 Types of conformity, including internalisation and compliance.
 Explanations of why people conform, including informational social influence and normative social influence.
 Obedience, including Milgram’s work and explanations of why people obey.
1

Discussion Activity
Discuss the following points in small groups.
 Do people always think and act independently?
(Give examples to illustrate your answer)
 Give an example of when you have acted independently?
 Have you ever felt under pressure to behave in a particular way because of group pressure? What was it about the situation that caused you to change your behaviour? Was the pressure real
(were you told to do something) or was it imagined (you felt that you should act in a certain way)?
 What reasons could there be for not acting independently in any given situation?
 In your own words, define what you understand by the term
“conformity”.
2

Social Psychology – what is this all about?
Social psychology recognises that humans are social creatures, born into families and socialised within cultures and that it is our interaction with others within such social groups that influences the way we perceive and understand the world.
Social influence can therefore be defined as:
“the way in which a person or group of people affect the attitudes and behaviour of an individual” (Brody and Dwyer, 2002).
This means that our behaviour can be governed or affected in any social situation simply by the mere presence of others! What do you think?
Defining Conformity:
According to Cardwell et al (1996), although most people think of themselves as autonomous (or self-directed) individuals, they nevertheless tend to go along with (or conform to) the social norms (i.e.
rules and expectations) that their group and societies have evolved.
Further Definitions of Conformity:
“Yielding to group pressure” Crutchfield (1955)
“…a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of a real or
imagined pressure from a person or a group of people.” Aronson (1976)
Social Norm: A way of thinking or behaving that is considered appropriate and proper within a particular society, and that most members of that society adhere to. OR A set of rules and expectations that develop within groups about how to behave.
Explicit Social Norms
Norms that are obvious or
directed. For example:
3
Implicit Social Norms
Norms that are hidden but still there nevertheless.
For example:
.

Conformity: The tendency to change what we do (behaviour) or think and say (attitudes) in response to the influence of others or social pressure.
This pressure can be real or imagined.
There are different types of conformity:
(1) Compliance (2) Internalisation
AO1
(1) Compliance: (Kelman, 1958: Group Acceptance)
Compliance: This is the most superficial type of conformity. Here, the person conforms publicly (out loud) with the view or behaviours expressed by others in the group but continues privately to disagree. Compliance is also used to describe the process of going along with the requests of another person while disagreeing with them. For example they may laugh at a joke that others are laughing at while privately not finding it very funny. Their personal views on the subject do not actually change.
Real-life examples of Compliance
4

AO1
Asch (1951) devised a straightforward
(unambiguous) task which involved judging the
length of lines. The ambiguity was tested in a
pilot study, during which participants made a total of only three mistakes in 720 trials.
Why did Asch conduct a pilot study?
Aim: To investigate what would happen when participants were confronted with a majority who were plainly wrong in their judgements, to see if they would change their own views to conform to the majority.
Procedure: 123 American male undergraduates were shown a series of lines (The ‘standard line’ and 3 comparisons, one of which was the same length as the standard line) to participants seated around a table. All but one of the participants were “confederates”. Asch instructed the confederates to give the same incorrect answer on 12 out of the 18 trials –
he called these “critical trials”. The true (naïve) participant was always the last or last but one to answer.
Draw an example of the lines used in Asch’s experiment.
5

AO1
Compliance Research: Asch’s Line Judgement Task Continued . . .
Findings: Asch found a mean conformity rate of
37%, i.e. Participants agreed with the incorrect
majority answer on over one-third of the critical trials. This is very high especially given the
unambiguous and easy nature of the task. Within the 37%, there were wide individual differences as
5% conformed on every critical trial (these could be seen as the most conformist) yet 25% remained
completely independent, going against the majority and giving the correct answer on all 12 critical trials.
Asch also found that there were a number of factors that would affect
the participant’s levels of conformity:
Fear of appearing foolish
Social pressure
Cultural factors
Factors affecting conformity
Don’t want to be embarrassed
Feel real or imagined pressure
Individualist Vs Collectivist culture
Individual differences People with high need for social approval and low self-esteem more likely to conform
Gender differences Controversial – but women seen as more
conformist (Eagly, 1981)
Group size
Unanimity
Difficulty of task
Optimum number for conformity is three
If all group members agree then it is likely that a new member will conform
The more difficult the task the more likely we are to conform
6

