity is a bad and abused by evil leaders
The Nazis believed that Jewish people were inferior and slaughtered 6
million people. Many people conformed with this idea.
1.2 Research into conformity
Aim: Jenness (1932) asked students to
guess how many beans there were in a
jar. They were then given an opportunity
to discuss their estimates and, finally, to give their individual
estimates again.
Findings; Jenness found that individual estimates tended to
converge to a group norm.
Conclusion: It seems reasonable that, in an ambiguous
situation, one looks to others to get some ideas about a
reasonable answer.
Classwork
1. Card Sort - put the statements under the correct heading:
Compliance






Identification
Internalisation
Publically and privately agreeing
Privately disagreeing but outwardly going along with the group
Taking on the beliefs of a group, but requiring their presence to maintain the beliefs
and behaviour
An example is drinking water because all your friends do, when you are not around
them you revert to lemonade
An example is voting for a political party because you feel strongly that they are the
best party.
An example is going along with the request of your boss and apologising to a
customer, even though your think you are not at fault.
2. Give an example of each type on conformity – compliance, identification and
internalisation. They can be from your own life, or things you’ve seen happen.
3. Give 1 example of conformity which is positive (pro-social) and one example of
conformity that is negative (anti-social), other than the examples given above.
1.1 Types of non-conformity
4
Independence
This is when a person is truly independent of the group and is unresponsive to pressure.
When their behaviour converges with the group it is because their views happen to coincide,
not because they want to be liked (normative influence). These people are quite unusual, as
most of us conform for a lot of our day for an easy life!
Anti-conformity
This is when someone consistently opposes the group in order to be different. They choose
to dress or wear their hair differently as a means of standing out. The behaviour of anticonformists is actually defined by the group – if we say black, they say white!
Classwork
In pairs or groups decide whether the following people are independent in their views and
behaviour or anti-conformists. They may of course be both, or neither! You decide.
1. Katniss, Peeta and Gale
2. Miley Cyrus
3. Bella Swan and the vegetarian Cullens
4. Lady Gaga
Early experiments on group norms
5
Aim: Sheriff (1935) investigated responses to an ambiguous stimulus, using the autokinetic
effect. This is an illusion, much like a disco lights, where a stationary point of light appears to
move in a dark room. The light wasn’t actually moving at all. He wanted to see if people’s
estimates would be change when they heard the estimates of other people.
Method: Sherif told participants he was going to move the light and they had to estimate
how far the light moved. When tested individually several times their answers fluctuated by
settled down. There were wide differences between participant estimates though.
They then heard the estimates of two others who had given quite different estimates of the
light’s movement. After their discussion each was participant was asked to provide individual
answers again.
Results: A group norm emerged, where estimates become similar to the ones they had
heard, so their answers had ‘converged’ / come closer.
Conclusion: This demonstrates a tendency to conform to the group norm, especially in
ambiguous situations where we are unsure of the correct answer. We look to others.
Evaluation: This was one of the first studies to look at the power of the group, and prompted
many other social psychologists to see if they could measure this phenomenon. The most
notable research was conducted by was Solomon Asch, who hoped to improve on Sherif’s
procedure by having real group members present and by introducing a situation where the
answer was completely obvious.
1.2 Study 1: Investigating the nature of conformity Solomon Asch, 1956
Aims
The aim of this study was to find out how people would behave when given an
unambiguous task where the answer is obvious. Would they be influenced by the behaviour
of others, or would they stick firmly to what they knew to be right? How much conforming to
majority influence would there be?
6
Method and procedure
In total, 123 male American undergraduates were tested. Asch
showed a series of lines (the standard line and the possible
answers as shown here) to participants seated around a table.
All but one of the participants was a confederate of the
researcher. The 7-9 confederates were instructed to give the
same incorrect answers on 12 ‘critical’ trials. In total there were
18 trials with each participant. The true participant (naïve
participant) was always the last of last but one to answer.
Results
On the critical trials, an average of 36.8% of the responses made by the participants were
incorrect. 13 out of 50 participants never conformed, which was 25%. The majority - 75%
conformed at least once. This is surprising because the task was unambiguous. Asch
conducted a control trial where no confederate gave a wrong answer, he found that people
do make mistakes about 1% of the time.
Conclusion
This shows a surprisingly strong tendency to conform to group
pressures in a situation where the answer is clear. For Asch the
important finding was that there was any conformity at all. However,
Asch also noted that on two-thirds of the trials his participants had
remained independent, which was clear evidence of how people could
resist pressure to conform. This study is represented in most social
psychology textbooks as resounding evidence of people’s tendency to
conform when faced with a unanimous majority. It is also evidence of
conditions under which people resist conformity.
1.2 Evaluation of the study
Strength:
1.
This study has generated huge amounts of further research in to conformity. It has been
replicated in many time periods all over the world.
Weaknesses:
1. Lack of ecological validity. What does this study actually tell us about real life?
Asking people to judge the length of lines is a rather insignificant task; people may be willing
to conform to save face. On a more important conformity task, we would expect conformity
levels to drop. The experiment used strangers, but conformity may be even higher when with
people you know. The study had low ecological validity
2. Is the study a “child of its time”?
This was conducted in a highly conformist time in American society during the cold war - the
era of McCarthyism where Senator McCarthy was pulling in people to answer charges of
communism if they held any sympathy with left wing views of equality. Perrin and Spencer
repeated Asch’s study in 1981 with British students. They found only 1 conformist answer
out of 396 trials. The era of individualism did not take place until the 1960’s. There have
7
been studies that support Asch’s results and others which suggest it’s an unpredictable
phenomenon.
3. Biased sample
All participants were male and belonged to the same age group. These results cannot be
generalised to women.
4. Ethical issues
Participants were not protected from psychological harm; participants were deceived and
experienced some distress.
Classwork
1. Stickmen
Illustrate the Asch study using ONLY stickmen and
speech bubbles. Swap your picture with a learning
partner and get them to guess which is the aim,
method, results, conclusion and evaluation. Let them
know if they’re correct.
Extension activity:
If you feel comfortable at the remembering and understanding levels then feel free to skip
straight to the higher levels of application, analysis etc.
3. Homework assignment:
‘Describe and evaluate the Asch study on conformity.
