J Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance.
J Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.
J Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
J Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.
J Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control.
J Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility.
J The role of social influence processes in social change.
COURSE COMPANION
SOCIAl INflUENECE
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 2 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance.
What You Need to Know
Types of conformity Conformity is type of social influence where a person changes
their attitude or behaviour in response to group pressure.
There are many different situations where people conform and
psychologists have categorised three main types of conformity,
including: compliance, identification and internalisation.
Compliance is the lowest level of conformity. Here a person
changes their public behaviour, the way they act, but not their
private beliefs. This is usually a short-term change and is often
the result of normative social influence. For example, you might
say that you like dub-step music because many other people in
your class like dub-step music and you wish to fit in, however
privately you dislike this style of music.
Identification is the middle level of conformity. Here a person
changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only
while they are in the presence of the group. This is a usually a
short-term change and normally the result of normative social
influence. For example, a person may decide to become a
vegetarian because all of his new flat mates are vegetarian.
However, whenever he walks past a MacDonald’s he can’t resist
a Big Mac and when he is away from his flat mates he still eats
meat. Identification takes place we are surrounded by a particular
group; we change our private beliefs while in the presence of the
group and not permanently.
Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. Here a person
changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. This is
usually a long-term change and often the result of informational
social influence (ISI). For example, if an individual is influenced
by a group of Buddhists and converts to this faith, then their
new religious way of life will continue without the presence of the
group and they have internalised this belief.
Describe the three types of conformity, including:
J Compliance
J Identification
J Internalisation
Change in public behaviour
Change in private Belief?
Short-term/ long-term
Compliance Y N Short-term
Identification Y Y* Short-term
Internalisation Y Y Long-term
* (Only in the presence of the majority)
J NOTES
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 3
Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.
What You Need to Know
Explanations for conformity In addition to the three types of conformity (compliance,
identification and internalisation) there are also two explanations
of why people conform, including: normative social influence and
information social influence.
Normative social influence is when a person conforms to
be accepted, or belong to a group. Here a person conforms
because it is socially rewarding, or to avoid social punishment,
for example, being ridiculed for not ‘fitting in’. Normative social
influence is usually associated with compliance and identification.
With compliance, people change their public behaviour but not
their private beliefs; with identification people change their public
behaviour and their private beliefs, but only in the presence of the
group. Therefore, these types of social influence are short-term
examples, usually the result of a desire to be fit in.
Informational social influence is when a person conforms
to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else
is ‘right’. Informational social influence is usually associated
with internalisation, where a person changes both their public
behaviour and their private beliefs, on a long-term basis. This
semi-permanent change in behaviour and belief is the result of
a person adopting a new belief system, because they genuinely
believe that their new beliefs are ‘right’. For example, if a person
changes their political ideology from Conservative to Liberal, then
they have internalised these new beliefs on a semi-permanent
basis and believe that voting Liberal is ‘right’.
Exam Hint: It is important to ensure you understand the
distinction between types of conformity (compliance,
identification and internalisation) and the explanations for
conformity (normative and information social influence).
Jenness (1932) & Asch (1951)Everyday examples of conformity are fairly common. For example,
have you ever filled out a sponsorship form and seen that everyone
has donated £10 and you feel compelled to also donate £10, despite
the fact you originally wanted to donate £5. Or, have you ever been to
a summer fayre and tried to guess how many sweets are in the jar?
This surprising difficult task is ambiguous, as no one is ever certain.
You may inspect the jar and think that it contains around 100 sweets
and then you see that everyone else has written 500 or more; as
a result you change your answer to reflect those that were written
before you. These everyday examples of conformity have formed the
basis of psychological research in this area.
Males Females
Average estimate before 790 925
Average estimate after 695 878
Average change 256 382
Jenness (1932) conducted one of the earliest experiments
examining conformity. He used an ambiguous situation that involved
Outline two explanations for conformity, including:
J Informational social influence
J Normative social influence
Outline and evaluate Asch’s (1951) original research
examining conformity.
Outline and evaluate variations of Asch’s research
which examined how different variables affect
conformity, including:
J Group size
J Unanimity
J Task difficulty
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 4 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His sample consisted of
101 psychology students, who individually estimated how many
beans the glass bottle contained. Participants were then divide into
groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through
discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided
with another opportunity individually estimate the number of beans,
to see if they changed their original answer.
Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original
answer, when they were provided with another opportunity to
estimate the number of beans in the glass bottle. On average
male participants changed their answer by 256 beans and female
participants changed their answers by 382 beans. These results
demonstrate the power of conformity in an ambiguous situation
and are likely to be the result of informational social influence. The
participants in this experiment changed their answers because they
believed the group estimate was more likely to be right, than their
own individual estimate.
Asch (1951) conducted one of the most famous laboratory
experiments examining conformity. He wanted to examine the extent
to which social pressure from a majority, could affect a person to
conform.
Asch’s sample consisted of 50 male students from Swarthmore
College in America, who believed they were taking part in a vision
test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed on real naïve
participants in a room with seven confederates (actors), who had
agreed their answers in advance. The real participant was deceived
and was led to believe that the other seven people were also real
participants. The real participant always sat second to last.
In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was
most like the target line in length. Unlike Jenness’ experiment, the
correct answer was always obvious. Each participant completed 18
trials and the confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12
trials, called critical trials. Asch wanted to see if the real participant
would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was
clearly incorrect.
Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed
to the majority view. On average, the real participants conformed
to the incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials. 74% of the
participants conformed on at least one critical trial and 26% of the
participants never conformed. Asch also used a control group, in
which one real participant completed the same experiment without
any confederates. He found that less than 1% of the participants
gave an incorrect answer.
Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out
why they conformed. Most of the participants said that they knew
their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group
in order to fit in, or because they thought they would be ridiculed.
This confirms that participants conformed due to normative social
influence and the desire to fit in.
Evaluation:J Asch used a biased sample of 50 male students from
Swarthmore College in America. Therefore, we cannot generalise
the results to other populations, for example female students,
and we are unable to conclude if female students would have
conformed in a similar way to male students. As a result Asch’s
sample lacks population validity and further research is required
to determine whether males and females conform differently.
J Furthermore, it could be argued that Asch’s experiment has low
levels of ecological validity. Asch’s test of conformity, a line
judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect
conformity in everyday life. Consequently, we are unable to
generalise the results of Asch to other real life situations, such
as why people may start smoking or drinking around friends,
and therefore these results are limited in their application to
everyday life.
J Finally, Asch’s research is ethically questionable. He broke several
ethical guidelines, including: deception and protection from
harm. Asch deliberately deceived his participants, saying that
they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment
on conformity. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive
participants, Asch’s experiment required deception in order to
achieve valid results. If the participants were aware of the true
aim they would have displayed demand characteristics and acted
differently. In addition, Asch’s participants were not protected
from psychological harm and many of the participants reporting
Target line A B C
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 5
feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority. However,
Asch interviewed all of his participants following the experiment to
overcome this issue.
Variations of Asch (1951)Following Asch’s original research, numerous variations of his line
judgement task were carried out. These variations include: group
size, unanimity and task difficulty.
Group Size: Asch carried out many variations to determine how the
size of the majority, affects the rate of conformity. These variations
ranged from 1 confederate to 15 confederates, and the level of
conformity varied dramatically. When there was one confederate,
the real participants conformed on just 3% of the critical trials. When
the group size increased to two confederates, the real participants
conformed on 12.8% of the critical trials. Interestingly, when there
were three confederates, the real participants conformed on 32% of
the critical trials, the same percentage as Asch’s original experiment,
in which there were seven confederates. This demonstrates that
conformity reaches it’s highest level with just three confederates.
Asch continued investigating group size and in one condition he used
15 confederates. In this experiment the rate of conformity slightly
dropped, although Asch didn’t report the percentage. It is possible
that the rate of conformity dropped because the real participants
became suspicious of the experiment and not because the pressure
to conform is less, in larger groups.
Unanimity: In Asch’s original experiment, the confederates all gave
the same incorrect answer. In one variation of Asch’s experiment,
one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer
throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to
5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for
their belief, then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to
conform. Furthemore, in another variation, one of the confederates
gave a different incorrect answer to the majority. In this variation
conformity still dropped significantly, by this time to 9%. This shows
that if you break the group’s unanimous position, then conformity
is reduced, even if the answer provided by the supporter, is still
incorrect.