Conclusion: Asch’s participants explained that one of the reasons that they agreed with the majority on an obviously wrong answer was so as not to stand out from the crowd – Asch concluded that the participants’ actions were a clear example of compliance.
Remember 12 Mark Essay = 1 AO1 paragraph + 3 AO2 paragraphs
AO2
Evaluation (AO2) of Asch’s (1951) Compliance Study
Strengths of the study:
(1) There is a high degree of
control over variables.
(2) Generated a lot of further
research e.g. Crutchfield (1956) and Eagley and Carli (1981)
Weaknesses of the study:
(1) The study can be criticised as being ‘a child of its time.’
(2) Asch’s study can be criticised as lacking ecological validity because …
(3) The study can be criticised for
deceiving the participants.
So, how can this material be used in an essay?
 Strengths of Asch’s Study
(1) Point: It was a laboratory experiment and therefore there is a high degree of control over variables:
Example/Evidence: For example, noise and lighting could be easily controlled.
Explain: This means that extraneous variables could be minimised.
Evaluation: This is positive because it suggests that the IV was the only variable affecting the DV allowing a cause and effect relationship to be established and giving the study high internal validity.
7

 Weaknesses of Asch’s Study
(1) Point: Asch’s study can be criticised as being a ‘child of its time’.
Example/Evidence: For example, Asch’s study was conducted in
America, in the 1950’s during the era of McCarthyism (a feeling of strong anti-Communist feeling in America) when people were scared to be different.
Explain: This means that it is possible that the findings are unique to one particular culture and time (zeitgeist).
Evaluation: This is a weakness as the study can be criticised as lacking temporal validity and therefore the findings may not be reflective of the current time.
AO2
 Weaknesses of Asch’s Study continued . . .
(2) Point: Asch’s research can be criticised as lacking ecological validity.
Example/Evidence: For example, the participants were placed in an unfamiliar group of strangers (the confederates) and were expected to carry out an artificial task.
Explain: This means that, the study is conducted in an artificial setting of the laboratory and therefore is not reflective of everyday life.
Evaluation: This is weaknesses as the study is not reflective of the participants’ real life behaviour and therefore the findings from the study cannot be generalised past the experimental setting.
(3) Point: The study can be criticised on ethical grounds for deceiving the participants.
Example/Evidence: Evidence for this comes from the way in which
Asch told his participants that all the people sat around the table were participants when they were really confederates.
8

Explain: This means Asch’s study can be criticised for deliberately misleading the participants and therefore can be considered unethical.
Evaluation: This is a problem and it is now recognised in the BPS guidelines that deception should be avoided. Furthermore: by using deception, it is also not possible to gain full informed consent for the experiment until afterwards during a debriefing (this is known as retrospective consent).
AO1 Another Type of Conformity is …
(2) Internalisation: (Kelman, 1958, Acceptance of group norms)
Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. When the views of the group are internalised, they are taken on at a deep and permanent level, and they become part of the person’s own way of viewing the world.
Internalisation is also known as ‘conversion’. For example, a student who becomes a vegetarian whilst sharing a flat with animal rights activists at university may retain those views and continue to be a vegetarian for the rest of their life.
Real-life examples of Internalisation
Can you think of a real-life example of internalisation?
9

AO1
Remember APFC
Sherif (1936) used the Autokinetic effect to investigate internalisation.
Aim: To investigate whether participants would conform and change their own individual prediction about how far they perceived a spot of light to move.
Procedure: Sherif asked participants to investigate how far a spot of light in a completely dark room moved. Sherif kept the point of light stable (still), but due to autokinetic illusion (caused by small eye movements) each individual reported fairly consistent estimates that often differed from other participants.
•
Sherif divided participants into 2 groups.
•
Group 1 was tested individually in the darkened room looking at the stationary light.
•
They were told the light was moving and were asked to estimate how far it moved – each participate made 100 estimates.
•
There were considerable differences between the estimates, some saying the light moved an inch, others saying 10 inches.
Next stage:
•
Participants were put in groups of 2 or 3.
•
Estimates in these groups varied widely at first (they were basing their answers on their own individual norm).
•
Estimates then converged, becoming more similar to other group members.
•
Finally the group reached a consensus (an agreement), a group norm had been developed to which the participants conformed.
Next:
•
Sherif reversed the procedure for the second group of participants.
•
They began in small groups and each group soon developed a group estimate to which each member conformed.
•
Then participants were tested individually – their answers still reflected that of the group (i.e. they continued to follow the group norm despite the fact that nobody else was there).
10