6 marks description and 4 marks evaluation. Total =
10 marks
8
1.2
Study 2: Arai and Mori (2010)
Aim
Asch's finding was hugely confounded (made invalid) by the fact that some confederates would
have been more convincing than others. To solve these problems Kazuo Mori and Miho Arai
adapted the MORI technique (Manipulation of Overlapping Rivalrous Images by polarizing
filters), used previously in eye-witness research. By wearing filter glasses similar to those used
for watching 3-D movies, participants can view the same display and yet see different things.
Method and Procedure
Mori and Arai replicated Asch's line comparison task with
104 participants tested in groups of four at a time (on
successive trials participants said aloud which of three
comparison lines matched a single target line). In each
group, three participants wore identical glasses, with one
participant wearing a different set, thereby causing them to
observe that a different comparison line matched the target
line. As in Asch's studies, the participants stated their
answers publicly, with the minority participant always going
third. Whereas Asch used male participants only, the new study involved both men and
women.
Results
For women only, the new findings closely matched the Asch research, with the minority
participant being swayed by the majority on an average of 4.41 times out of 12 key trials
(compared with 3.44 times in the original). However, the male participants in the new study
were
not
swayed
by
the
majority
view.
Discussion and Conclusion
There are many possible reasons why men in the new study were not swayed by the majority
as they were in Asch's studies, including cultural differences (the current study was conducted
in Japan) and generational changes. Mori and Arai highlighted another reason - the fact that
the minority and majority participants in their study knew each other, whereas participants in
Asch's study did not.
Evaluation
Strength: The researchers argue that using familiar people is a strength of their new approach:
'Conforming behaviour among acquaintances is more important as a psychological research
topic than conforming among strangers,' they said. 'Conformity generally takes place among
acquainted persons, such as family members, friends or colleagues, and in daily life we
seldom experience a situation like the Asch experiment in which we make decisions among
total
strangers.'
Weakness: The Mori and Arai study was only conducted in Japan so the results cannot be
generalised to other cultures.
Overall: Looking ahead, Mori and Arai believe their approach will provide a powerful means
of re-examining Asch's classic work, including in situations (e.g. young children) in which the
use of confederates would not be practical.
Mori, K., and Arai, M. (2010). No need to fake it: Reproduction of the Asch experiment without
confederates.
International
Journal
of
Psychology,
45
(5),
390-397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207591003774485
Classwork
9
1) For each study identify which type of conformity was demonstrated by the participants –
informational or normative.
Study
Type of conformity
Jenness (1932) jar of beans
Sherif (1935) autokinetic effect
Asch (1951) standard line experiment
Mori and Arai (2010) conformity in Japan
2) Discuss the questions below as a small group and then write them up individually; this can
be completed as homework.
1. Describe Mori and Arai’s study in no more than four action-packed sentences
(4)
2. Paragraph 1 describes a problem with Asch’s original study; outline this problem choosing
terminology from the research methods unit.
(3)
3. Compare the procedures used by Asch (1951) and Mori And Arai (2010); find as many
similarities and differences as you can
(6)
4. Compare the findings of Asch (1951) and Mori and Arai (2010); is there anything surprising
or unexpected about the findings?
(3)
5. Based on these new findings, what are your thoughts about whether demand
characteristics and the low ecological validity of the laboratory setting were responsible
for the lower levels of conformity in Asch’s original study?
(2)
6. Can you think of any alternative strategies for researching conformity using qualitative
methods and data analysis techniques? Pick a method and say how you would use it.(4)
10
1.1
Individual and situational factors
influencing conformity
We want to “fit in” with friends or groups and are brought up to believe stereotypical views
about others as a quick way to understand the world e.g. girls are more interested in fashion
and gossip than boys, boys are more aggressive than girls and better leaders. We are also
shaped by religion, our parents, and the culture we live in. There are three ways to explain
our conformist behaviour:
1. Individual factors
2. Situational factors
3. Cultural factors.
Individual factors are things such as self-esteem, confidence,
intelligence, experience or gender.
Situational and cultural factors are anything in the environment,
including the behaviour of other people and social roles.
Individual factors
Gender
We may be more likely to conform depending on our gender. It is thought that women tend to
be more conformist than men (Eagly and Carli, 1981). This may be explained in terms of the
fact that women are more concerned with social relationships than men and this means that,
in the experimental condition, they have different short term goals. The result is that women
appear to be more conformist than they are in the real world (Eagley, 1978).
Self esteem
Our self-esteem may affect how likely we are to conform. Asch suggested that people low in
self-esteem are more likely to conform because they are more likely to fear rejection from the
group.
Desire for personal control
Burger and Cooper (1979) investigated another possible individual difference: the desire for
personal control. Participants had to rate whether cartoons were funny or not in the presence
of a confederate who was asked to do the same. Those participants who measured high on
desire for personal control were less likely to rate the cartoons in the same way as a
confederate.
Parenting and life experience in previous situations is another individual difference. Adorno
et al (1950) described the authoritarian personality - people who are more likely to conform
because of the way in which they were brought up.
Need for social approval - if an individual has a strong need for social approval they are
more likely to conform to the group
Social relationships - if an individual is concerned about social relationships they are more
likely to conform (this tends to be women).
Classwork
1. Visit the following website and take a version of Adorno’s test for authoritarian personality. The
F scale measures Fascist tendencies! http://anesi.com/fscale.htm
2. Make a mindmap, poster or presentation on keynote, powerpoint etc on individual factors which
influence conformity.
11
Situational factors which influence conformity
Group cohesiveness - In situations where a group of people know each other (unlike Asch’s
experiment) conformity may be even higher, as shown in the study by Williams and Sogon.
Importance of task - In situations where people have a strong moral basis for their beliefs
they are less easily swayed by the opinions of others. Hornsey et al (2003) found that students
who had strong beliefs about the recognition of gay couples in law were publicly and privately
less likely to conform to majority opinion.
Size of the majority - Asch (1956) found that the size of the
opposing majority did affect conformity - up to a point. He
found that as the size of the majority grew, so did the
percentage of trials in which the naïve participant conformed.
There was a high percentage of conformity when a lone
dissenter faced a unified majority of three people, but
increasing the number of confederates beyond three did not
raise conformity levels significantly. There is little change in
conformity once the group reaches 4-5.
Status of majority group - If the status of the majority group is high (eg: popular group of
girls at school) then they will be more influential, and others will be more likely to want to be
part of their group and therefore conform.
