... Is the process where our behaviours, attitudes and beliefs are shaped by the presence of others. It happens as a result of two processes: conformity and obedience. 1: Types of Influence: As put forward by Gerrard and Deutsch (1955) 

Normative: This is based on our desire to be liked by others. We conform because we think others will accept us. The type of conformity which takes place here is compliance. Informational: This is based on our desire to be right. We look to others who we think are right in order to show us how to behave (demonstrated in Sheriff 1936). This form of social influence takes place when we experience “situational ambiguity”‐ not knowing how to behave in a new situation. Informational social influence leads to internalization. Informational social influence may also be caused by: ‐ Experts: We are more likely to turn to someone with specialist knowledge for information. ‐ Emergencies: In an emergency, we panic and don’t think rationally, so we look to others for the best way to respond. X: Gerrard and Deutsch’s model has been criticised for saying the two types of social influence are independent of each other. Insko et al 1983 claims the two types of social influence work alongside each other to achieve the right level of conformity. 2: Sheriff 1936 Sheriff wanted to investigate how group norms emerge using the “autokinetic effect”‐ an optical illusion where participants are asked to track a spot of light around a dark room. The participant thinks the light is moving, but in fact, it is completely still‐ the participant has no perceptual vision. Participants were asked to measure the distances between the spots of light over a number of trials. The measures were relatively consistent, but there was some range. Participants read their answers aloud in groups of 3. After a while, a norm judgement emerged from each group. When Sheriff altered the procedure so participants first gave their answers in a group, the participant who gave their first measure in a group continued to give this result. Sheriff found that when faced with an ambiguous situation, participants looked to their group for guidance. Once a group judgement had been established, participants continued to give this judgement, even when they were asked for their own judgement later. Y: The study shows that people look to others when making a decision, and so support Gerrard and Deutsch’s theory. X: Lacks ecological validity: Optical illusions are not relevant in real life. X: Participant motivation: The fact participants were asked to give detailed measurements could have annoyed them. This would have caused them to behave awkwardly, in turn confounding the results. 3: Groups: A group is a set of people which influences our behaviour. Stainton and Rogers (2003) identified the types: ‐ Incidental Groups: Members have little/short term commitment to each other. ‐ Membership Groups: Members are committed to each other because they are members. ‐ Identity Reference Groups: Members identify with the values and norms of the group, and obtain their own social identity from being part of the group. 4: Conformity: This is the process of yielding to majority influence. There are two accepted definitions: ‐ David Myers (1999) defines conformity as “a change in behaviour as a result of imagined or real group pressure”. ‐ Zimbardo et al (1995) defines conformity as “a tendency to adopt the behaviours, attitudes and values of a reference group”. 5: Types of Conformity: People conform in different ways: ‐ Compliance: Conforming to the behaviours of a group publicly, but maintaining your own views privately. ‐ Identification: Adopting the views of a group publicly and privately, but only because you value membership of the group. Identifications are usually temporary and are lost when you leave the group. ‐ Internalization: Converting your own private views to match the views of the group. Unlike identification, internalizations are not dependent on the presence of a group. 6: Research Into Conformity: These studies are the key pieces of research into conformity: 
Asch 1951 Aim: Asch wanted to investigate if people conform to giving a particular answer on a test, even when they know the answer they’re conforming to is obviously incorrect. Procedure: 7 male students were shown 2 cards. One showed a single vertical line, and the other showed 3 lines of different lengths. Participants were asked to call out in turn which of the lines they thought matched the “test” line. The answer was always obvious. All but one of the participants were accomplices in the experiment. The one genuine participant called out their answer 2nd from last. Out of the 18 trials, the accomplices gave unanimously wrong answer on 12 of the trials. Over the course of the experiment, 50 genuine participants were involved. Findings: 


On the 12 critical trials where accomplices gave a unanimously wrong answer, 32% of the answers given by the genuine participants conformed to the answer given by the majority. Only 26% of the participants never gave a wrong answer, meaning 74% of the participants conformed to the majority at least once. To make sure the task was completely obvious, Asch carried out a control trial where all of the participants were genuine. He found people made genuine mistakes 1% of the time. Conclusions: There may be a strong group pressure to conform in an unclear situation, particularly when you are influenced by a unanimous majority. When Asch interviewed his participants, he found they conformed because: 

Normative Social Influence: Participants conformed to the majority to avoid being rejected. Informational Social Influence: A lot of the participants conformed because they thought “surely the majority can’t be all wrong”. Evaluation: X: The task used to measure conformity was meaningless. Conformity rates were more likely to fall if participants were asked to complete a more meaningful task. X: Participants were asked to give their answers amongst groups of strangers. They may have felt extra pressure/worry about appearing stupid or not being accepted. X: The findings are only relevant to one culture, and the participants were all male. This means the results cannot be generalised to the whole population. 
Extensions to Asch’s Research To find out the exact factors of a situation which made people conform, Asch changed some of the aspects of his study and found: ‐ A Non Unanimous Majority: Conformity dropped to 5% when one of the majority supported the genuine participant. The fewer people in the majority who dissented, the more effective the majority was at producing conformity. ‐ Partners: The genuine participant started with a “partner” who gave correct answers at first, but then joined the majority. This resulted in conformity rates of 28.5%. When the participants was joined by the “partner” half way through the experiment, this produced conformity rates of 8.7%. ‐ Nature of the Task: Conformity increased when the task was much harder. ‐ Size of the Majority: Conformity levels changed depending on the size of the majority that gave incorrect answers: 

12.8% conformed when a majority of 2 was used. 32% of participants conformed when a majority of three was used. 