Findings: When participants were put into groups, their estimates converged towards a central mean, despite not being told to arrive at a group estimate and despite denying that they had been influenced by each other (in post experimental interviews).
Conclusion: Sherif concluded that within the experimental group a group norm had emerged and participants conformed to this group norm changing their estimate of the movement of the light to be more in line with the prediction of the group. Sherif suggested that was due to the fact that the individuals were looking towards the other group members for information/guidance.
Evidence to show that Sherif’s findings demonstrate internalisation:
Rohrer et al (1954) replicated the study and found that when particpants were re-tested (individually) up to a year later they continued to use the group answer rather than reverting to their initial individual answers. Therefore individuals had ‘taken on’ the views of the group (internalised them) and privately changed their beliefs.
11

AO2
Strengths of the study:
(1) There is a high degree of
control over variables.
(2) It provides evidence for
internalisation.
(3) Supported by further research (e.g. Jenness, 1932 – beans in a bottle).
Weaknesses of the study:
(1) Sherif’s study can be criticised as lacking ecological validity because …
(2) The study can be criticised for
deceiving the participants.
(3) The study can be criticised for not gaining consent from the participants.
 Strengths of Sherif’s Study …
(1) Point: There was a high degree of over variables.
Example/Evidence: For example, unintended lighting changes could be easily controlled.
Explain: This means that because the Sherif experiment was set within a laboratory, the setting was highly controlled and variables could be minimised.
Evaluation: This is positive because it suggests that the IV was the only variable affecting the DV allowing and to be established and giving the study high validity.
 Weaknesses of Sherif’s Study …
(1) Point: However, this study can also be criticised as lacking validity:
Example/Evidence: For example, participants in this experiment were being asked to perform an task in a strange setting that is not reflective of real-life situations (i.e. making judgements about how far a light moves).
12

Explain: This means that as research was conducted in the artificial setting of a laboratory it also has low external validity.
Evaluation: This is problematic as the findings can’t be to real-life settings.
AO2
 Weaknesses of Sherif’s Study continued…
(2) Point: The study can also be criticised for using is an ethical issue: which
Example/Evidence: Evidence for this comes from the fact Sherif led participants to believe that the light when in fact it didn’t.
Explain: This means the participants were deliberately misled regarding the true aims of the experiment.
Evaluation: This is a problem because it means that the participants were denied consent as they could not have been fully
informed about the true nature of the study and their role within it. This also goes against the guidelines about how to conduct an ethical investigation.
13

Activity: Complete the table below outlining the key differences between
compliance and internalisation.
Compliance Internalisation
E
R
E
A
W
H
S
14

Now you have learned about the different types of conformity we now need to look at the explanations of why people conform/why some people yield to the majority influence.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed the Dual-Processing Dependency model which suggested that people conform for one of 2 reasons:
(1) Normative social influence (NSI) (explanation of compliance)
(2) Informational social influence (ISI) (explanation of internalisation)
AO1
(1) Normative Social Influence (NSI):
Normative Social Influence – Explanation of Compliance
This relates to an individual adapting to a group position in order to be
accepted and gain approval and not be perceived as deviant by the other members of the group. It is based on the desire to be liked. This type of influence also occurs as it is rewarding to be accepted and be a part of a group. This usually involves public compliance – in a group we may ‘go along’ with the behaviour and the attitudes of others without truly believing or accepting it. In this instance, we do not privately accept what we are saying or doing publicly.
15

