Conformity//Obedience//Resisting Social Influence

2.  Conformity- A change in someone’s behaviour or opinions as a result of
pressure from others.
 Compliance- (Shallow) Conforming publically, but continuing to disagree
privately. (Temporary short-term).
 Internalisation- (Deep) Conforms publically and privately because they
have taken in and accepted the views of the rest of the group. The think it
is correct.
Normative Social Influence (NSI) Informational Social Influence (ISI)
•Social rules govern behaviour.
•Conformity is the need to fit in.
•Desire for acceptance and
approval.
•Public agreement with the group.
•Private disagreement.
•Change is temporary.
•Individual believes that the group has
more knowledge.
•Agrees with group due to uncertainty
about correct responses or behaviour.
•Public AND private agreement.
•The desire to be right and to have an
accurate view.
•Change is more permanent.

3. √Supporting Evidence: Lucas et al- P: Lucas et al is supporting
evidence for the explanations of conformity.
E: He asked students to give answers to mathematical questions (easy
and difficult) more conformity to difficult questions then there was to
the easy. People conform when they don’t know the answer.
L: Therefore, this supports Informal Social Influence explanation.
√Supporting Evidence: Asch 1951- P: Asch is supporting evidence for
the explanations of conformity.
E: He Found that many of his participants went along with a clearly
wrong answer because other people did. They did it because they felt
self conscious giving the correct answer, afraid of disapproval.
L: Therefore, this supports Normative Social Influence explanation.
×Individual Differences- P: ISI explanation doesn’t affect everyone's
behaviour the same way.
E: Eg. Asch found that students were less conforming(28%) than other
participants (37%).
L: Therefore, this suggests there are individual differences between
conformity rates and is not the same for everybody.

4.  Aim: Investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority
group could affect a person to conform.
 Method: Lab experiment. A line judgement task was used. P’s shown 2
cards. One was a standard line, the other was 3 more lines of different
sizes. ‘Ps were asked which of the 3 lines matched the standard line.
Each P tested at a time sat in a group of 6-8 confederates. They had to
say out loud their answer. The C’s all said a clearly wrong line. The P
12/18 times on different trials conformed and said the line they knew
was wrong.
 Results: 32% of P’s in each trial conformed. 75% conformed on at least
1 trial.

5. 1) Group Size: Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group
was important.
 He found that 1 C and 1 P = very low conformity rates (3%)
2 C and 1 P = 13% 3 C and 1 P = 33% it did not increase beyond
this size.
 More people in the group, more likely people conform.
2) Unanimity: Asch wanted to know if the presence of another
conforming confederate would affect the P’s conformity. He found that
when another non-conforming person was present the P’s conformity
dropped. This means it only takes one person to decrease conformity.
3) Task Difficulty: Wanted to see if the difficulty of the task would
increase conformity. He found that it did. When we are unsure about our
answers we conform.(ISI)

6. × Ecological Validity- P: Study loses ecological validity
E: It doesn’t reflect real life situations and tasks people actually do or situations
people are really in when they conform in those social settings.
L: Therefore, this means it cannot be applied to real life and lacks ecological
validity.
× Situation (Friends and Strangers)- P: Findings only apply to certain
situations.
E: problem because in Asch’s research the P’s were with a group of
strangers who they wanted to impress. Other research found that
conformity is higher when P is with friends rather than strangers.
L: Therefore, it is a contradiction of Asch’s research because the P’s were
with strangers.
× Temporal Validity- P: Research done later on (1980s) failed to replicate
the same findings.
E: Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s original study and found
that only one student out of 396 trials conformed. This is due to the
time.
L: Therefore, it is a problem because it means it cannot be generalised
across time.

7.  Factors Decreasing Conformity...
• Group size- Normative social influence reduced.
• Another non-conforming c- Unanimity has been lost.
• Carried out in present time- People conform more in the 1950s.
 Factors Increasing Conformity...
• Task difficulty- more unsure of their answer so conform.
• Situation (Friends/Strangers)- Friends= they want acceptance.
Strangers= they want to be right.
• Collectivist culture- More bothered about being a part of and
accepted in a community.