Conformity was not changed when the majority extended beyond 3. It has been suggested that the genuine participants would suspect something was wrong if the majority raised this far. No effect on conformity was achieved when one accomplice was used. The extensions suggested that these factors affect conformity rates: Y: 


Unanimous majority. Difficult task. Being left by a partner who previously gave correct answers. 

Non unanimous/small majority. Writing responses in private rather than reading them aloud. Crutchfield 1955 X: 
Crutchfield suggested the high conformity rates in Asch’s study were the results of the face to face arrangement of the participants. Crutchfield arranged his participants in separate booths so they couldn’t see each other, but they could all see the stimulus material. This allowed him to run multiple experiments at once. Participants were shown stimulus material on a screen. They were asked to press buttons which corresponded to their judgements. The participants were then shown what the researchers told them was the other participant’s response. In fact, they were all shown an identical response controlled by the researcher: 


When using Asch’s stimulus material, Crutchfield observed conformity rates of 30%. Conformity rates increased when the participants were given more difficult tasks. Zimbardo et al 1973 Research Method: Zimbardo’s study was a simulation. Psychologists use simulations to study behaviours they wouldn’t have access to in real life. Aim: To investigate how readily people would conform to roles they were given in a prison simulation. Zimbardo wanted to find out if brutality amongst American prison guards was due to their personalities (dispositional) or the prison environment (situational). Procedure: Healthy male volunteers were paid $15 a day to take part in what was supposed to be a two week simulation of prison life. Volunteers were randomly allocated to either the role of “prisoner” or “guard”. The “prisoners” were arrested, taken to the “prison” (the basement of Stanford Unviersity) stripped down, sprayed with disinfectant and given a prison number which they were referred to during the experiment. The “guards” work khaki uniforms, dark glasses and carried wooden battons. No physical aggression was permitted. Findings: The guards had distressed the prisoners so much and conformed to their roles so strongly that the experiment had to be stopped after 6 days. Prisoners rebelled after 2 days. Some prisoners developed depression and anxiety, and so had to be released earlier. After 6 days, the prisoners became obedient to the guards. Conclusions: The participant’s behaviour was caused by the prison environment (situational) rather than personality factors (dispositional). The prison environment caused the “guards” to behave brutally (none of them had showed this behaviour before the study). People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, even when the roles are strongly stereotyped. The roles that people play shape their attitudes and behaviour. Evaluation: X: Zimbardo played both the role of the chief observer and the prison superintendent. His latter role meant he lost sight of the harm being done to the participants. X: Zimbardo claimed the results showed how easily people can behave in an uncharacteristic way when placed in a new situation and given a role, however, the results could also be explained by demand characteristics. X: The study has received many ethical criticisms, however, Zimbardo has argued these were necessary for the study. “Guards” had to face up to the fact they had inflicted harm on the participants, but in post study interviews, Zimbardo found no long lasting effects. Ethical Criticisms: ‐ Harm to Participants: Savin (1973) criticised Zimbardo’s study for the way it humiliated the participants. He said that the cost to the participants far outweighed the benefits of the research. However, in follow up interviews with participants, Zimbardo found no long lasting effects of the study. ‐ Need for Independence: Zimbardo acknowledged that his role as the researcher and prison superintendent meant he lost sight of the harm being caused. Zimbardo himself says that he became caught up in his role. However, instead of banning research like this, Zimbardo recommends we make it better through measures such as independent monitoring an intelligent surveillance. ‐ Deception: Critics say that the use of deception in Zimbardo’s study was unethical, particularly because it caused harm to the participants. Critics say that instead of using a simulation, Zimbardo should have used a procedure where participants imagine what they would do in this situation. However, Zimbardo has criticised this “as if” approach. Support: Because of the controversy of Zimbardo’s study, it has never been fully replicated. However, similar studies have been carried out: 
Orlando 1973 Thus study was carried out in a mock psychiatric ward at a hospital in Illinois. 29 hospital staff were held on the ward and given the role of “patient”. 29 hospital staff performed their daily job roles, and the procedure was recorded: 



Within a short time, the behaviour of the mock patients was almost identical to that of real patients in the hospital. Some suffered withdrawal, depression and weeping. Others tried to escape. Most of the “patients” reported feelings of tension, anxiety, despair, frustration and loss of identity. The situation allowed hospital staff to see how patients could feel in a situation where staff were disrespectful and mistreated patients. This lead to the hospital changing the way they trained their staff to work with patients. Conclusion: The participants who were given the role of “patient” behaved in the prescribed manner for the role, meaning they had conformed to the role they were given. This supports Zimbardo’s conclusion that people readily conform to the roles they are given. 
Haslam and Reichler 2005 This study used a similar procedure to Zimbardo, although the researchers did not play a role, and the experiment was overseen by an ethics committee and clinical psychologists. The environment wasn’t designed to replicate a prison, but the guards were more superior than the prisoners. Both sets of participants were filmed for 10 days. The aims of the study were to see if the prisoners rebelled and if the guards abused their power: 