Let’s recap … What is Compliance?
AO2
Strengths of the NSI
Explanation:
(1) Asch’s (1951) research offers support for the Normative Social
Influence explanation.
(2) Garandeau and Cillessen
(2006) offers support for the
Normative Social Influence explanation.
Weaknesses of the NSI
Explanation:
(1) The Normative Social Influence explanation can be criticised for not acknowledging the importance of belonging to a group.
(2) Perrin and Spencer (1981) with British students found only 1
conforming response in 396 trials.
 Strengths of Normative Social Influence Explanation
(1) Point: Research has supported the normative social influence explanation as to why people conform.
Example/Evidence: For example Asch’s (1951) research demonstrates how individuals will conform with the majority on an unambiguous line comparison test (even when they know their response is incorrect) in order to be liked or in an attempt to avoid standing out from the group.
Explain: This shows that NSI can explain why people adhere to social norms to avoid being excluded from the group.
16

Evaluation: This is a strength because it shows that the normative social influence explanation is a valid assumption as to why people conform with the majority (i.e. for group approval).
(2) Point: Furthermore, the practical value of this explanation has been highlighted in recent research emphasising the role of normative social influence in bullying.
Example/Evidence: For example, Garandeau and Cillessen (2006) have shown how groups with a low quality of interpersonal friendships may be manipulated by a skilful bully so that the victimisation of another child provides the group with a common goal creating pressure on all group members to comply.
Explain: This shows that
Evaluation: This is a strength because the research illustrates that the NSI’s assumption that people conform for group approval is valid.
AO2
 Weaknesses of Normative Social Influence Explanation
(2) Point: The Normative Social Influence explanation can be criticised for not acknowledging the importance of belonging to a group.
Example/Evidence: For example, many studies have shown how conformity to group norms can persist long after the group no longer exists.
Explain: This shows that
Evaluation: This is a weakness because participants in an experiment cannot fear group exclusion which implies that factors
other than dependency on the group may be important as regards to whether or not an individual conforms.
17

AO1
(2) Informational Social Influence (ISI):
Informational Social Influence – Explanation of Internalisation
In this case, people are unsure what to do in a situation (e.g. they may not know what is the right or correct way to act) and so they look to others with seemingly more information in order to identify correct
behaviour. Thus if a situation is ambiguous (no obvious right or wrong answer), we look to others as a source of information to help us perceive the situation accurately and reduce ambiguity. We tend to seek guidance from people who we see as being better informed than ourselves. It is based on the desire to be right. This usually involves private acceptance
(internalisation) – in this case people conform to the norms of others because they genuinely believe that they are right. This can result in a change in private beliefs and attitudes.
Let’s recap … What is Internalisation?
18

Assessment (January 2010)
AO2
Strengths of the study:
(1) Research by Sherif (1936) has supported the suggestions of the informational social influence explanation.
(2) Research from Fein (2007) has supported the assumption of the
ISI explanation.
Weaknesses of the study:
(1) Sherif’s study has been criticised as to the extent in which it demonstrates true Informational
Social Influence.
 Strengths of the Informational Social Influence Explanation
(1) Point: Further research has supported the assumptions of the informational social explanation as regards to why people conform.
Example/Evidence: For example, Fein et al (2007) supported the role of informational social influence in political opinion by showing how judgements of candidate performance in US presidential debates could be influenced by the mere knowledge of others’ reactions.
19

Participants saw what were supposedly the reactions of their fellow participants on screen during the debate. This produced large shifts between participants’ judgements of the candidates’ performance.
Explain: This shows that
Evaluation: This is positive as the research demonstrates support for the informational explanation assumption demonstrating the power of informational influence in shaping opinion.
(2) Point: Research has supported the suggestions of the informational social influence explanation as regards to why people conform.
Example/Evidence: For example, Sherif’s (1936) research demonstrates how the exposure to other people’s beliefs (i.e. their estimates as regards to how far and in which direction the light spot moved) has an important influence on other participants’ estimates especially when the participants are uncertain about what to believe themselves.
Explain: This shows that
Evaluation: This is a strength because the research supports the informational social influence explanation of conformity and the assumption that individuals will be influenced by members of majority who appear more informed than themselves.
AO2
 Weaknesses of the Informational Social Influence Explanation
However…
(1) Point: Sherif’s (1936) study can be criticised as to the extent in which it demonstrates conformity.
Example/Evidence: For example, Cardwell et al (1996) suggests that Sherif’s study demonstrates how groups norms emerge and not necessarily the process of conformity (specifically internalisation).
He suggests that majority influence means a majority influencing a minority who then conform to the majority view. In Sherif’s study
20

there was no majority or minority group, simply a number of people who had different views.
Explain: This means that Sherif’s study can in turn be questioned as to what extent it demonstrates internalisation.
Evaluation: This is a weakness because if Sherif’s study is not a true demonstration of conformity and internalisation then it cannot be used in support of informational social influence as an explanation of conformity.
Normative Social Influence Informational Social Influence
W
H
E
R
E
A
S
Further your Psychological Knowledge:
Why not research other explanations of conformity?
21