Task Difficulty: In Asch’s original experiment, the correct answer
was always obvious. In one his variations he made the task
more difficult, by making the difference between the line lengths
significantly smaller. In this variation Asch found the rate of conformity
increased, although he didn’t report the percentage. This is likely to
be the result of informational social influence, as individuals look to
another for guidance when completing the task, similar to the results
found in Jenness’ experiment.
Variation Conformity % (Critical Trials)
Group Size: 1 Confederate Lower (3%)
Group Size: 2 Confederates Lower (12.8%)
Group Size: 3 Confederates Remained the same (32%)
Group Size: 15 Confederates Lower (?*%)
Unanimity – Where one of the confederates gave the correct answer throughout. Lower (5%)
Unanimity – Where one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority.
Lower (9%)
Task Difficulty – Where the task was made significantly more difficult, by making the different between the line lengths significantly smaller.
Higher (?*%)
* *The actual percentages were not published by Asch
J NOTES
Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational variables affecting obedience including proximity, location and uniform, as investigated by Milgram.
What You Need to Know
Part 1 – Milgram (1963) Milgram (1963) conducted one of the most famous and influential
psychological investigations of obedience. He wanted to find out
if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an
authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they
were instructed to.
Milgram’s sample consisted of 40 male participants from a
range of occupations and backgrounds. The participants were
all volunteers who had responded to an advert in a local paper,
which offered $4.50 to take part in an experiment on ‘punishment
and learning’.
The 40 participants were all invited to a laboratory at Yale
University and upon arrival they met with the experimenter and
another participant, Mr Wallace, who were both confederates.
The experimenter explained that one person would be randomly
assigned the role of teacher and the other, a learner. However,
the real participant was always assigned the role of teacher. The
experimenter explained that the teacher, the real participant,
would read the learner a series of word pairs and then test their
recall. The learner, who was positioned in an adjacent room,
would indicate his choice using a system of lights. The teacher
was instructed to administer an electric shock ever time the
learner made a mistake and to increase the voltage after each
mistake.
The teacher watched the learner being strapped to the electric
chair and was given a sample electric shock to convince them
that the procedure was real. The learner wasn’t actually strapped
to the chair and gave predetermined answers to the test. As
the electric shocks increased the learner’s screams, which were
recorded, became louder and more dramatic. At 180 volts the
learner complained of a weak heart. At 300 volts he banged on
the wall and demanded to leave and at 315 volts he became
silent, to give the illusions that was unconscious, or even dead.
The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue,
or 450 volts was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the
experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of
prods, for example: ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’
Following the experiment the participants were debriefed.
Milgram found that all of the real participants went to at least 300
volts and 65% continued until the full 450 volts. He concluded
that under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey
unjust orders.
EvaluationJ Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for breaking
numerous ethical guidelines, including: deception, right to
withdraw and protection from harm. Milgram deceived his
participants as he said the experiment was on ‘punishment
and learning’, when in fact he was measuring obedience,
and he pretended the learner was receiving electric shocks.
In addition, it was very difficult for participants with withdraw
from the experiment, as the experimenter prompted the
participants to continue. Finally, many of the participants
reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while
J Outline and evaluate Milgram’s (1963) original research examining obedience.J Outline variations of Milgram which examine different variables affecting obedience and explain how these variations support the following factors:a. Agentic stateb. Legitimate authorityc. Proximityd. Locatione. Uniform
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 6 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 7
taking part in the experiment and therefore they were not
protect from psychological harm. This is an issue, as Milgram
didn’t respect his participants, some of whom felt very guilt
following the experiment, knowing that they could have
harmed another person. However, it must be noted that it was
essential for Milgram to deceive his participants and remove
their right to withdraw to test obedience and produce valid
results. Furthermore, he did debrief his participants following
the experiment and 83.7% of participants said that they were
happy to have taken part in the experiment and contribute to
scientific research.
J Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological
validity. Milgram tested obedience in a laboratory, which is
very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people
are often asked to follow more subtle instructions, rather
than administering electric shocks. As a result we are unable
to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience
and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe
instructions in the same way.