8.  Social Roles: The roles people play as members of social groups. Eg- parent,
child, student. They are expected to behave as what is expected of their role.
Zimbado et al (1974)- The Stanford Prison Experiment...
 After reports of prison brutality Zimbado wanted to see if its because
guards have sadistic personalities or they conform to social roles.
 Method: P’s all male psychology students at Stanford Uni, volunteers,
randomly allocated into 2 groups: prisoners + prison guards. Prisoners
spent 2 weeks locked in ‘cells’ and guards had to look after them and
keep them under control. Prisoners were ‘arrested’ unexpectedly at
home and taken to the uni. From then on referred to by number. 23
hours a day locked in their cells. Guards given uniform including sticks
and mirrored glasses. Worked shifts and were told they had complete
power over the prisoners.
 Results: exp. called off after 6 days; guards too brutal, 2 prisoners had
nervous breakdowns. One got a nervous rash and went on hunger strike.
Prisoners did not stand up to the guards.
 Conclusion: P’s reactions were so extreme could be because they
conformed to their social roles. Research supports the influence of social
roles because the simulation revealed the power of the situation to
influence peoples behaviour.

9. √High level of control- P: Control over extraneous variables
L: Therefore, this supports effect of social roles on conformity because
high levels of validity in the study.
√Artificial Situation- P: Lab experiment so artificial situation.
E: Not a real setting of a prison.
L: Therefore, it could lack validity as the participants knew is wasn’t a
real setting.
×Over Exaggerated- P: Zimbado over exaggerated the power of the
situation and minimised personality differences.
E: only one third of the guards behaved brutally, the others tried to help
and support the prisoners.
L: Therefore, the conclusion about social roles was inaccurate and the
p’s could resist from conforming to them.
×Ethical Issues- P: major limitation is ethical issues.
E: Zimbado took part as a more superior role and when a
student/prisoner asked to leave he said no, he had conformed to his
social role.
L: Therefore, it is unethical. Although years later he carried out
debriefing sessions and confirmed that no long term damage was
caused.

10. = A form of social influence in which an
individual follows a direct order. The person
giving the order is usually a figure of authority.

11. Conformity Obedience
Indirect request to change behaviour. Direct request to change behaviour.
Request to change is usually from a
group/society.
Request is just from one person.
Person influencing is usually a peer
of some status.
Person influencing is someone of a
higher status (Authority figure).
Can be seen as negative and we
don’t like admitting to it.
Obedience seen as positive, we don’t
mind admitting to it.

12.  Army private, Lynndie England was seen pointing at Iraqi prisoners
smiling. She claimed she was ordered to pose for the photo. She
said her actions were dictated by people in her higher chain of
command (Legitimate authority).

13.  He wanted to understand how German Nazi soldiers in WW2 could
follow commands to do such brutal things. His hypothesis was
‘Germans are different’.
 Procedure: Selected 40 participants by advertising for male
participants to take part in a study or ‘learning/memory’ at Yale
Uni.
 P’s were paired with another person and they drew paper out of a
box to decide who was going to be the ‘learner’ and who was going
to be the ‘teacher’. It was fixed so that the p was always the
teacher. Learner was a confederate.
 Learner taken into a room and wired up to electrodes, teacher and
researcher went into a room next door with an electric shock
generator and a row of switches marked 15v to 450v. P didn’t
know that it was all false. P was told to read out pairs of words that
he learner had to remember. If they got it wrong p had to shock
them. Starting at 15v and working up to 450v. Each time the
learner could be heard screaming or begging to be taken off.

14.  If they asked whether they should carry on the researcher would
first answer with ‘please go on’ then each time it would get more
commanding; ‘you have no other choice’.
Results:
 2% of people would shock to the highest level, most quit early on.
 All participants shocked up to 300v and 65% shocked all the way to
450v.
 Participants showed signs of extreme tension, sweating, trembling,
stuttering.
 All participants were debriefed and assured that their behaviour
was normal. They were sent a questionnaire and 84% were glad
that they took part.