Cultural factors
Individualist vs Collectivist
Compared with individualistic cultures such as the UK and USA,
conformity appears to be higher in societies where group
harmony is a priority. These cultures are called
collectivist cultures, examples of these are China,
Korea and Japan. Conformity may be seen as a positive
feature in cultures where interdependence is more highly valued than
independence. In collectivist cultures family and work group goals are
emphasized above individual needs or desires. This is what Smith and Bond
(1993) found in a review of 31 studies of conformity.
Time period
Many psychologists argue that Western culture in the 1950s encouraged conformity, but
these strict norms were subverted in the 1960s and 70s
by the black civil
rights movement, the feminist movement, the
contraceptive pill
and the sexual revolution that resulted. Many people
cite Rock and roll
music as a major turning point, where people no longer
felt they had to do
things in the old ways.
Classwork
12
1) Add situational and cultural factors to your mindmap or presentation.
2) Card sort - put the factors under the correct headings.
Individual Factors
Situational Factors
Cultural factors
Size of the majority
Gender
Group cohesiveness
Trivial task
Time period
Need for social approval
Individualist culture
Self esteem
Social relationships
Collectivist culture
Parenting and life
experience
Status of majority group
Minority influence
So far we have focused on majority influence (the power of the
majority). However it has been suggested that this preoccupation with
the majority does not fit with historical reality. Serge Moscovici is the
foremost of critics with this preoccupation. If the only form of social
influence was majority influence then we would all think and behave
in the same way, and this would be unchanging from generation to
generation.
There are several examples where minority groups have had a
powerful impact on society. The suffragette movement of the 1920’s
gradually changed public opinion and political opinion so that
eventually women were given the vote. The suffragettes, like other
minority groups, tend not to have had much power or status and may have been dismissed
as troublemakers, extremists or weirdos.
How can they have influence over the majority?
Moscovici suggests that the answer to this question lies in their behavioural style – the way
that they get their point across. The success of the suffragette movement lies in the fact that
they were consistent in their views. This consistency created a considerable degree of
social influence.
Minorities that are active and organised who advocate and defend their position consistently
can create social conflict, doubt and uncertainty among members of the majority, and this
can lead to social change.
Without the influence of minorities, we would have no innovation, no social change.
13
Case study – Rosa Parks
Rosa Parks was an activist in the African–American civil rights
movement. She is now regarded as the ‘first lady of civil rights’ thanks
to her arrest on December 1st. This day (and her birthday) are
commemorated as ‘Rosa Parks day’ in California and Ohio.
“I'd see the bus pass every day... But to me, that was a way of life; we
had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among
the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world”
Her Wikipedia page states: On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused
to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to
a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Parks was not the first person to resist
bus segregation. Others had taken similar steps, including Irene Morgan in 1946, Sarah
Louise Keys in 1955, and the members of the Browder v. Gayle lawsuit (Claudette Colvin,
Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith) who were arrested in
Montgomery months before Parks. NAACP organizers believed that Parks was the best
candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in
violating Alabama segregation laws, although eventually her case became bogged down in
the state courts while the Browder v. Gayle case succeeded.
Parks' act of defiance and the Montgomery Bus Boycott became important symbols of the
modern Civil Rights Movement. She became an international icon of resistance to racial
segregation. She organized and collaborated with civil rights leaders, including Edgar Nixon,
president of the local chapter of the NAACP; and Martin Luther King, Jr., a new minister in
town who gained national prominence in the civil rights movement.
Although widely honored in later years, she also suffered for her act; she was fired from her
job as a seamstress in a local department store, and received death threats for years
afterwards. After retirement, Parks wrote her autobiography and lived a largely private life in
Detroit. In her final years, she suffered from dementia.
Parks received national recognition, including the NAACP's 1979 Spingarn Medal, the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and a posthumous statue in
the United States Capitol's National Statuary Hall.
Upon her death in 2005, she was the first woman and second non-U.S. government official
to lie in honor at the Capitol Rotunda.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks)
The difference between majority and minority influence
There are several key differences between these two types of influence:
14
1. Numbers Minority influence is exerted by a minority of
one or more people. What’s important is the number of
people doing the influencing not the number of people
being influenced.
2. Innovation or status quo? Majority influence is
maintaining the status quo, it is resistant to social change.
Majorities serve to promote uniformity among group
members and exert pressure on those who deviate from
social norms. Minority influence is associated with change
and innovation. The views of a deviant minority generate a
social conflict with mainstream ideas, values and norms.
3. Imitation or originality?
Minorities must work harder to get their point across, because of this arguments are thought
to produce more cognitive effort in the minority than is the case with majority influence.
Majority influence leads to restricted convergent thinking based simply on imitation, whereas
minority influence leads to more divergent thinking and original thinking as alternatives are
weighed up against each other in search of the best solution.
4. Compliance or conversion
In order for minority influence to take place, there must be a conversion within individuals who
were formerly part of the majority. This conversion involves a careful thinking through of the
arguments of the minority and gradual acceptance of their point of view. This process is slow
to take place. Majority influence, on the other hand, is a much more passive process, it doesn’t
involve much thought.
5. Social approval versus information
Majority influence represents the need for social approval and minority influence represents
the need for information about reality.
Classwork
1) Draw this table and find the missing contrasts between minority and majority influence. Clue
– they’re on the previous page!
Majority influence
Minority Influence
1. Exerted by a majority
Exerted by…..
2. Maintains the status quo
3. Restricted thinking based on imitation
4. Passive, without much thought
5. Need for social approval
15
2) What is minority influence?
3) List examples of minority groups who have been successful in changing the views of the
majority
4) What would happen if there were no minority influence?
5) How can the minority have an influence?
Research on Minority influence
Behavioural style
Moscovici et al (1969) proposed that the minority must be consistent in their views and that
this consistency will create conflict in others, leading them to question and possibly change
their views, even when the stimulus is explicit. Researchers arranged for 4 participants plus 2
confederates to name the colour of 36 slides. The slides were arranged for 4 participants plus
2 confederates to name the colour of 36 slides. The slides were blue-coloured but both
confederates consistently said that the slides were green. Overall, the participants agreed with
the minority on 8.42% of the trials (ie they said that the slides were coloured green) 32% gave
the same answer as the minority at least once. In a second experiment, where the participants
had to write down their answer, this led to greater agreement with the confederates.