Assessment (January 2011)
22

AO1
AO2
AO2
(5)
AO1
Discuss explanations of why people conform (12 marks)
23

Obedience: Complying to the demands of a perceived authority figure
Dwyer & Charles (1995)
AO1
Aim: Milgram (1963) aimed to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis with his study at Yale University (a prestigious setting).
Participants: 40 male participants were selected to take part in the study.
Sample: Milgram used a volunteer sample, he advertised in a local newspaper for male participants to take part in his study and offered all participants a payment for their participation.
Procedure: Milgram used a confederate and fixed the selection of roles so that the confederate
was always the ‘learner’ and the participant was
always the ‘teacher’. He used a fake set up whereby the teacher was instructed by an authority figure (the experimenter) to punish the learner (by electric shock) for incorrect responses on a memory test. The shocks ranged from 15V (labelled ‘slight shock’) and increasing
in 15V increments to 450V (labelled XXX).
Milgram was interested to see how far the participants would go in order to comply with an
unreasonable order (to deliver an electric shock to another human) from an authority figure.
Findings: During the experiment many of the participants showed signs of
extreme tension. They shook, sweated and stuttered. Many of the participants repeatedly argued with the experimenter yet all participants continued to deliver the shocks up to 300V, and a staggering 65%
continuing to 450V. This was unexpected, as before conducting the research, people had estimated that most would stop at 100V.
24

Conclusion: Milgram was therefore able to conclude that Germans are not different and in fact we are all capable of blind obedience to unjust
orders due to the setting.
* Milgram’s study was repeated under many different conditions, experimenting with the experimental setting, gender of participants and distance of authority figure. *
AO2
Strengths of the study:
(1) The results obtained in
Milgram’s study of obedience has been replicated in real-life settings
(e.g. Hofling’s (1966) study).
(2) Further support comes from
Hofling (1996).
(3) Further support comes from
Sheriden and King (1972).
(4) Further support comes from
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986)
Weaknesses of the study:
(1) Milgram’s study can be criticised for lacking ecological
validity because …
(2) Milgram’s study can be criticised for lacking mundane
realism.
(3) Milgram’s study can be criticised on ethical grounds.
(4) Further criticism comes from
Kilham & Mann (1974) found gender differences in Australia.
 Strengths of Milgram’s Study
(1) Point: The results obtained in Milgram’s study of obedience has been replicated in real-life settings.
Example/Evidence: For example, Hofling (1966) conducted a study in a hospital. Nurses were telephoned by a ‘Dr Smith’ who asked that they administered a drug to a patient. This order went against hospital regulations in a number of ways: (1) nurses were not supposed to take instructions over the phone, (2) the instructions were from an unknown doctor and (3) the dosage of the drug was twice that
25

advised on the bottle. Nevertheless, 21 out of 22 (95%) nurses did as requested.
Explain: This means that research conducted in natural environments have demonstrated that individuals will obey the commands of authority figures.
Evaluation: This is a strength because the research demonstrates that obedience to authority figures does occur in real-life settings.
 Weaknesses of Milgram’s Study
(1) Point: However, Milgram’s research can be criticised for lacking ecological validity:
Example/Evidence: For example participants in Milgram’s experiment were placed in an artificial setting and were aware that they were being watched.
Explain: This means that the study was conducted in the artificial setting of the laboratory and therefore may not be reflective of real-life obedience.
Evaluation: This is problematic because the findings from the study cannot be generalised past the artificial setting to everyday life.
AO2
 Weaknesses of Milgram’s study continued …
(2) Point: Furthermore, the artificial setting of the laboratory and lack
of mundane realism of the task (administering electric shocks is not an everyday event) may encourage demand characteristics:
Example/Evidence: Evidence for this comes from Orne (1968) who suggested that the participants did not believe that the electric shocks were real and they were therefore not really obeying the experimenter’s demands to hurt the learner.
Explain: This means participants may have realised the experimental set-up was fake and were just behaving as they thought they were expected to.
Evaluation: This is problem as it means the research may, in actual fact, lack internal validity.
26