J Finally, Milgram’s research lacked population validity.
Milgram used a bias sample of 40 male volunteers, which
means we are unable to generalise the results to other
populations, in particular females, and cannot conclude if
female participants would respond in a similar way.
Part 2 – Variations of Milgram (1963)Following Milgram’s original research, numerous variations were
carried out to examine how different variables affect obedience.
Agentic State: An agentic state is when an individual carries
out the orders of an authority figure and acts as their agent, with
little personal responsibility. In Milgram’s original experiment, the
participants were told that the experimenter had full responsibility
and therefore they could act as an agent, carrying out the
experimenter’s orders. If the participants were told that they were
responsible, it is possible that Milgram would have obtained very
different results.
Milgram argued that people operate in one of two ways when
faced with social situations. Individuals can act autonomously
and choose their behaviour, or they can enter an agentic state,
where they carry out orders of an authority figure and do not
feel responsible for their actions. When a person changes from
autonomous state to an agentic state, they have undergone an
agentic shift.
In Milgram’s original experiment 65% of participants administered
the full 450 volts and were arguably in an agentic state.
However, in one variation of Milgram’s experiment and additional
confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of
the teacher. In this variation the percentage of participants
who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from
65% to 92.5%. This variation highlights the power of shifting
responsibility (agentic shift), as these participants were able
to shift their responsibility onto the person administering the
electric shocks and continue obeying orders because they
felt less responsible. Therefore, the ability to enter an agentic
state increases the level of obedience, as the level of personal
responsibility decreases.
Proximity: In Milgram’s original research the teacher and the
learner were in separate rooms. In order to test the power of
proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher
and learner where seated in the same room. In this variation the
percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts
dropped from 65% to 40%. Here obedience levels fell, as the
teacher was able to experience the learner’s pain more directly.
In another variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand
directly onto the shock plate. In this more extreme variation, the
percentage dropped even further, to 30%. In these two variations,
the closer the proximity of the teacher and learner, the lower the
level of obedience.
The proximity of the authority figure also affects the level of
obedience. In one variation, after the experimenter had given the
initial instructions they left the room. All subsequent instructions
were provided over the phone. In this variation participants
were more likely to defy the experimenter and only 21% of the
participants administers the full 450 volts.
location: Milgram’s conducted his original research in a
laboratory of Yale University. In order to test the power of
the location, Milgram conducted a variation in a run down
building in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The experiment was no
longer associated with Yale University and was carried out by
the Research Association of Bridgeport. In this variation the
percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts
dropped from 65% to 47.5%. This highlights the impact of
location on obedience, with less credible locations resulting in a
reduction in the level of obedience.
Uniform: In most of Milgram’s variations the experimenter
wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a University Professor.
Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where
the experimenter was called away and replaced by another
‘participant’ in ordinary clothes, who was in fact another
confederate. In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes
came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the
leaner made a mistake. The percentage of participants who
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 8 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an
ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the
dramatic power of uniform.
Bickman (1974) also investigated the power of uniform in a
field experiment conducted in New York. Bickman used three
male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security
guard; and one dressed in ordinary clothes. The actors asked
members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick
up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on
the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’.
Uniform
Situation
Paper bag Dime Bus stop
N % N % N %
Civilian 14 36 24 33 15 20
Milkman 14 36 24 33 15 20
Guard 14 36 24 33 15 20
On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the
milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30%. These results all
suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by
someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a
sense of legitimate authority and power.
legitimate Authority: Milgram’s variations investigating location
and uniform highlight an important factor in obedience research –
legitimate authority. For a person to obey an instruction they need
to believe that the authority is legitimate and this can be affected
by multiple variables.
In Milgram’s original research, which took place at Yale University,
the percentage of participants administering the full 450 volts was
high (65%). However, when the experiment took place in a run
down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience levels dropped
significantly (48%). This change in location reduced the legitimacy of
the authority, as participants were less likely to trust the experiment.
In addition, when the experimenter in Milgram’s research was
replaced by another participant, in ordinary clothes, the obedience
levels dropped even further (20%). The lack of a uniform and
questionable position of authority reduced the credibility of the
authority, which meant the participants were far less likely to obey.
