SOCIAl INflUENECE - Weebly · Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course CompanionAQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 3Explanations for conformity: informational social influence

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.


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



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



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.


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





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



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.


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?).





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.


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.



Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control.


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





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.


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





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.


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.





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

Documents

SOCIAl INflUENECE - Weebly · Social Influence AQA AS Psychology Course CompanionAQA AS Psychology Course Companion Page 3Explanations for conformity: informational social influence