(3) Point: The study can also be criticised for using is an ethical issue: which
Example/Evidence: Evidence for this comes from the fact Milgram led participants to believe that the when in fact they were not.
Explain: This means the participants were deliberately misled regarding the true nature of the experiment.
Evaluation: This is a problem as it goes against the ethical guidelines which suggest that deception should be avoided.
Furthermore, the participants were denied consent as they could not have been fully informed about the true nature of the study and their role within it. This also goes against the guidelines about how to conduct an ethical investigation.
Can you think of any other ethical issues that may have been present in this research?
Further your psychological knowledge and read about Milgram’s experiment in the extension material on pages 29 and 30!
Assessment (January 2009)
27

In order to further explore the factors that influenced obedience,
Milgram replicated his experiment, making slight changes each time to assess how the environment, power of the experimenter and the proximity of the ‘learner’ and the ‘teacher’ can affect whether a person obeys or disobeys an authority figure.
There are a number of explanations as to why individuals obey authority figures; we are going to look at the following four:
(1) Gradual Commitment, (2) Legitimate Authority,
(3) Agentic Shift (4) Dehumanisation
28

This means that in the experiment participants became locked into obedience in small stages. This is also known as the ‘foot in the door
technique’ and means that once you have made some form of commitment it is hard to go back on it.
AO2
Point: Evidence to support the gradual commitment explanation of obedience comes from Milgram’s experiment.
Example/Evidence: For example, at the beginning of the investigation the participants were asked to give the ‘learner’ a small shock of 15V.
This increased in 15v increments each time the learner made a mistake.
Each action for the participants was a small step beyond the previous action, making it difficult to back out at any time.
Explain: This means that within Milgram’s experiment it can be seen that the participants’ became locked into obedience in small stages.
Evaluation: This is a strength because the research demonstrates that by committing the participants in small stages, Milgram established a basis for obedience, which made it very difficult for the participants
to disobey (i.e. once that participants have got their ‘foot in the door’ it is very difficult for them to reject the experimenter’s requests).
Additional AO2 – Research Sheridan and King (1972) puppy experiment.
29

AO1
An important factor in obedience is legitimate authority.
This refers to the amount of social power held by the person (authority figure) who gives the instruction. Most human (and indeed animal) societies are ordered in a hierarchical way, with some members of the group having legitimate social power to issue instructions to those beneath them in the hierarchy. From early childhood, socialisation in the family and at school teaches us that we are
acceptable if we obey those who have authority over us. We may obey people with legitimate authority because we trust them. Alternatively, we may obey them because they have the power to punish us.
AO2
Point: Evidence to support the idea of legitimate authority is demonstrated in Milgram’s experiment.
Example/Evidence: For example, within Milgram’s experiment it can be seen that obedience was much higher when the experiment was set at
Yale University (a prestigious academic establishment) and the experimenter was wearing a lab jacket. Participants who took part in
Milgram’s experiment in the district of New York (in the run-down office block where the authority figure was dressed in ‘normal’ clothes) were
less likely to obey the authority figure as the power of the experimenter (authority figure) was diminished by the less prestigious
setting. In the University setting the participants would have viewed the authority figure as being well educated and therefore as holding the
power to punish them. However, in the office setting the participants would have viewed the experimenter as holding less authority and therefore will not have perceived the experimenter as having the
power to punish them if they disobeyed their orders.
Explain: This shows that the environmental setting and physical appearance (of the authority figure) can all impact on the degree of
30