Non-situational factors
Moscovici et al suggested that consistency was the key characteristic of successful minority
influence. Nemeth et al (1974) suggested that confidence rather than consistency was the key
factor. To test this they compared one condition where confederates were highly consistent
(they said green to every slide) with another condition where confederates were inconsistent
but this inconsistency was related to a property of the stimulus (they said green to the brighter
slides and green-blue to the simmer slides). Such inconsistency led to greater agreement than
the unrealistic consistency of the former condition. If confederates said green half the time and
green-blue the other half (ie inconsistent and random) then there was no minority influence.
Overall, this suggests that inconsistency only works when it is patterned and not just blind
repetition.
Flexibility rather than consistency has also been found to be important. Nemeth and
Brilmayer (1987) found that a minority of one who refused to change his position (when
arguing in a mock-jury situation for the amount of compensation to be paid to someone in a
skiing accident) had no effect on others. However, a minority member who was willing to shift
his opinion slightly in the direction of the majority did exert an influence on majority opinion.
Situational factors
Moscovici and Nemeth (1974) demonstrated that seating position can affect minority
influence. In his study, five people sat around a rectangular table; one of the five was a
confederate who expressed a minority opinion. When the confederate was assigned a seat,
position did not matter but if the confederate chose to sit at the head of the table they exerted
more influence.
Classwork
16
Explain the main findings of 2 pieces of research into minority influence.
How does minority influence work?
Conflict rethinking - Moscovici proposed that the confidence and consistency of a deviant
minority challenges the way the majority thinks and causes them to rethink their position, thus
bringing about internalised attitude change rather than superficial compliance.
Social Cryptoamnesia - There is a point in any group, where, after some members have
started to agree with the minority, the minority then turns into a majority. Van Avermaet (1996)
calls this the snowball effect. We should also remember that minority influence generally
shows itself in private rather than public, so how does this snowball effect take place?
The answer may lie in social cryptoamnesia. It has been observed that major attitude changes
(conversion) take place only when the spirit of the times has changed. In the case of the
suffragettes, it was years after they started
campaigning for the right to vote that public opinion
actually changed. So, opinion change was not a direct
result of minority influence.
What probably happened was that the minority
influence changed private attitudes and these views
gradually became the “spirit of the times”. When
change occurred (women were given the vote) this was in accordance with majority opinion.
Perez et al (1995) coined the phrase social cryptoamnesia - by the time change occurs people
have forgotten the original source of opinion change, but innovation was actually due to
minority influence.
Classwork
1) What is meant by conflict re-thinking?
2) Explain social cryptoamnesia in relation to minority influence
17
Talking points – bringing it all together
Conformity and Rebellion in the movies
In Hollywood movies conformity is a common theme. We love to
see a hero or heroine vanquish a tyrannical leader. Think of films
that you have watched which show one person as anti-conformist,
breaking ranks with others who are being compliant. The main
character usually has to get over many obstacles and huge social
pressure, but then recruits more people to their side.
1.
2.
Task - make a list of all the films that you can think of that
have this theme.
Online learning: watch the 1957 film ‘12 Angry Men’ on youtube as a classic example
of minority influence http://youtu.be/mzPll63y2b0
Diffusion of Responsibility
Are we responsible for what we do as individuals OR if there are a more of us
involved in something, are we less responsible? For example: A group of teenagers mug
an old lady at night as she walks back from the shops. When questioned by the police - one
of the boys says he was just going along with what his friends wanted to do.
Is this acceptable?
This often happens at football matches. People behave in ways
which they wouldn’t on their own, shouting out sexist or racist chants
etc. There is a kind of “group mentality” and people get carried along
with the behaviour and even attitudes of others. This is sometimes
known as ‘diffusion of responsibility’. The responsibility is shared out
or “diffused” between the larger group of people, so that each person
individually feels less responsible.
This trend was illustrated in the above experiments. If a big group of
people behave in a certain way, individuals think that this is the right
way to behave and follow the crowd. If everyone agrees and we don’t
we doubt ourselves rather than everyone else. We are also more
likely to follow people who we view as having more authority than
us.
3. Task – discuss what you have learned about yourself from studying this unit. Are you less
likely to go along with the crowd, or just as likely?
18
1.3
Examples of everyday behaviours
Classwork This booklet has given you lots of examples of conformity in
everyday situations.
1). In groups make a list of all the ways that we conform in the situations
below. Present your findings to the rest of the class in a form of your choosing
e.g. drawing app, keynote, poster, mindmap, stickmen, comic strip, puppet
show, table etc:
Everyday life
School
Workplace
Home
Cinema
Relationships
Shopping mall
Parties
Music tastes
Online bullying
Example
2. The producers of the X-Factor (or if, like me you prefer Strictly Come Dancing) have
approached you, in your capacity as an expert in Social Psychologist, specializing in Social
Influence, as they are concerned that the panel of judges might be conforming to each other’s
judgments of contestants rather than judging them independently. Explain why this might
happen. Refer to types and explanations of conformity that you have already learnt about.
3. People use conformity every day to try and get people to do what they want (sometimes
without those people even knowing!). One particular group of people who do this are
politicians. You have recently been appointed campaign manager for an up and coming
politician and they want your help in swaying the opinions of other politicians and the public.
Write a report (a concise piece of writing broken up into sub-sections) advising on the best
way your boss can go about influencing people. Make sure you make reference to studies
and/or theories from Psychology.
4. Imagine you are a researcher and you want to compare conformity levels of students taking
different courses. Design a simple study which could test and compare levels of conformity of
science and PE students.
19
1.1 The Nature of Obedience
Obedience is a form of compliance that occurs when people
follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of
authority. It does not necessarily mean that private opinions have
been changed. It is important to be able to distinguish obedience
from conformity. Conformity is about yielding to a group pressure,
while obedience means complying with the demands of a figure
in authority. With conformity, behaviour is affected by people’s
examples, while, with obedience, behaviour is affected because
of direct instructions – usually from someone ‘above’ us who has
power over us.
Factors affecting Obedience
Milgram (1963): To investigate how far people will go in obeying an authority figure. What
makes someone in authority have the ability to put pressure on others? Stanley Milgram, a
famous social psychologist whose work we will look at shortly, identified several factors.