The guards were uncomfortable about exercising their power and became divided and powerless. They never developed a sense of group identity. The prisoners were unhappy about the less favourable treatment they received, supported each other, developed a group identity and challenged the guard’s authority. A group of ex guards and ex prisoners was established, but this broke down when members of the group wanted to revert back to the guard prisoner system. At this point, the study ended. The researchers concluded that a shared sense of social identity can create social power and lead to positive outcomes. Individuals are not slaves to their roles, but contribute to the norms and values of their group. The findings of this study do not support Zimbardo. The participants did not conform to their roles, and situational factors did not affect the behaviour of the guards. Y: Taylor 2006 praises the way Haslam and Reichler’s study portrays social groups in a positive light. 7: Individual Differences in Conformity: Crutchfield: On a three day assessment course, Crutchfield found that participants (military and business people with high levels of intelligence and leadership) conformed less. Y: Crutchfield’s findings support Asch’s, suggesting conformity effects a wider cross section of society than students. X: There is no substantial evidence to support Crutcfield’s idea of a “conforming personality”. X: Crutchfield’s studies have been criticised for being too artificial. Foreman and Duke 1988: Looked at how a lack of confidence would make people more likely to conform. They asked students to listen to two versions of 10 musical pieces. The students were doing a degree in either music or another subject. Each participant gave their preferred version of the pieces in the presence of three accomplices who also stated their preferences. The study found that: ‐ The students studying music did not change their preferences upon hearing the accomplices’ views. ‐ The preferences of the non music students were slightly influenced by the answers of the accomplices. 8: Social and Historical Influences on Conformity Some researchers have suggested that Asch’s study tells us more about the cultural factors of 1950s America than it does about the underlying psychological tendencies which make people conform: 




Perrin and Spencer 1980: Replicated Asch’s study using British students. It found only one conforming response in 396 trials. It was concluded that this was because social and cultural factors had changed since Asch’s study, resulting in less of a need to conform. Another reason to explain these conformity rates which was put forward was the type of student used. Perrin and Spencer 1981: Used youths on probation and actual probation officers as participants. The participants showed similar levels of conformity to those in Asch’s original study. The researchers concluded that there was more of a chance of participants conforming when there was a serious consequence of their responses. Nicholson et al 1985: Used the same procedure as Asch to compare conformity between British and American students. The students showed no significant difference in conformity levels, however, the British students showed higher conformity than in Perrin’s study, but less conformity than in Asch’s study. The researchers concluded this was caused by the impact of the Falkland’s war. Neto 1995: Was carried out in Portugal. The study looked to see if the conformity rates in Asch’s study could be replicated in another culture. The participants were psychology students. 59% of participants conformed at least once, and 28% conformed between 3 and 12 times. Neto concluded the need to conform to a unanimous majority was still highly observable. Smith and Bond 1998: Reviewed 31 studies carried out in different cultures using Asch’s procedure. They concluded that there was more of a need to conform in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures. ‐ Collectivistic Culture: A culture where there is an emphasis on being loyal to and retaining the norms of a group. Going against a group is strongly discouraged. ‐ Individualistic Culture: A culture where people are more concerned with their own views and individual beliefs are valued. 9: Resisting Pressures to Conform: Sometimes, people may appear not to conform to the norms of a group. This is known as “independent behaviour”. However, what classes as independent behaviour is notable: ‐ Anti Conformity: This is a consistent oppression to the norms of a group. It is not completely independent, as it is influenced by groups norms. ‐ Independent behaviour: The individual behaves purely to please themselves. They are not influenced in any way by group norms. They may follow groups norms/obey authority, but only if this coincides with their own values and beliefs. These explanations have been put forward as to why people resist the pressure to conform: ‐ Desire for Individuation: Sometimes, people feel more of a desire to be individual than they do to conform. People feel uncomfortable if they appear like everyone else. In Snyder and Fromkin 1980 , 10,000 American students were told their most important beliefs were different from those of 10,000 others, while another 10,000 were told their beliefs were identical to those of 10,000. In conformity trials, the group which had been stripped of their identity resisted the pressure to conform‐ this was interpreted as an attempt to support their individual identity. ‐ Desire to Maintain Control: Most people value the idea that we have control of our lives. However, conformity goes against this: 