J NOTES
Miligrams variations Variable %
Someone else administered the shock Agentic state 92.5
Miligrams original 65
The experiment took place in a run down building Location and legitimate authority 48
The teacher and learner were in the same room Proximity (leaner) 40
The teacher had to force the learners hand onto a shock plate
Proximity (leaner) 30
The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone
Proximity (authority figure) 21
The experimenter was replaced by another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes
Uniform and legitimate authority 20
Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
What You Need to Know
IntroductionConformity to social roles is when an individual adopts a
particular behaviour and belief, while in a particular social
situation. For example, whilst at school your teacher adopts the
behaviour and beliefs of a ‘teacher’, which may be very different
to the behaviour and beliefs they adopt with their friends at the
weekend. This type of conformity represents identification,
where a person changes their public behaviour and private
beliefs, but only while they are in a particular social role.
People learn how to behave is certain situations by observing
the social roles of others and conforming to this behaviour.
Therefore, a new teacher will quickly adopt the behaviours and
beliefs of other teachers in their school, as they conform to this
social role.
Zimbardo (1973)Zimbardo (1973) conducted an extremely controversial study
on conformity to social roles, called the Stanford Prison
Experiment. His aim was to examine whether people would
conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner, when
placed in a mock prison environment. Furthermore, he also
wanted to examine whether the behaviour displayed in prisons
was due to internal dispositional factors, the people themselves,
or external situational factors, the environment and conditions of
the prison.
Zimbardo’s sample consisted of 21 male university students who
volunteered in response to a newspaper advert. The participants
were selected on the basis of their physical and mental stability
and were each paid $15 a day to take part. The participants
were randomly assigned to one of two social roles, prisoners or
guards.
Zimbardo wanted to make the experience as realistic as possible,
turning the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison.
Furthermore, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested by real local police and
fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smocked to wear,
with chains placed around their ankles. The guards were given
uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon.
The guards were instructed to run the prison without using
physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks.
Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly
identified with their social roles. Within days the prisoners
rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then
grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners. The guards
dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and
forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners
became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their
subordinate role.
Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early,
because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental
torment, for example, crying and extreme anxiety. Although
the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated
after just six days, when fellow postgraduate student Christina
Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment
were inhumane. [Maslach later became Zimbardo’s wife].
Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social
roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles.
Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely
responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants
had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously.
Evaluation:J A recent replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment, carried
out by Reicher and Haslam (2006), contradicts the findings
of Zimbardo. Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s
J Outline and evaluate Zimbardo’s (1973) research investigating conformity to social roles
(identification?).
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 9
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 10 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
research by randomly assigning 15 men to the role of prisoner
or guard. In this replication, the participants did not conform
to their social roles automatically. For example, the guards
did not identify with their status and refused to impose their
authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the
guard’s authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a
collapse of the prison system. These results clearly contradict
the findings of Zimbardo and suggest that conformity to social
roles may not automatic, as Zimbardo originally implied.
J Furthermore, individual differences and personality also
determine the extent to which a person conforms to social
roles. In Zimbardo’s original experiment the behaviour of the
guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour
to a few good guards who helped the prisoners. This suggests
that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to
social roles and dispositional factors also play a role.
J Zimbardo’s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking
many ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm.
Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of
their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment.
Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety
and guilt, as a result of their actions during the Stanford
Prison Experiment. Although Zimbardo followed the ethical
guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants
afterwards, he acknowledged that the study should have been
stopped earlier.
J NOTES
Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.
What You Need to Know
Authoritarian personalityIn the previous section/chapter different variables affecting
obedience were examined, including: agentic state, legitimate
authority, proximity, location and uniform. These variables are
situational (external) factors that are result of the environment
or situation. However, psychologists have also examined
dispositional (internal) factors that also contribute to obedience.
One particular characteristic is the authoritarian personality,
which has been associated with higher levels of obedience.
Adorno et al. (1950) developed a questionnaire called the
California F scale, to measure levels of authoritarian personality.