1. One of the most important of these factors was that the authority figure concerned must be
perceived as credible. Otherwise, it is likely that we will disregard their requests.
1. A second important factor identified by Milgram is the fact that we are all highly socialised
to obey authorities. How many times have you heard it stated in society that ‘you should
always respect your elders/teachers/parents’; and also that we should all ‘obey the law
and those who enforce it’?
2. A third important factor identified by Milgram in his studies is that authorities command
our attention because of their ability to use several sources of social power – for example,
specialist knowledge (expertise), ability to impose sanctions, emotional commitment.
Combinations of these, and other, sources of social power are used. One typical example is
the parent who says ‘do me a favour and help me clean out the garage’. He/she is using their
position of authority and their power source as a nurturer/carer to bring out the action
required. A boss who says ‘do what I say or else you will be fired’ is using their status
as employer as well as their power source as expert/specialist to force an employee to
do things his/her way.
1.2 Milgram’s study
Stanley Milgram was a Professor of Psychology at the prestigious Yale University in
Connecticut.
Aim: He was interested in the question of why so many ordinary German people in the 1930s
and 1940s had followed instructions (eg when working in concentration camps) which involved
causing pain or even killing other innocent human beings. Was it because Germans had a
character flaw that made them especially likely to obey ‘authority’ without question? Milgram
showed quite conclusively that this was not the case, defying all expectations to the contrary.
20
Method: Lab experiment. What he did was he placed an
advertisement in the local newspaper asking for ‘persons needed
for a study of memory’. Paid volunteers from all walks of life were
invited to ‘help us complete a scientific study of memory and
learning’. This was not true at all – it was obedience, not memory
that was the subject of the experiment!
In the psychology department at Yale University, everything
looked very academic, scientific, and even daunting if you were
just an ordinary member of the public. Volunteers were introduced by a serious looking man
in a starched white lab coat to a person whom they believed to be another volunteer, but who
was really an actor. This person appeared to be very ordinary – he was in his late 50s, slightly
overweight and as far as everyone was concerned he was about to undergo some simple
memory tests. This man was told he was to be the ‘learner’ in the experiment, while the other
volunteers present were his ‘teachers’.
The man, ‘Mr Wallace’ – we will now call him the learner (remember he was really an actor)
was then put into a contraption resembling an electric chair, linked to a generator. The
volunteer, now called the teacher, was put in the
next room and was given control of a set of
levers, each of which was clearly marked slight
shock (15-60V), moderate shock (75-120V),
strong shock (135-180V) up to a level of severe
shock (375-420V). The severe shock lever was
clearly marked ‘danger’.
Whenever the learner made mistakes, the
‘teacher’ was told by the experimenter in the
white lab coat to inflict a shock, going up by 15
volts each time. In the basic experiment, the
learner was heard to pound loudly on the wall at 300 volts and after 315 volts no further
answers were
given and no more pounding was heard.
five per cent of ‘teachers’ went on obeying
and giving shocks right up to and including
Every single subject went up to at least 300
who got as high as 375 volts went right on
Results: Sixtyinstructions
450
volts.
volts.
Those
up to 450 volts.
Variations on
the original: There were several different
variations
of
this experiment, each of which was
designed to find out exactly why the level of obedience was so astoundingly high. In one
variation the teacher would be able to hear the learner shout out at different stages, eg ‘Please
stop. I can’t stand the pain.’ In another variation, the teacher and the learner would be in the
same room with the teacher having to force the learner to keep his hand on the shock plate!
In yet another scenario, the white coats of the experimenters were changed to grey coats.
Finally, the teacher would be a room with two other ‘teachers’, really actors, one of whom
would announce at 150 volts that he was not going to continue. The other then did the same
thing at 210 volts.
21
All of these variations did have an effect on the rate of obedience shown by the ‘teachers’. Of
them all, the last variation, ie where others present refused to continue, had the most marked
effect. It seemed that when fellow teachers were
dropping out it became much easier for the participants
to do likewise. Nevertheless, ten per cent of the real
‘teachers’ continued to administer electric shocks in
excess of 400 volts, knowing that these levels were
lethal.
Ethics: However they performed, it is clear that the
volunteers for this experiment underwent considerable
stress. Individual conscience battled against the need to
obey, and few took any pleasure from what they believed to be the inflicting of pain. It was
not just the ‘learner’ who appeared to be in distress during this experiment. Individual teachers
were seen to be trembling and groaning. Some of them cried, others verbally attacked the
experimenter. Three participants had full-blown stress attacks.
Conclusion: Despite ethical issues, the basic result of this experiment needs to be reemphasised. Large numbers of people were shown to be prepared to continue obeying
instruction even when (for all they knew) another human being was in extreme pain or even
dying as a result. They chose to do this rather than challenge the experimenter and drop out
of the experiment.
Evaluation:
Strengths: this was a ground breaking and influential study which was highly controlled in a
laboratory situation. To investigate cultural differences there have been replications of
Milgram’s study at different times and carried out in different countries e.g Mantell (1971) used
a German sample, Kilham and Mann (1974) used an Australian sample. The study has also
been used to investigate gender differences e.g. Sheridan and King (1972).
Weaknesses: the main criticisms concern the many ethical breaches – deception, distress,
failure to protect participants from emotional harm, and the lack of a right to withdraw by
using the four prods.
Orne and Holland (1968) criticised Milgram’s experiment for;
A) lacking internal validity and B) lacking ecological validity.
A) The did not believe that participants were really distressed, and said they were just
playing along with the experiment. Milgram disputed this and cited evidence from film
footage and post experimental interviews to show that the participants thought this was
very real.
B) They claimed this was a false situation and could not be generalised to the real world.
However many field experiments have supported the real life validity of Asch’s work,
such as Hofling et al (1966) as we will see below.
Activity
Create an academic poster featuring an electric shock machine. If you’re doing this digitally
feel free to use internet pictures. Include:
22
Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Evaluation of Milgram’s study.
1.2 A real life study of Obedience to support Milgram
Hofling et al (1966): An experimental study in the nurse-physician relationship
Aim: In 1966 Charles K. Hofling et al carried out a real-life study of obedience set in
a hospital to see if nurses would obey a request to administer an overdose from an
anonymous Dr over the telephone.