Burger 1992 found that people with a high need to maintain control of their lives are more likely to resist conformity pressures than those who did not. Daubman 1993 looked out how people react to unasked for help when working on a set of puzzles. Each participants was measured on a “Desirability of Control Scale” to see how much control they desired to maintain. The study found that participants with a high desire for control rejected unasked for help, supporting Burger’s idea that unwanted advice and attempts at influence are seen as threats by people who have a high need to maintain control. ‐ Prior Commitment: Once people publicly commit themselves to an opinion, they are less likely to change their minds than if they had made the opinion in private. Gerrard and Deutsch (1955) carried out a variation of Asch’s study where the participant gave their answer before the accomplices, and found this was the case, even when participants were given a chance to reconsider. ‐ Time to Think and Find Social Support: Zimbardo warns us about how situational factors can affect our behaviour, and encourages us to engage with situational demands rather than switching to “auto pilot”. Aronson (1999) suggests one of the best ways to avoid conforming to inappropriate social norms is to be aware that social influence may be present. In Asch’s study, participants conformed because their desire to be liked and conformity fell to 8.7% where participants were joined by a partner. ‐ Culture: As discussed by Smith and Bond 1988 10: Ethical Issues of the Research into Conformity: 



Many of the studies into conformity used deception. Therefore, participants would have been unable to make fully informed consent to participating. Participants may have been embarrassed or stressed by the procedures the experiments used, putting them at risk of psychological harm. Do the benefits of the research findings outweigh the cost to the participants? It would be easy to apply measures to prevent these ethical criticisms. 11: Obedience: Obedience is defined by Cardwell 2000 as the result of social influence where someone acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure. Often, obedience can be highly destructive. 12: Milgram 1963 Aim: To find out if people obey an unjust order from an authority figure, and what factors of a situation lead us to obey. Procedure: 




40 male participants were paid $4.50 an hour to take part in an experiment. They were deceived into thinking the study was regarding the role of punishment in learning, and deceived into thinking they were administering electric shocks to others. The genuine participant played the role of the “teacher”, whilst the accomplice played the role of the “learner”. The accomplice’s task was to memorise matching pairs of words and press lights that corresponded to the correct answer. The “teacher’s” task was to give the accomplice an electric shock every time they made a mistake. The participants were sat in front of an “electric shock generator” with 30 levers, capable of administering 15‐450 volts. No actual shocks were administered. Before the procedure commenced, the participant was given a genuine 15 volt shock to see how it felt. They then watched the accomplice being strapped into a chair and have electrodes tied to his arms. During the experiment, the experimenter used several prompts to convince the participant to continue. The experiment stopped when the participant refused to continue, or 450 volts was administered 4 times. Findings: 

All participants administered at least 300 volts. 65% administered the full 450 volts. Many of the participants wanted to stop, and showed extreme signs of stress. However, the researcher prompts persuaded them to continue. Conclusions: 


Under certain circumstances, ordinary people will obey orders that go against the conscience. When people occupy a low position of authority, they are more likely to lose feelings of empathy and compassion, and will instead follow orders. The findings can be used to explain why people carry out atrocities. People feel pressure to obey authority. Atrocities are caused by the environment (situational) and not by personality factors (dispositional). Variations: In his original study, 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts. Milgram changed certain aspects of his study to see what aspects of the situation made people obey: 





Variation 1: The experiment was moved to offices in the nearby town of Bridgeport. Obedience fell to 47.5% when the study was moved to less prestigious surroundings. Variation 2: The “learner” agreed to participate but only if the “teacher” let them out when they said so. Obedience fell to 40% because the learner had agreed to a limited contract. Variation 3: The “teacher” had to force the learner’s hand to operate the switch. Obedience fell to 30% when the participants were forced to use violence to administer the shock. Variation 4: The “teacher” was supported by two accomplices who refused to obey. Obedience fell to 10% when the participant had support from someone who modelled disobedience. Variation 5: The experimenter left the room and instructed the “teacher” by phone. Obedience fell to 20.5% when the participants were supervised less closely. Variation 6: The “teacher” was paired with an accomplice who operated the switches. Obedience rose to 92.5% when there was someone else to divert blame to. 13: Criticisms of Milgram by Orne and Holland (1968): 
Experimental Validity Experimental validity is a measure of whether or not the procedure works, and if the variables effect the results. Orne and Holland argued Milgram’s study didn’t have experimental validity, as the participants could have simply been going along with the act, and may not have believed they were administering actual shocks. Their tension behaviour could be explained by the fact they were pretending to be distressed in order to please the researcher. 
Ecological Validity Many students have supported the ecological validity of Milgram: ‐ Killham and Mann (Austria) found 40% obedience amongst male participants. ‐ Shanhab and Yahya (1973) carried out the study on Jordanian children (aged 6‐16), and reported 73% of participants were willing to administer the full 450 volts. ‐ Studies by Bickman (1974) and Hoffling et al (1966) show the same levels of obedience as in Milgram’s study can be achieved in real life situations. Despite the apparent validity of Milgram’s study, Orne and Holland say Milgram’s study bears little relevance to real life situations. The findings of Rank and Jacobson also question the ecological validity of Mllgram’s study. 
Milgram’s Response Milgram responded to Orne and Holland’s criticisms. He referred to the video evidence of the study which showed participants were clearly distressed. He referred to post study interviews were participants said they believed they were giving real electric shocks. He also raised several common sense issues such as “why would the participants continue if they knew they were giving real electric shocks?” and how the variations to his study changed obedience levels. 14: Evaluating the Critcisms of Milgram’s Study: X: Lack of Respect: Baumrid (1964) claimed Milgram failed to protect his participants from psychological harm. The study used a lack of informed consent, deception, and caused psychological harm to participants. X: Lack of Informed Consent: Participants did not know the nature of the study so they could not fully consent to participation. It has been argued deception was necessary, but was it justified? Informed consent is required for research to be ethical. X: Psychological Harm: Milgram recorded his participants trembled, stuttered and sweated. Participants may also have been shocked by the fact they were willing to inflict such pain on other human beings. The participants may have been made to feel stupid by the way they were deceived, and their experience may have lead to a distrust of authority figures. X: Conversion to Evil: John Darley (1992) argued that evil is present in all of us, and becomes active due to a conversion process. He refers to Lifton (1986), who interviewed physicians who had carried out horrific experiments in nazi death camps, despite being ordinary human beings. It has been argued the participants showed these characteristics in Milgram’s study. X: Misapplying Findings: David Mandell (1998) argues that using Milgram’s findings to explain atrocities such as the Holocaust is an oversimplified explanation. To attribute situational factors like this is misleading. Analysis of those who carried out atrocities in WW2 has found these behaviours also had an impact: 