authority which one individual perceives another individual (the authority figure) to hold.
Evaluation: This is a strength as it demonstrates that the perceived amount of authority a person holds (legitimate authority) will directly impact on the extent to which individuals obey.
Additional AO2 – Research Hofling (1966)
AO1
It is easy to deny personal responsibility when orders come from a figure of authority because it can be assumed that they will take ultimate responsibility. In these instances, we become ‘agents’ of an external authority.
According to Milgram obedience occurs as a result of a conflict between
2 opposite sets of demands:
1. The external authority – authority of the experimenter or authority figure
2. The internal authority – authority of our own conscience.
The fully obedient person undergoes a psychological
adjustment or ‘shift’ whereby they see themselves as an
agent of external authority (assuming ‘the agentic state’).
AO2
Point: Evidence for the agentic shift as an explanation of obedience is demonstrated in Milgram’s experiment.
Example/Evidence: Evidence for this comes from the fact that in
Milgram’s experiment many of the participants had serious
reservations about continuing to administer the shocks and asked the experimenter if they would be held personally responsible for any
31

harm that the ‘learner’ may experience. Upon the experimenter
saying they would take full responsibility the participants continued to obey the authority figure’s instructions.
Explain: This shows that
Evaluation: This offers support for the idea of the agentic shift as the participants demonstrated that they would obey an authority figure when they view themselves as being an ‘agent’ of external authority.
Additional AO2 – Research Hofling (1966) hospital experiment
AO1
This means that we are more likely to obey and authority figure and inflict harm onto someone if we can distance ourselves/deny the person of their humanity in which we are causing pain. This is common in war – people who are killed are seen as numbers/objects. This is achieved by removing a person’s individuality (e.g. taking away things that are unique to a person like their facial features (by covering their face with a mask or not referring to them by their name (referring to them as a number).
The more a victim is ‘dehumanised’ the easier it is to avoid personal and moral responsibility for their suffering.
AO2
Point: Evidence of dehumanisation can be seen in Zimbardo’s (1974) experiment.
Example/Evidence: For example, in Zimbardo’s (1974) experiment the prisoners were dehumanised by being dressed in a uniform (a smock).
This made all the prisoners look the same and removed the individual
prisoner’s sense of identity, they wore a nylon stocking cap which
32

removed their personal features and they were called by an ID number which again removed their identity. Due to the fact that all the prisoners were dehumanised upon entering the experiment, this made it easier for
the guards to inflict punishments on the prisoners due to the fact that they could distance themselves from the prisoners’ suffering. In return,
the prisoners were more likely to obey the guards. Due to the fact that their identity had been removed, the ‘prisoners’ would have perceived themselves as being inferior to the guards and therefore more likely to obey their commands.
Explain:
Evaluation: Zimbardo’s study is a strength showing that dehumanisation can be used to explain the apparent willingness of individuals to obey authority (especially in extreme situations).
There are other explanations as to why people obey including;
Deindividuation, the role of buffers, Personality Factors (e.g. the
authoritarian personality) and The Just World Hypothesis. You will not be required to know these in your exam but why not do a bit of extended study??
33

What are the key differences between conformity and obedience?
Activity: Complete the table below highlighting the key differences between conformity and obedience.
Conformity Obedience
W
H
E
R
E
A
S
34

Study Tip:
You have now finished the first booklet (of 6). Be a motivated student and start preparing for revision now. Why not create some revision
resources for this booklet??
35

You have agreed to take part in a psychology study into the effects of punishment on learning, for which you will be paid a small fee. The study takes place at Yale University. When you arrive you are greeted by the experimenter, who is a young man wearing a lab coat. With him is Mr
Wallis, who has also agreed to take part in the study, he’s an accountant in his late 50’s, slightly overweight and average in appearance.
The experimenter explains that one of you will be the ‘Teacher’ and the other the ‘Learner’ After drawing straws it is determined that you are to be the ‘Teacher’ and Mr Wallis is the ‘Learner’.
You then watch Mr Wallis get strapped into a chair, and electrodes are attached to his arms, which will deliver electric shocks. You overhear Mr
Wallis mention that he has heart problems. The experimenter replies that although the shocks will be painful they will not cause ‘permanent tissue damage’. You’ve given a shock at 45V so you know what it feels like and you are reassured that the University is liable, if anything should go wrong. The experimenter then leads you to a generator in the next room.
It has a number of switches clearly marked with voltage levels and verbal descriptions:
15-60v Slight shock
75-120v Moderate shock
135-180v Strong shock
195-240v Very strong shock
255-300v Intense shock
315-360v Intense to extreme shock
375-420v Danger: Severe shock
435-450v XXX
You are then asked to read out a series of word pairs (e.g. Blue-girl, niceday, fat-neck). You are to test Mr Wallis’s memory on each of these pairs.
Mr Wallis answers from the next room by pressing one of four switches, which lights up a panel in front of you. If he answers correctly you move on to the next question, if not you must give him a shock, with each
36

mistake being punished by a shock 15v higher than the previous. You are to treat no response as an incorrect answer. You can hear Mr Wallis protesting from the next room and somewhere along the line you turn to the experimenter (who is watching over you) for guidance. He responds with statements such as ‘Please continue’, ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’, ‘You have no other choice, you must go on!’
37