Procedure: A staff nurse on night duty would be telephoned by somebody claiming to be a
Doctor Smith responsible for a particular patient. The nurse was first asked to check the
medicine cabinet to see if a particular drug was there; then asked to administer a dose of the
drug which was twice the maximum allowed. The label stated very clearly that this was
dangerous.
Results: 21 out of 22 nurses - ninety-five per cent measured out the medication and were
about to administer it to the patient when a hidden observer stopped them.
Predictions of the results: None of the investigators, and only one experienced nurse who
examined the protocol in advance, correctly guessed the experimental results. He also found
that 21 of 22 nurses to whom he had given the questionnaire had said they would not obey
the orders of the doctor, and that 10 out of the 22 nurses had done this before, with a different
drug.
Discussion: When the nurses were interviewed later, they pointed out that many doctors were
in the habit of giving orders by telephone and became seriously annoyed if they were not
obeyed. Although such obedience was against regulations, the unequal power relations
between doctors and nurses meant life would be very difficult if nurses did not do what they
were told.
Conclusion: Hofling’s study showed how the social pressure brought about by the imbalance
of power could lead to a nurse actually putting a patient at risk, rather than disobeying orders.
Activity
1. This study shows that Milgram‘s results are applicable to real life situations. Add
Hofling’s results to your academic poster of Milgram under the ‘evaluation - strengths’
section.
2. Create a plan for a field experiment to test obedience in real life
1.2 Zimbardo et al (1973): Stanford Prison experiment
23
Aim: In the USA, Zimbardo (1973) decided to investigate what was going on in prisons. There
were reports of brutality, bullying and killings by the prison guards. With these allegations, he
wanted to find out whether it was the situation which caused such behaviours, or whether it
was the guards’ personalities.
Procedure: He gathered together 21 male volunteers who would be paid 15 dollars per day
to take part in this two-week study of prison life. Subjects were tested to
ensure they were physically and mentally stable. At the toss of a coin it was
decided who would act the role of prisoner or guard. Local police were
involved and prisoners were arrested from their homes without knowing
when this would happen. They were blindfolded and taken to a simulated
prison set up in the basement of Stanford University. When they arrived
they were stripped, deloused, given a prison uniform with an ID number and
an ankle chain. From that moment they were referred to only by their prison
number.
The guards wore uniforms, carried long wooden batons, handcuffs, whistles
and dark glasses (to prevent eye contact). These uniforms encouraged
deindividuation.
Results: After six days the study had to end because the
subjects had become too involved in the roles they were
playing. The guards would wake prisoners during the night.
They would lock them in cupboards and get them to clean toilet
facilities with their bare hands.
One prisoner refused to eat, some asked for parole (rather
than to stop the experiment), others broke down and
constantly cried. There were signs of depression.
Discussion: How can this be explained? They show how
easy it is to change the way we act when placed in a new
situation and role. The norms showed what actions were
appropriate for the roles (normative social influence). It is
probably true to say
that the subjects
obeyed rather than
conformed because
they did not actually
change
their
personal beliefs.
It is possible that the subjects were trying to do what
they thought the researcher wanted and so played
their parts to the full (demand characteristics). In
real-life situations people tend to find a role which suits their own beliefs.
Evaluation:
There have been many criticisms of the study:
 The subjects were caused emotional distress. Could it not have been possible to foresee
this? Although subjects signed an agreement to be volunteers, they did not realise that
they would be arrested at home.

The process of initiation served to make them feel less human on their arrival.
24

Perhaps the study became too realistic for those involved and should not have taken
place?
Zimbardo tried to answer his critics by claiming that the real issue was that people did not want
to admit that they may have behaved in exactly the same way. He attempted to get away from
the high controls which Milgram had.
Conclusion:
Given this could not be conducted in a real prison, Zimbardo showed how valuable role play
can be. While subjects knew that this was an experiment the fact that there was such a change
in their behaviour showed the importance of a situation. It showed that the personality of the
individuals did not really influence actions in this obedience set-up.
This study has inspired many replications and has been made in to films. Zimbardo travels the
world discussing the implications of the findings and the ethical problems it threw up for him
as a researcher. It took a student (his future wife) to point out that he had got too involved in
huis dual role as experimenter and ‘superintendent’ which was blinding him to abuses
happening. He finally agreed that the experiment had to be terminated.
1.1 Why do People Obey?
Autonomous and Agentic Levels of Behaviour
Milgram (1973) proposed that people operate on two levels:

As autonomous individuals where they act according to their own values and beliefs.

On an agentic level where individuals see themselves as acting as agents on behalf of
somebody else and therefore not responsible for their own actions.
It is possible for an individual to move from an autonomous state into an agentic state (agentic
shift). One important consequence of this shift is that the individual no longer feels responsible
for their actions, instead they can blame those in higher authority.
Individual factors
Theodore Adorno found that people with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey you can complete his F scale (Fascism) questionnaire on the internet. As with conformity,
Santee and Maslach (1982) found that people with low self-esteem are more likely to yield to
group pressure. Likewise Burger (1992) found that people who value control over their
decisions are less likely to conform.
Legitimate authority
Authority figures generally have high status with their roles being defined by society and
therefore have legitimate social power.
Types of Power:

Coercive Power
– The ability to administer punishment (eg teacher)

Reward Power
– The ability to administer reward (eg parent)

Expert Power
– Superior knowledge (eg teacher)

Referent Power
– Someone you look up to (eg parent/celebrity)

Legitimate Power– Official post held (eg Principal)
25
Accordingly, this gives the authority figure the right to exert control over the behaviour of
others. This is particularly evident when the authority figure is
in uniform. (Ref: Bickman, 1974)
Location
When Milgram moved his study from prestigious Yale university
to an office in the city centre, obedience dropped to 52%.
Presence of an authority figure
In one variation of Milgram’s experiment the experimenter
gave initial instructions then left the room and delivered instructions by telephone.
Obedience dropped to 20.5% when the authority figure was absent.
Proximity
It is easier to do harm to people if you don't need to get close to them. For example in the case
of murder it is psychologically easier to shoot a person from a distance than to stab them with
a knife, which is one of the reasons why gun crime is so high in America. Milgram felt that the
wall between the confederate and Mr Wallace acted as a buffer, making it easier to deliver a
shock. In one variation Milgram put the teacher and learner in the same room which resulted
in a drop in obedience, but only to 40% (from 65%). When the teacher had to hold Mr Wallace’s
hand on a shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%, which is still surprisingly high. This tells us
that proximity is not the only factor.