In Milgram’s original research, psychologists questioned whether
the obedience occurred due to situational factors, for example,
uniform and location, or dispositional factors, such as a particular
personality characteristic. In order to answer this question,
Milgram conducted a follow-up study, using participants from his
original research.
Elms and Milgram (1966) wanted to see if the obedient
participants in Milgram’s research were more likely to display
authoritarian personality traits, in comparison to disobedient
participants. Their sample consisted of 20 obedient participants,
who administered the full 450 volts and 20 disobedient
participants, who refused to continue. Each participant
completed several personality questionnaires, including Adorno’s
F scale, to measure their level of authoritarian personality. In
addition, participants were also asked open-ended questions
about their relationship with their parents and their relationship
with the experimenter and learner, during Milgram’s experiment.
Elms and Milgram found that the obedient participants scored
higher on the F scale, in comparison to disobedient participants.
In addition, the results also revealed that obedient participants
were less close to their fathers during childhood [all of the
participants in Milgram’s original experiment were male] and
admired the experimenter in Milgram’s experiment, which was
the opposite for disobedient participants. Elms and Milgram
concluded that the obedient participants in his original research
displayed higher levels of the authoritarian personality, in
comparison to disobedient participants.
Evaluation:J Although the results of Elms and Milgram suggest a link
between authoritarian personality and obedience, these
results are correctional and it is therefore difficult to
draw meaningful conclusions about the exact cause of the
obedience. In addition, there are many other situational factors
that contribute to obedience, including proximity, uniform
and location. Therefore, although it is likely that authoritarian
personality contributes to obedience, a range of situational
variables can affect the level of this contribution.
J Furthermore, research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990)
has found that less-educated people are more likely to display
authoritarian personality characteristics, than well-educated
people. If these claims are correct then it is possible to
conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics
that lead to obedience, but levels of education.
J Finally, Elms and Milgram used Adorno’s F scale to determine
levels of authoritarian personality. It is possible that the F scale
suffers from response bias or social desirability, where
participants provide answers that are socially acceptable. For
example, participants may appear more authoritarian because
they believe that their answers are the socially ‘correct’ and
consequently they are incorrectly classified as authoritarian
when they are not.
Outline and evaluate one dispositional explanation for obedience: the authoritarian personality.
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 11
Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control.
What You Need to Know
Introduction to resistance to social influenceAsch’s (1951) research demonstrates the power of social
influence through conformity and his variations provide an insight
into how group size, unanimity and task difficult can increase
or decrease the influence of the majority. Milgram (1963) on the
other hand, highlights our susceptibility to obeying orders and
his variations reveal the different variables that can increase or
decrease our willingness to follow orders.
Since Asch and Milgram’s research, psychologists have examined
explanations of resistance to social influence, our willingness to
conform or obey, including social support and locus of control.
Explanations of resistance to social influenceOne reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or
obey is if they have an ally, someone supporting their point of
view. Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to
remain independent.
Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear
being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence.
Furthermore, individuals who have support for their point of view
are more likely to disobey orders.
Evaluation:J Evidence for this explanation comes from one of Asch’s (1951)
variations. In one of the variations, one of the confederates
was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In
this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This
demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their
belief (social support), then they are likely more likely to resist
the pressure to conform.
J Furthermore, evidence for this explanation comes from
Milgram (1974). In one of Milgram’s variations, the real
participant was paired with two additional confederates,
who also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the
two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew
from the experiment early. In this variation, percentage of real
participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts, dropped
from 65% (in the original) to 10%. This shows that if the real
participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they
are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure.
Variations from Asch and Milgram suggest that if an individual
has social support then they are likely to resist the pressure to
conform or obey.
Locus of controlIn some cases people can resist the pressure to conform or obey
because of their personality. Rotter (1966) proposed the idea of
locus of control, which is the extent to which people believe they
have control over their own lives.
People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens
in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and that
Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance
to social influence, including:
J Social Support
J Locus of Control
Locus of control
I controlmy destiny
Others controlmy destiny
INTERNAL EXTERNAL
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 12 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 13
they have control over their life. Whereas people with an external
locus of control believe that what happens to them is controlled
by external factors and that they do not have complete control
over their life.