Perpetrators did not always require supervision by their superiors. The pain and suffering caused did not disturb the perpetrators. They were often willing to continue killing, even when they were given the opportunity to stop. Milgram responded to his critics, he defended his criticisms by drawing attention to: Y: Ethical Guidelines: Milgram’s study increased awareness amongst psychologists regarding how participants should be treated, and lead to the drafting of codes and guidelines psychologists should use, which were not present before his study was carried out. Y: Healthy Scepticism: Milgram’s study was criticised because it might lead participants to distrust authority figures, but Milgram claimed it was important to be sceptical of possible inhumane authority. Y: Cost Benefit: Do the benefits of the research outweigh the cost to participants? Many people have argued Miglram’s doesn’t, however, Elliot Aronson (1999) suggests that psychologists face a great dilemma when their wider responsibility to society conflicts with their participant’s needs, particularly when the topic is of great social importance. Y: Benefits of Participation: Milgram responded to Baumrid’s criticism that he didn’t show respect to his participants by drawing attention to his post study questionnaire, which found 84% of participants were glad they took part, 74% learnt something of personal importance and only 1.3% reported negative feelings as a result of taking part. Y: Follow Up Care: A notable amount of Milgram’s critics i.e. John Darley wrote after his death in 1984, so Milgram never had a chance to respond. However, Milgram did arrange for a psychologist to interview a sample of his participants to see if the experiment had any long lasting psychological effects‐ none were detected. Y: Debriefing: After every session, the participants were thoroughly debriefed and told of the true nature of the study. Obedient participants were re‐assured their behaviour within the study was normal, and disobedient participants were told their behaviour was desirable because they had gone against unjust authority. Milgram argued this was instrumental in protecting participants from harm. Y: Unpalatable Findings: Milgram’s research was investigated by the American Psychology Society and was found to be ethical, and he was awarded a prize for outstanding contribution to his psychology for his work. Had participants been more disobedient and backed out of the procedure, there would have been a lot less protest. Milgram himself didn’t even predict the findings could turn out the way they did‐ he carried out a procedure in which a sample of his population was asked what they would do in this situation, and none of them thought participants would administer the 450 volts. Y: Caution When Generalising: David Miandell’s criticised the way Milgram’s findings were applied to explain WW2 atrocities, however, Milgram acknowledge that his findings could not fully explain this. However, Milgram said the circumstances were very similar to his study‐ in WW2, the authority worded their views in such a way that perpetrators of atrocities handed over their responsibility and killed with little conscience. 15: Other Research Into Obedience: 
Hoffling et al 1966: Obedient Nurses Nurses working a night shift received a phone call from an unknown doctor, asking to administer a drug so it could take effect before they arrive. In doing so, the nurses would be going against hospital rules. Despite this, 21 of the 22 participants administered the drug (which was in fact a harmless placebo) before other nurses stopped them from doing so. When interviewed afterwards, all of the nurses said they had been asked to do this before, and doctors became annoyed if they didn’t‐ this emphasised the pressure on them to obey. When other nurses were interviewed, many thought the participants in this study wouldn’t conform. Y: This study shows that high levels of obedience can be achieved in real life settings, so it has great ecological validity. 
Rank and Jacobson 1977: Disobedient Nurses Rank and Jacobson questioned aspects of Hoffling’s study: The nurses didn’t know the drug, and they would have been given an opportunity to consult another member of staff in a real life situation. They replicated Hoffling’s procedure, except the nurses were asked to administer x3 the legal dose of Valium. The doctor who telephoned gave a real name, and the nurses were able to speak to other nurses before they proceeded. Only 2 of the 18 participants were obedient to the doctor’s orders. It was concluded that “no nurse aware of the toxic effects of a drug...will simply administer it because a doctor orders them to do so”. 
Bickman 1974: Uniforms This was a field study. 3 experimenters dressed as either a uniformed milkman, guard or smartly dressed civilian and made requests to passers by in New York. People obeyed the requests of the guard most, and the requests of the civilian least. Y: The study agrees with Milgram’s findings that aspects of prestige are more likely to make people obey. X: The study used opportunity sampling. 
Meeus and Raajimakers 1986: Obedience in Interviews This study was carried out in Holland. 24 naive participants were asked to act as interviewers for job applications. The applicants were accomplices in the experiment, instructed to start the interview confidently, but appear distressed as the experiment progressed. The interviewers were instructed to use derogatory remarks to make the applicants distressed, and continue to do so even if the applicant complained. 22 of the 24 participants ignored the applicants complaints and administered all 15 comments. The study used prompts and prods when the participant refused to obey. This study shows how obedience can be achieved in a real life, face to face setting, even when participants can see the harm they’re causing. 16: Why do People Obey?: A number of explanations of the psychological factors which make people obey have been put forward: ‐ Legitimate Authority: We feel obliged to obey those in a position of power. Their position gives them the right to exert power over others, so people accept it (this was the case in Hofling). Whilst obeying authority leads to orderly society, it can lead people to do immoral things. Milgram found many of his participants were impression by the university surroundings in which his study took place. Bickman found we are more likely to obey people with symbols of authority (uniforms). Obedience to authority varies between countries. Killham and Mann (1974) in Australia found the lowest level of obedience using Milgram’s procedure, but in Mantell (1971), 85% of German participants administered the full 450 volts. ‐ “Foot in the Door Effect”: Once people commit to a gradual request, they feel they needn’t withdraw. This leads them to find it difficult to refuse, and leads them to carry out more serious requests in the future. This was the case in Milgram’s study. ‐ Contractual Obligation: Milgram said that the participants in his study felt like they were obliged to continue in order to “do their bit” for the research. If they refused to continue, they would have to evaluate this perception of themselves. ‐ Altering the Meaning: The seriousness of what participants were being asked to do in Milgram;s study was covered up by using desirable language to describe it. This technique is also used in advertising. ‐ Buffers: A “buffer” is something that prevents you from seeing the consequences of your actions. One of the reasons given for the obedience rates in Milgram’s study was that the “teacher” couldn’t see the pain they were inflicting. When obedience is required in real life, you might not be told the nature of your instructions or prevented from seeing the destruction you caused. ‐ Personality Factors: Most of the explanations of obedience in Milgram’s study were situational, however, some dispositional factors have been put forward: Milgram (1974) discussed the idea of an authoritarian personality. An authoritarian personality has rigid beliefs, is intolerant to uncertainty and change, resists minorities and submits to authorities. Milgram found that highly authoritarian personalities gave stronger shocks. Miele and Seltzer (1975) said that the reason participants gave higher shocks in Milgram’s experiment was because it was a socially acceptable way to express their violent and psychologically disordered impulses. However, Milgrams rebuked this by saying that when participants were able to choose the level of shock they gave, they always gave lower shocks. ‐ The Agentic Shift Theory: Milgram states that people operate on two levels: 
As autonomous individuals, behaving voluntarily and aware of the consequences of their actions. 
Agentic, seeing themselves as agents of authority, and not being responsible for their actions. In situations such as Milgram’s study, people experience an “agentic shift”‐ they hand responsibility for their actions over to the authority figure. At agentic level, people mindlessly accept the orders of authority. The participants in Milgram’s study displayed this behaviour‐ many of them denied responsibility, and said they were simply doing as they were told. Arrendt (1963) also identified this behaviour amongst those who had been convicted of war crimes during WW2. Milgram states that agentic shift is part of a socialisation process. Because we are expected to be obedient in everyday life, we unquestioningly do what we’re told and perceive orders from authority as right. Also, people are often kept in an agentic state due to the cost of going against authority: 