Peers – the effect of allies and dissenters
In another variation Milgram arranged for two confederate teachers to dissent at 150 volts and
210 volts. When these teachers refused to continue, obedience dropped to 10%. This would
seem very positive. However when the naïve participant simply read the words and a fellow
teacher threw the switches, obedience was at its highest – 92.5%. This shows us that when
we are one step removed from being ‘fully responsible’, we can perpetrate acts of real cruelty
to others.
Gender
It has been suggested that women comply/conform/obey more readily than men. (Ref:
Crutchfield, 1955). It is possible that the reason for females being apparently more susceptible
to social pressure is that, generally, females tend to hold lower status than males. However,
recent studies (Eagly and Carli, 1981) suggest that there are no significant differences
between males and females. A reason for the disagreement between early and more recent
studies involves major shifts in gender roles and gender stereotypes during the last thirty years
or so. An increasing number of women have moved into jobs and professions that were once
occupied mainly by men and this has resulted in a fading of any tendency to perceive females
as being more susceptible to social pressure than males.
Socialisation
In society there are many rules and regulations that exist to reinforce obedience. These are
instilled in us from a very early age. For example, strong parental authority can result in an
individual internalising the need for obedience (being in an agentic state), and never
questioning what they are told to do either at home or in school and even later in life, at the
workplace.
26
Binding factors also help to keep an individual in an agentic state, for example:
 fear of disrupting a social situation

fear of questioning an authority figure.
Activity
Look at the past paper questions below related to ‘factors affecting conformity and
obedience’. Write three paragraphs answering the 10 mark exemplar paper question on
conformity, and then write two paragraphs on the specimen paper question on obedience.
Swap your papers and peer mark using the SQA marking instructions.
Explain why you gave the marks that you did.
Exemplar paper
Psychological research has shown a robust link between alcohol use in movies and binge
drinking behaviour. Explain factors involved in conformity that could account for this link.
10
Specimen Paper
Explain two factors related to obedience that influence behaviour. 6
Activity
1. Unscramble Milgram’s study
Aims
Methods
Results
There was nothing peculiar about the Nazis. The majority of
people will be highly obedient in the right circumstances.
There were ethical problems of deception, distress, right to
withdraw and informed consent. It was an artificial task with low
ecological validity.
Milgram wanted to discover if Americans could be as aggressive
and obedient as the Nazi soldiers
Conclusion
Everyone went to 300 volts
65% went to 450 volts
Evaluation
Laboratory experiment conducted at Yale university
27
2. Which are the individual and situational factors in our willingness to obey? Draw
these boxes and insert the number of each statement in the correct column.
Individual factor
Situational factor
1. The experimenter issues instructions by telephone. Only 20.5% of people obeyed in this
variation.
2. Two other confederates refuse to continue. Only 10% went to 450 volts in this condition.
3. Self-esteem – people with low self esteem are more likely to obey.
4. Location - moving from Yale university to a downtown office reduced obedience.
5. Adorno found people with personality traits like an authoritarian personality are more likely
to obey.
6. When the teacher and learner were in the same room obedience fell to 40%.
7. People with a need for control over decisions conform less.
8. The presence of a dissenter reduces obedience.
1.3 Strategies for Resisting Social Pressure/Coercion
There are several ways that an individual can resist social pressure:
1. Feeling of responsibility
Taking responsibility for our actions is led by two main emotions – empathy and guilt.
Those who possess moral control feel empathy for others and anticipate feelings of guilt if
they don't help. Milgram’s experiment showed that people fall in to an agentic state where
they no longer see themselves as fully responsible for the welfare of others. Individuals
who receive commands from authority figures can be reminded that they – not the
authorities – are responsible for any harm produced. When this happens, there are real
reductions in the tendency to obey. In Milgam’s study those who refused to go to 450v
often said they felt responsible for the learner, rather than seeing the experimenter as
responsible. One participant who refused to continue was Jan Rensaleer an electric
engineer, who stated: ‘I know what shocks do to you’ (Milgram, 1974, p.52). Such
participants were therefore in an autonomous state, not an agentic state.
2. Disobedient role models
Individuals can be given a clear indication that, in certain situations,
unquestioning obedience to commands is inappropriate. A
particularly effective way of making this point is to show individuals
(either on video or using real-life examples) what kind of behaviour
occurs when ‘disobedience’ takes place. Rosa Parks, featured
earlier, is a good example of a disobedient role model. In this way
a model makes it easier for individuals to follow on if they wish.
Those who expose damaging practices of businesses and
governments are called ‘whistle blowers’. Their role in protecting
the public is so important that there are laws protecting whistle
blowers from prosecution.
Dissent versus Disobedience
However dissent is different from disobeying. In Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments
participants often dissented, but ultimately went along with the authority figure. During the
Second World War Major Willhelm Trapp received orders that his battalion was to kill 1500
Jews in a Polish town. He told his men that if they ‘did not feel up to the task of killing Jews’
28
they could be assigned to others duties. This was repeated when the killings began, but
80% of men in the Reserve Police Battalion 101 continued to kill.
3. Questioning motives (eg of advertisers, politicians, cults, and education)
If individuals are able to question the expertise and motives of authority figures, they
always find it easier to resist pressure from them to obey. Here the individual is reasoning
out whether the authority figure is really in a better position to judge what is appropriate,
and what is not, in this particular case. They are also considering what particular motives
lie behind the commands – is the command designed to bring about socially beneficial
goals or is it just for the own selfish gains of the authority figure? By asking such questions,
individuals who might otherwise obey can find support for their own independent action
rather than submission to the will and order of another.
4. Moral reasoning and awareness of own values – Kohlberg (1969)
Harvard moral philosopher Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) found that individuals who were at
an advanced stage of moral reasoning were more likely to show
higher levels of disobedience. He identified six stages of moral
reasoning that he grouped into three categories. In the preconventional level people judge morality by its direct consequences
(will I get caught?). At the conventional level of reasoning people
have develop and understanding of norms and social conventions
which are need in order to maintain a stable society.
In the post-conventional level individuals hold moral views that
regard the life and welfare of people and animals as universal rights,
regardless of the society that they have been brought up in. They
base their morals on Humanitarian principles.