Consequently, Rotter suggested that individuals with an internal
locus of control are more likely to resist the pressures to conform
or obey, in comparison to individuals with an external locus of
control.
Evaluation:J Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal
locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey.
Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-Jewish survivors
of WWII and compared those who had resisted orders and
protected Jewish people from the Nazi’s, in comparison to
those who had not. Oliner and Oliner found that the 406
‘rescuers’, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have
a high internal locus of control, in comparison to the 126
people who had simply followed orders. These results appear
to support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes
individuals less likely to follow orders, although there are many
other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders
in WWII and it is difficult to conclude that locus of control is
the only factor.
J Furthermore, research also supports the idea that individuals
with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform.
Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to
determine whether locus of control is associated with
conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals
with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform
than those with a high external locus of control, but only in
situations of normative social influence, where individuals
conform to be accepted. There was no difference between the
two groups for informational social influence. This suggests
that normative social influence, the desire to fit in, is more
power than informational social influence, the desire to be
right, when considering locus of control.
J NOTES
Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility.
What You Need to Know
Introduction to minority influenceSo far this chapter has examined research that focuses on the
persuasive power of the majority and our willingness to obey
an authority figure. However, social influence can occur when
a minority (small group) changes the attitudes, beliefs and
behaviours of a majority; this is known as minority influence.
Psychologists have identified different factors that can
enhance the effectiveness of a minority, including: consistency,
commitment and flexibility.
Research examining minority influenceConsistency and Commitment
One of the most influential experiments of minority influence
was conducted by Moscovici (1969). He wanted to see if a
consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect
answer, in a colour perception task.
His sample consisted of 172 female participants who were
told that they were taking part in a colour perception task. The
participants were placed in groups of six and shown 36 slides,
which were all varying shades of blue. The participants had state
out loud the colour of each slide.
Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition
(consistent) the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green;
in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24
of the slides were green and 12 were blue.
Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real
participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the
inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25%
of the trials. This shows that a consistent minority is 6.95% more
effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an
important factor in minority influence.
Note: It is important to note that consistency and
commitment are linked. If a minority is consistent in their
view then they also are showing commitment to their cause.
Another way a minority can show commitment is through
sacrifices, which will be examined in the next section
Evaluation:
J Moscovici used a bias sample of 172 female participants
from America. As a result, we are unable to generalise the
results to other populations, for example male participants,
and we cannot conclude that male participants would respond
to minority influence in the same way. Furthermore, research
often suggests that females are more likely to conform and
therefore further research is required to determine the effect of
minority influence on male participants.
J Moscovici has also been criticised for deceiving his
participants, as participants were told that they were taking
part in a colour perception test. This also means that
Moscovici did not gain fully informed consent. Although
it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Moscovici’s
experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results.
If the participants were aware of the true aim, they might have
displayed demand characteristics and acted differently.
Flexibility Moscovici demonstrates that consistency is an important factor
for minority influence, however research also suggests that
minorities require a degree of flexibility to remain persuasive and
that rigid and dogmatic minorities are less effective.
Nemeth (1986) investigated the idea of flexibility in which
participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of
Outline and evaluate research examining minority
influence, with reference to:
J Consistency
J Commitment
J Flexibility
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 14 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 15
compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident.
One of the participants in each group was a confederate and
there were two conditions: 1) when the minority argued for a
low rate of compensation and refused to change his position
(inflexible); 2) when the minority argued for a low rate of
compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate
of compensation (flexible). Nemeth found that in the inflexible
condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority,
however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more
likely to compromise and change their view.
Nemeth’s research highlights the importance of flexibility but
questions the idea of consistency. On the one hand, Moscovici
shows that minorities need to be consistent, whereas Nemeth
shows that minorities need to be flexible.
J NOTES
The role of social influence processes in social change.
What You Need to Know
Social changeSection 1.7 examined minority influence and the work of
Moscovici (1969) and Nemeth (1986) who concluded that a
consistent, committed and flexible minority is most effective in
influencing an individual. However, minority groups also play an
important role in facilitating social change by influencing an
entire society to change their attitude, behaviours and beliefs.
Moscovici (1980) put forward a conversion theory to explain
how social change occurs and there are three clear factors that
determine the success of a minority to facilitate social change,
including: consistency, sacrifices and group membership.
