MAJORITY INFLUENCE
Majority influence or conformity is a form of social influence where we want to
be like other people and so in part it is our desire to belong or fit in.
consequently, we experience group pressure to conform to the norms of the
majority.
Definitions of majority influence [conformity]
This happens when people adopt the behaviour, attitudes or values of the
majority after being exposed to their values or behaviour
Explanations of conformity [Deutsch & Gerard, 1955]
Normative influence occurs when
Informational influence occurs when an
someone conforms in order to gain
individual conforms because of the
liking or respect from others.
superior knowledge or judgement of
others. Tends to lead to a change of
private opinions.
Compliance
Change your
behaviour but not
your mind
Types of conformity [Kelman, 1958]
Identification
Internalisation
Change your behaviour to fit Change your mind and
in with the group
behaviour
Factors that influence conformity
Culture [Smith & Bond, 1993]
Historical context [Perrin & Spencer,
Individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures
1980]
It’s possible to distinguish between
these cultures. Individualistic societies The Asch effect was a child of its time.
emphasise
the
desirability
of
individuals being responsible for their
own
well-being
and
individual
achievement. Such societies are the
UK, USA etc. Collectivistic cultures
emphasise the desirability of working
together, and group rather than
individual achievement.
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Group pressure can be resisted as this is what occurs when people yield to
minority influence as first they must have rejected the majority norm. The many
real life examples of minority influence show its potential to bring about reform.
The process by which the minority influences the majority is called conversion.
People often conform with the majority whilst privately they are critiscing the
position of the minority.
Definitions of minority influence
A majority being influenced by to accept the beliefs.
Explanations of majority influence
Conditions for conversion
Social impact theory [Latane & Wolf,
[Moscovici, 1985]
1981] is a general explanation of
social influence that also explains
 Consistency
The minority must be consistent in their majority influence.
view or opinion.
 Strength
This
is determined by the numbers of
 Flexibility
people or the strength of the message.
The minority must not appear to be
rigid or dogmatic
 Status and knowledge
The greater the status and knowledge,
 Commitment
the fewer people will be needed to
A committed minority will lead people
persuade.
to rethink their position. This is a
compliance, not a conversion.
 Immediacy
The closer you are to the influence, the
 Relevance
greater the effect will be.
The minority will be more successful if
their views are in line with social trends
Differences between majority and minority influence
Majority influence
Minority influence
 Compliance
 Conversion
 Immediacy
 Takes place over time
 High need for approval
 Lower need for approval
OBEDIENCE
Definitions of obedience to authority
Behaving as instructed, usually in response to individual rather than group
pressure. This usually takes place in a hierarchy where the person issuing the
order has higher status than the person obeying.
Obedience occurs because the individual feels they have little choice – they can’t
resist. It is unlikely to involve a change in private opinion.
Explanations of obedience
Agentic state – a situational factor
Authoritarian personality – a
personal factor
Differences between obedience and conformity
Obedience
Conformity
 Social influence is based on
 Social influence is based on
hierarchy.
equal status

Explicit

Implicit

Participants embrace obedience
as an explanation of their
behaviour

Participants deny conformity as
an explanation of their
behaviour
METHODOLOGICAL CRITICISMS OF MILGRAM’S RESEARCH
Definitions of experimental validity
The extent to which research has internal and external validity.
Definitions of ecological validity
The validity of the research situation itself; the extent to which the findings are
generalisable to other situations, especially ‘everyday’ situations.
Experimental validity
Evidence for experimental realism
 Evidence provided by Milgram eg video tapes

Participant’s reactions
Evidence against experimental realism
 Demand characteristics
Ecological validity
Evidence for experimental realism
 Milgram’s variations in a run down office

Cross-cultural replications

Further studies eg Hofling et al [1966] and Bickman [1974]

Generalisability to the Nazi atrocities of Holocaust
Evidence against experimental realism
 lacks mundane realism

limited generalisability to current setting

the ecological validity of the further studies can be questioned
Conclusions
There are persuasive arguments for and against the validity of Milgram’s
research. His research has many weaknesses. However, the findings are still
important as the research participants’ belief that they were delivering electric
shocks supports experimental realism and so ecological validity.
Furthermore, the findings illustrated the fundamental attribution error, which is
the tendency to underestimate the role of situational factors and overestimate
the role of personal factors. Milgram’s conclusion that the situational context
was highly influential has been applied to the atrocities of the Holocaust, which
demonstrates the general and thus ecological validity of the research.
Resistance to Obedience
Milgram (1974) carried out many variations of his original remote-victim
experiment. Two factors increased resistance to obedience. In the box below,
write down the obedience percentages for each variation to see how much
obedience reduced and resistance increased. Also, write down some details
about the different variations. What is your comparison percentage (ie.,
Milgram’s original finding)?
Reducing the influence of the experimenter
Originally, 65% increased the voltage past 450 volts.
 Location of the experiment = 48% when the experiment was set in a run
down office building rather than Yale University, there was less obedience.
 Orders by telephone = 20.5%
 A disobedient role-model = 10 % people felt more comfortable saying no if
someone else was
Increasing the obviousness of the learner’s distress
 Voice feedback 62 %
 Proximity ---- 1 metre away = 40%
 Touch-proximity --- hand on shock plate = 30 %
Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience to authority
For: yes, the end justify the means
Against: no, the ends do not justify
the means
 Methodological justifications –
 Ethical issues.
validity/importance of the
findings.
 Participants’ comments on their
experience.
 Critics of the research.
 Were ethical issues resolved.
 Ethical issues that remain
unresolved.