Looking at interviews with Milgram’s participants, Kohlberg (1969) found that most of those
who resisted the high voltage shocks reasoned at a higher stage or morality. These
participants possessed their own moral code that overrode their fear of punishment or
displeasing the experimenter.
5. Rebellion in groups
Gamson et al, (1982) found that a very high percentage (97%) of groups will show dissent
and around 50% of groups will completely rebel to unfair requests from authority figures if
they are given time to express and discuss their dissent. See the study overleaf.
1.2 Research into groups - Gamson et al (1982)
Aims
Gamson et al (1982) wanted to investigate obedience to authority in a group situation. They
wondered if groups were more likely to rebel against authority than individuals.
Method and procedure
Participants were told that their task was to help a (fictitious) public relations company called
MHRC to collect opinions on moral standards. Thirty three groups of participants met in groups
of nine at a motel, and were paid $10 for two hours work. They were given a summary of a
current legal case of Mr C whose franchise for running a petrol station had been ended
because if his immoral behaviour. My C was suing the oil company. It emerged that he had
previously spoken out on television against higher petrol prices. The participants were asked
to discuss their opinions about Mr C’s lifestyle while being videotaped. A coordinator switched
off the cameras at various times and instructed people to argue as if they were offended by
29
Mr C’’s behaviour. Then cameras were switched back on. The groups realised that they were
being manipulated to produce a tape supporting the oil company. But would they rebel?
Results
In some groups participants threatened to expose the oil company and take the tapes. In all
groups some rebellion did occur, but eight groups out of nine still signed an affidavit giving
MHRC permission to use the tape in trial.
Conclusion
Groups do behave differently from individuals, and if one person rebelled the minority did sway
the majority. However in some groups people were uncritical of authority and were used to
conforming. Therefore despite resistance from individuals, the group opinion did not change.
Evaluation
Ethical problems occurred in this study as participants were distressed. One participant
described the experiment as ‘the most stressful experience I’ve had in the past year’. The
researchers stopped the experiment after only nine groups. They were originally planning to
run 80. Secondly the experiment used strangers which lacks ecological validity as we tend to
make decisions with people we know in real life.
Source: Adapted from Williamson, M., Cardwell, M., Flanagan, C. (2007) Higher Psychology
Nelson Thornes.
Activity
1.
Summarise remember Gamson’s study by drawing the procedure and results using stick
men and speech bubbles.
2.
Think about the following scenarios – which strategy would you use to resist social
pressure, and why?
a) A friend is trying to get you to come out at the weekend before your exam on
Monday.
b) A person that you do not like is messaging you regularly to talk about your best friend
who they have fallen out with. They want you to a take sides with them.
c) You do not want to wear a long dress/ kilt to the prom but all your friends are insisting
that you dress the same.
d) You are watching a fight between two boys and the crowd around them show no sign
of intervening. One boy is being badly beaten and you feel distressed in the role of a
passive bystander.
e) You have recently started dating someone and they ask you to send them a ‘sexy’
picture of yourself. You know there is no guarantee that this picture will stay on their
phone without being shared
3. Create a way to remember the different ways to resist social pressure e.g. flashcards,
powerpoint, mindmap, concept map or table. Give an example of how you have resisted
social pressure using the following means. Below is an example table:
Ways of resisting social
pressure
1. Feeling of responsibility
Explanation
2. Disobedient role models
3. Questioning motives
30
How I have used this strategy
4. Moral reasoning
5. Rebelling in groups
1.3 Applying our understanding of
social psychology to everyday life
We can apply or knowledge of conformity and obedience to teach people strategies for
resisting social pressure and to understand the influence of cults, the reasons why girls
travel to Syria to become ‘Jihadi brides’ and the pressure on young people to engage in
sexting.
Activity – Online research on whistle blowers
1.
Work in groups to find examples of whistle blowers who have brought attention to an
important issue, even though it has made them vulnerable to prosecution and exposed their
own employer or government to criticism. Search for Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks, the
hacking group Anonymous or the case of Abu Ghraib if you want a place to start. Present
your chosen whistle blower to the others in the class on a poster or any digital format. Take
notes on the following:
 Issue exposed
 Identity of Whistle Blower
 Societal reaction to the scandal and whistle blower
 Consequences of the issue being exposed
 Evaluation - do you agree that this issue needed to be exposed
or should the dissenter have kept quiet. What would you have
done?
2. Higher order thinking:
After you have heard from all the groups list the similarities and
differences between the cases you have selected.
31
Bringing it all together
“Group conformity scares the pants off me because it's so often a prelude to cruelty
towards anyone who doesn't want to - or can't - join the Big Parade”. Bette Midler
Higher Order thinking - Analysis
Draw a concept map. This is different from a traditional mindmap which would place your topic
in the centre and ideas would come out from that. In a concept map you must draw arrows to
show the relationships between concepts. Each person in the class might make different
connections and draw an entirely different map. It depends on how you think concepts are
connected. Fun pictures are very welcome.
Your challenge is to draw a concept map for the following concepts to show how they connect
to each other:
 Conformity
 ompliance
 Identification
 Internalisation
 Individual factors
 Situational factors
 Cultural factors
 Minority social
influence
 Mori and Arai
 Obedience
 Milgram
 Hofling
 Resisting social
pressure
 Cults
32
Higher Past Paper questions
Exemplar Paper
SECTION 3 — SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR — 20 marks
Attempt ALL questions
5. Psychological research has shown a robust link between alcohol use in movies and binge
drinking behaviour. Explain factors involved in conformity that could account for this link.
10
6. “Conformity and obedience” is one social psychology topic you have studied.
Choose another social psychology topic, not ‘conformity and obedience’, and explain your
chosen topic using theory and/or concepts and the results and conclusions of at least one
research study.
10
Specimen Paper
Section 3 — SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR — 20 marks
Attempt ALL questions
1. Explain two factors related to obedience that influence behaviour.
6
2. Describe three different types of conformity.
6
3. Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of Milgram’s studies of obedience.
8
2015 Paper
SECTION 3 — SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR — 20 marks
Attempt ALL questions
Question 3
(a) Analyse one research study related to conformity.
(b) Choose a Social Behaviour topic other than conformity and obedience.
33
8
Explain your chosen topic using two psychological concepts and/or theories.
12
34