Firstly, the minority must be consistent in their opposition to
the majority. History has provided many real life examples, where
consistent individuals have challenged and questioned the
values and norms of society (and have been criminalised for their
views). Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela led civil rights
movements and were consistent in their views against apartheid
for many years, which helped bring about social change.
Furthermore, the results of Moscovici’s (1969) research highlight
the importance of consistency in minority influence. Moscovici
found that a consistent minority were more likely (8.4%) to
convince a majority that the colour of a slide was green when it
was in fact blue, in comparison to an inconsistent minority (1.3%).
Secondly, minorities that make sacrifices are more likely
to be influential. If minorities show their dedication to the
cause through sacrifice, for example imprisonment or even
death, their influence becomes more powerful. For example,
when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white male
passenger in the 1950s, she was arrested for violating US law.
This event helped trigger the civil rights movement to end the
racial segregation laws in America. The case of Rosa Parks
demonstrates that people who are willing to make a sacrifice (in
her case being arrested) show their commitment to their cause
and as a result are more influential.
Finally, if the minority is similar to the majority, in terms of class,
age, gender or even sexuality, then they are more likely to be
influential. Maass et al. (1982) investigated the idea of group
membership and found that a minority of heterosexual men
were more likely to convince a heterosexual majority about gay
rights, in comparison to a minority of homosexual people. Maass
concluded that ‘straight’ men have more persuasive power when
discussing gay rights with other straight men, in comparison to
gay men. This supports the idea that similarity in terms of group
membership is an important factor for minority influence and
social change.
This process can be used to explain many examples of social
change, which have occurred throughout history. For example,
the suffragettes were consistent in their view and persistently
used educational and political arguments to draw attention to
female rights. Furthermore, they remained consistent for many
years and despite opposition continued protesting and lobbying
until they convinced society that women were entitled to vote. In
addition, many of the suffragettes made significant sacrifices for
their cause; many risked imprisonment and others risked death
through extended hunger strikes, making their influence even
more powerful. Finally, the suffragettes used group membership
to convince other women to join their cause to expand their
influence and membership. Overtime their influence spread with
people considering the issue until it lead to social change and all
adults gaining the right to vote.
Outline how social influence research has contributed to our understanding of social change.
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Social Influence
Page 16 AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course Companion
AQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 17
KEY TERMS
Agentic state Individual carries out the orders of another person, acting as their agent with little personal responsibility
Authoritarian personality A person who has extreme respect for authority and is obedient to those who have power over them
Autonomous state Where individuals are seen as personally responsible for their actions
Cognitive dissonance Unpleasant feeling of anxiety created when simultaneously holding two contradictory ideas
Compliance Superficial type of conformity where people conform publicly by privately disagree
Confederates Alternative term for stooges or pseudo-participants
Conformity Changing what we do think or say in response to others
Dehumanisation Degrading people by lessening their human qualities
Deindividuation When a person moves into a group and as a result loses some individual identity
Dispositional attribution Explanation of individual behavior as a result caused by internal characteristics that reside within the individual
Identification Where people change their beliefs (sometimes temporarily) to fit in with a group
Individual variables Personal characteristics that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures
Internalisation Where people change their beliefs permanently
Ironic deviance Takes place when we believe that the behaviour of the majority is the result of unreasonable pressure from authority
locus of control Extent to which individuals believe they can control events in their lives
Majority influence Alternative term for conformity
Milgram paradigm Experimental procedure for measuring obedience rates
Minority influence Where a individual or small group influence attitudes and behaviour of a larger group
Morality Decisions and behaviour based upon the perception of proper conduct
Obedience Complying with the demands of an authority figure
Personality Combination of characteristics that forms an individual’s distinctive nature
Reactance Occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away his or her choices or limiting the range of alternatives
Situational variables Features of an environment that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures
Social change The process by which attitudes, beliefs and norms of acceptable behaviour vary over time
Social roles The parts individuals play as part of a social group
Social support Perception of assistance and solidarity available from others
Status The position of an individual within a hierarchical group
Systematic processing Analysis based on critical thinking
Unanimity Complete agreement from a group of people about an issue or question