Fear of Appearing Rude: If the participants went against the authority in this study, they would have been interrupting a well organised laboratory setting. Participants may have felt increasingly anxious if they challenged the authority figure. 17: Resisting Pressures to Obey: In Milgram’s study, 35% of participants didn’t continue with the procedure despite being prompted to do so by the researcher. There have been a number of explanations as to why people resist pressures to obey: ‐ Empathy and Responsibility: Participants in Milgram’s study refused to keep giving shocks and disobeyed the experimenter when they thought the learner was in distress. One participant said the reason she did this was because she grew up in Nazi Germany, and did not want to inflict the same pain she had suffered on others. Milgram argued her bad memories awoke her from her agentic state, making her feel responsible for her actions. ‐ Disobedient Models: Exposing people to the actions of a disobedient role model makes them less likely to obey. In one of the variations to Milgram’s study, obedience fell to 10% when accomplice participants refused to keep giving shocks. ‐ Question the Motives and Status of Authority: Questioning the motives, experience and legitimacy of the authority figure has been proposed as a way of minimising automatic obedience. ‐ Time for Discussion: Gamsom et al 1982 used a procedure where participants were asked to make mock videos for use in court, but were in fact making videos which oil companies could use to exploit them. Participants became aware of the true nature of the study and started disobeying the researcher‐ one of the reasons given for this was the participants had a lot of time to discuss the study. ‐ Recetance: This process occurs when we want to protect our sense of freedom. Blatant attempts to restrict people’s freedom sometimes have an adverse effect, and people do the opposite of what is being asked. In Gamson’s study, the rebellion against the authority figure started when one participants voiced their concerns about what they were being asked to do. 18: Individual Differences: Individual differences are individual personality factors that differ between people. They affect the way we respond to social influence. Most of the early researchers in social psychology were convinced situational factors produced conformity/obedience, but some participants still refused to conform/obey. This meant that there was another variable affecting obedience/conformity. Blass 1991 shed light on these: ‐ Moral Reasoning: Kohlberg (1966) studied cognitive development, and found that those with a high level of moral reasoning showed higher levels of resistance towards the experimenter and disobedient behaviour. However, the morals a person holds may be different to how they act, and a situation may overwhelm a person’s morals. Kohlberg (1973): “One can reason in terms of these principles and not live up to these principles”. ‐ Locus of Control: This concept was founded by Rotter (1966). It refers to people’s expectations about the level of control they have in their lives: 