Procedural Variation Estimated obedience rate
Actual obedience rate
Institutional context: the experiment took place in a run-down office building
Proximity of Learner: the teacher and learner were in the same room (about
46cm apart)
Touch proximity: the teacher was required to force the learner’s hand down onto the shock plate.
Remote authority: the experimenter gave initial instructions to the teacher in person and then left the room and gave all further instructions by telephone.
Two peers rebel: the teacher was only required to deliver the shocks and two other teachers (confederates) read the word pairs and informed the learner if the response was correct; at 150volts one confederate teacher refused to continue and at 210 volts the 2nd confederate teacher followed.
A peer administers the shocks: the teacher was required only to read the words and instruct and another teacher
(a confederate) to deliver the shocks.
Milgram found that the biggest rise in levels of obedience was when there were 2 teachers where one read out the word-pairs (real participant) and the other delivered the shocks (the stooge) – obedience rose to This shows it is easier to obey when we can shift the responsibility to someone else.
38

Philip Zimbardo (1973) recruited students from Stanford University in
California to play the roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison. On the basis of interviews, psychological tests and physical examinations, those chosen to participate were judged to be mentally and physically healthy.
With the cooperation of the local police department, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested and handcuffed at their homes, taken to a police station and placed in a detention cell. It is important to recognise that the participants who consented to take part in this research did not actually consent to being ‘arrested’ at their own home. From the detention cell, the ‘prisoners’ were blindfolded and taken to the ‘prison’ in the basement of the Psychology department at Stanford University. There, they were locked in their cells 24 hours a day, while the guards were rotated on 8 hour shifts.
On arrival the prisoners were stripped, sprayed with a delousing solution (a deodorant spray) and forced to stand naked in the prison yard.
They were then dressed in a loose fitting smock stamped with an ID number, rubber sandals, a cap made from a nylon stocking and a lock and chain attached to one ankle. From then on they were referred to only by number not by name, and in response to the guards the prisoners had to say ‘Mr Correctional Officer Sir’. The guards were supplied with khaki shirts and trousers, reflecting sunglasses, whistles, police nightsticks and handcuffs. The guards appeared to relish their new roles, performing them with vigour and authority. Any misbehaviour from the prisoners resulted in loss of privileges such as reading books or writing letters. But, as time went on, the guards became increasingly brutal and ground the prisoners down. At the first hint of protest or rebellion, loss of privileges now became loss of food, sleep, blankets and washing facilities. The guards kept inventing new forms of punishment such as solitary confinement (in a cupboard) and cleaning the toilets with bare hands.
Prisoners were routinely woken in the middle of the night and marched out to the cell yard to be counted. The guards verbally abused the prisoners taunting and humiliating them.
For most of the time the prisoners obeyed. Most shuffled around their cells, helpless and apathetic. Although one began a hunger strike, the rest did exactly as they were told. But the strain was telling. On the third day, one prisoner was released from the experiment because of
39

‘acute emotional disturbance’. Another was released after developing a psychosomatic rash over most of his body. The experiment had been designed to last for two weeks, the researchers decided that it was necessary to end it after six days due to its negative effects on the participants.
The participants had assumed their roles rapidly. As the days went by, they developed their roles. A ‘good’ guard was tough, aggressive and arrogant. Even the less aggressive guards publicly conformed to this role model. As for the prisoners, their role was soon established. They stuck to the rules so that the guards would have no reason to punish them. They even sided with the guards against the prisoner on hunger strike. Rather than becoming a hero he was simply a nuisance who drew attention to the prisoners and caused trouble. The other prisoners rejected him.
Why not visit Zimbardo’s website: www.prisonexp.org
for more information?
40