Internal Locus of Control: What happens to you is within your control. External Locus of Control: What happens to you is outside your control. Holland (1967) investigated the relationship between locus of control and independent behaviour in variations of Milgram’s study and found no relationship between locus of control scores and obedience. Blass re‐analysed Holland’s findings using new techniques, and found that those with a lower locus of control resisted pressures to obey, especially when they felt manipulated by the researcher. Schurz (1985) was a similar study to Milgram carried out in Austria. In this study, 80% of the 56 participants administered painful levels of ultrasound which were said to cause skin damage. There was no relationship between locus of control and obedience levels, although the 20% of participants who were identified as having high independence took more responsibility for their actions. ‐ Confidence: In Perrin 1980, it was said the confidence the students showed was caused by the fact the subjects they were doing gave them better knowledge than the accomplices and so allowed them to reject the false judgements. Asch noted that the participants who resisted the pressure to conform in his study sometimes lacked confidence. He observed them closely, and identified three types of confidence based independent behaviour: 


Independence because the participants thought their perceptions were correct. Independence because the participants isolated themselves to deliver independent judgements. Independence with tension and doubt: The participants were independent, but their discomfort was apparent. Blass concluded the findings into the relationship between locus of control and obedience were unclear, however, there was some evidence linking people with an internal locus of control to greater disobedience. ‐ Culture: Smith and Bond 1988 discussed the effect of culture on conformity rates. In a correlational study, Blass (2000) reviewed all of the studies which had been carried out using Milgram’s procedure, and found no relationship between obedience rates and the social and historical factors at the times the studies were carried out. ‐ Gender: Most of Milgram’s studies were carried out on men. In one study consisting of 40 female participants, 65% completed the procedure. Milgram reported no gender difference in obedience to authority, although the female participants reported higher levels of tension than their male counterparts. Blass reviewed nine replications of Milgram’s study which used mixed gender participants and found that: 

Only one study (Killham and Mann 1874) showed a link between gender and obedience (in the study, 40% of men compared to 16% of women completed the procedure). The studies were carried out in different cultures with researchers of different genders, meaning the findings are consistent. There are no reliable gender differences in levels of independent behaviour when resisting pressure to obey. Research into gender differences in conformity : Sistrunk and McDavid (1971) investigated the effect of different stimuli on male/female levels of conformity. Participants were exposed to group pressure and were asked to identify stereotypically male/female objects. Women conformed the most when identifying male items, men conformed the most when identifying female items. Conformity was the same when identifying natural items. Eagly 1987 explains gender differences in conformity in terms of the roles men and women play in society, Women are more supportive and co‐operative, whereas men are independent, allowing them to resist conformity pressures. It seems there is no significant gender difference in conformity. 19: The Impact of Research Into Social Influence: The research into social influence has had many benefits on society: 
Social role models Some people refuse to conform/obey and behave completely independently due to the presence of a role model who shows disobedient/anti conformist behaviour. In one of the variations to Milgram’s study, in which the “teacher” was given support from two accomplices who refused to administer the electric shock, obedience fell to 10%. Similarly, in Asch’s study, conformity rates reduced when the participant was supported by an accomplice who also gave a correct response. There are many examples of where a social role model in society has triggered disobedient/anti conformist behaviour: Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela. 
Educating Nurses Hoffling’s study raised awareness of the way junior nurses could be affected by senior personnel. This has lead to the inclusion of psychology courses in the education of medical staff, as well as stricter sign off procedures for drugs. 
Ethical Guidelines As a result of the research into social influence such as that carried out by Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo, psychological bodies have implemented ethical guidelines for research which were not present at the time these studies were carried out. 
Increasing Empathy Orlando’s study found that the hospital staff participating in the study changed their attitude towards their patients after being placed in the ward a mere three days. This lead to the understanding that carers need to empathise with their patients, and that vulnerable people will only be given respect through continuous training and education of staff. 
The “foot in the door” technique Milgram used a technique in which by getting participants to agree to a small request (giving themselves a 15 volt electric shock), he could get them to carry out bigger requests. The effect of this technique has been seen in aspects of society such as door to door salespeople. 
“Enlightenment Effect” A statement proposed by Gergen in 1973 suggested that if people were aware of the processes involved in social influence, they would be less likely to show blind obedience or unthinking conformity. However, Blass 2000 found no relationship between the time when Milgram’s study was carried out in relation to repeated similar procedures and the obedience levels found. This research into the “enlightment” effect suggests that even when someone has a knowledge of obedience research, it will not change their behaviour in an authority dominated situation. 
Resisting unwanted influence Zimbardo and Milgram’s research has eliminated the attitude that only evil people commit evil acts, and that with the right pressures to obey/structural constraints, ordinary people can commit evil acts. Zimbardo 2007 has researched the way in which we can avoid unwanted influence: 1. Admit Mistakes: Apologise, don’t waste time or try to justify your errors, move on. 2. Be Mindful: Think about the words and actions of the people that are trying to influence us. 3. Be Responsible: Take responsibility for our actions and decisions. 4. Assert Individuality: Be aware of who you are. Avoid anonymousness and secrecy which hides your wrongdoing. 5. Respect Just Authority: Distinguish between people who have authority based on wisdom and expertise and those who lack substance. 6. Balance Desire for Group Acceptance: We need to be accepted socially, but we need to be able to determine when to follow/reject group norms. 7. Be Frame Vigilant: Be aware of how the way something is being described influences the way it sounds. 8. Develop a Balanced Time Perspective: Beware of “going with the flow”. Remember opinions you have committed to in the past and the consequences of this in the future. 9. Do Not Sacrifice Freedoms for the Illusion of Security: The sacrifices you make for something are real, but the security these will achieve you are distant. 10: Oppose Unjust Systems: Be aware of small groups of individuals who can make a difference. 20: Minority Influence: In Asch’s study, conformity rates dropped to only 5% when a single person supported the genuine participant, showing how a minority can influence one person’s behaviour. However, research has also shown that minorities can influence majority behaviours providing they adopt the correct behaviour styles: ‐ Nemeth 1986: Nemeth believes that even when a minority is wrong, they can produce stimulative thinking. Minorities may be dismissed as eccentric or extremist, but over time, their behaviour can become influential. ‐ Moscovici 1969: Moscovici wanted to see whether or not a significant minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer on a perception task. Procedure: 
Six participants were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides, all of which were blue, but had varying levels of brightness. Two of the six participants (the minority) were accomplices of the experimenter. There were two experimental conditions: ‐ Consistent: The minority accomplices said the slides were green on all trials. ‐ Inconsistent: Participants said the slides were green on 24 of the trials, and blue on the remaining 12. Findings: 

Participants in the consistent condition said the slides were green in 8.4 % of the trials, with 32% of these participants calling the slides green at least once. Participants in the inconsistent condition called the slides green in only 1.3% of the trials. Moscovici (1985): Indentified the styles of behaviour a minority should possess if they are to exert social influence on others: 1. Consistency: They must be consistent in their opposition to the majority, maintaining certainty and drawing attention to their views. 2. Not Dogmatic: The minority must fully put forward their opinions and not sway to the opinions of others. They do this by being flexible in their views and reiterating their arguments. Hogg and Vaughan 1998: Put forward additional behaviour styles which make a minority more influential: ‐ The minority acts because of their principles, not out of self interest. ‐ The minority have made sacrifices in order to maintain their position. ‐ They are similar to the majority in terms of class, age and gender. ‐ They take on views that are consistent with what is currently happening in society. This can be used to explain how behaviours such as recycling have developed. 
Why do people yield to minority influence? These explanations for why people follow influence by a minority have been put forward: ‐ Consistency: There are two types of consistency: “Intra individual” where a person maintains a consistent position over time, and “inter individual”, where members of a minority group agree with a viewpoint. If members of a minority group are not consistent, it is unlikely the majority will pay attention. ‐ Snowball Effect: Defined by Van Avermaet 1996, this means that once a few of the majority have moved towards the minority, the minority gains momentum as more people agree with their view. ‐ Group Membership: Hogg and Vaughan 1998 states that we are most likely to be influenced by the people we see to be the most like us (our “group”). However, this works slowly, as explained by the dissociation model (below). ‐ The Dissociation Model: Mugny and Perez 1991 and Perez et al 1995 put forward this theory to show how majorities are influenced by minorities. The theory states that a majority takes on a minority view without acknowledging where it came from. The content and source of the minority view becomes unimportant. Because minority views are so strongly associated with where they come from, taking on a minority view assumes the negative identity of the source. However, if the idea can be dissociated from its source, a majority can take it on and be influenced by it, without associating themselves with a minority group. 
The difference between majority and minority influence Moscovici 1980 states that majorities and minorities use different processes to exert social influence: ‐ Majority influence involves public compliance. The person isn’t concerned with the issue itself, but how they will appear in front of the majority. Therefore, the majority exerts normative social influence, as was seen in Asch’s experiment. ‐ Minorities use informational social influence. They hope that by focusing on their view, majorities will examine their arguments, which will in turn start a conversion process.