15. √Real life supporting evidence-P: Hoffman et al (1966) supports
E: Experiment with nurses in a hospital ward who were asked by a fake
doctor to administer 20 milligrams of a fake drug to a patient in the
ward. This broke many hospital rules. 21 of 22 nurses obeyed but were
stopped on the way.
L: Therefore, the obedience shown in Milgram’s study can be applied to
real life.
×Ecological Validity- P: Lacks external validity.
E: Not tasks people really do so it does not replicate real life.
L: Therefore, it questions the extent to which the study can be applied
to real life.
×Population Validity- P: Lacks population validity.
E: Study carried out on 40 male participants.
L: Therefore, it cannot be generalised to (Eg) females.

16. Ethical Issue Milgram’s Study How he tried to address
it.
Right to withdraw
Yes- but it was made
harder; pressured into
continuing.
People were still
allowed to withdraw
and some did.
Informed Consent
No- were not informed
about the real purpose of
the study. (measure
obedience).
No
Deception
No- didn’t know the
learner was not being hurt,
didn’t know the roles were
fixed.
No
Protection from
harm
No- suffered psychological
harm with the knowledge
of potentially killing
someone.
Thoroughly debriefed
participants. 84% glad
they took part.

17. 1. Situational Variables=Factors that effect obedience
that are external.
 Proximity
• Refers to how close the authority figure is to the person receiving
orders.
• Same Room- Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
• Touch- Teacher had to force learners hand onto an electroshock
plate. Obedience rte dropped 30%.
• Remote- Researcher left the room and gave instructions through
a phone. Obedience reduced to 20.5%.

18.  Location
• The place where the order is used.
• Milgram did a variation in a run-down building instead of at Yale.
Obedience fell to 47.5% from 65%.
• The influence of power and reputation was taken away.
 Uniform
• Authority figures usually have specific outfits that is symbolic of
their role.
• Original study the researcher wore grey lab coat as a symbol of
authority. Variation was an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in
normal clothes.
• Obedience dropped to 20%, the lowest variation.

19. √Control of Variables- P: He had high control of variables.
E: It allowed Milgram to systematically alter one variable to see what affect
it had on obedience. The study was repeated multiple times.
L: Therefore, high control of variables allows him to establish cause and
effect with obedience and situational factors.
√Supporting Evidence- P: Bickman- the power of the uniforms
E: 3 male researchers gave orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in
NYC. Each was dressed in one of three ways: suit and tie, milkman’s
uniform, guards uniform. They gave different orders. People obeyed to the
guard most (80%) and the milkman less (40%).
L: Therefore, it supports the power of the uniform in Milgram’s study.
×Western Cultures Only- P: Mainly taken place in western cultures.
E: problem because these countries are not too different from the USA
(Individualistic).
L: Therefore, it may be different if carried out in non western cultures
(Collectivist) eg Japan.

20. 2. Agentic State= A mental state where we feel no
personal responsibility for our behaviour because we are acting for
(agent for) an authority figure. Agentic state involves shifting
responsibility for someone’s actions onto someone else.
• Agentic Shift: Moving from an autonomous state (sees themselves
being responsible for their actions) to an agentic state (sees
themselves as an agent for someone else’s wishes).
• Autonomy= To be independent or free.
• Binding Factors- In order to leave the experiment the participant
must break the commitment they had made to the experimenter.

21. √Supporting Evidence- P: Hoffman et al (1966)
E: Nurses on a hospital ward asked by a fake doctor to give 20 milligrams
of a fake drug to a patient in the ward, breaking several hospital rules
including not taking orders over the phone. 21 of 22 nurses obeyed but
were stopped before they did it.
L: Therefore, it suggests that people obey because they nurse was an
agent under the doctors authority.
×Doesn’t account for real life- P: Does not explain real life obedience.
E: Milgram claimed people shift between autonomous state and agentic
state rapidly, this doesn’t explain the gradual and irreversible transition
from German doctors in Auschwitz going from their normal professions to
carrying out lethal and vile experiments on helpless prisoners. Some have
suggested it is the experience of carrying out acts of evil over a long time
that changes the way we think and behave.
L: Therefore, this evidence suggests an alternative explanation for
obedience besides agentic state.

22. 3.Legitimacy of Authority= We are more likely to
obey people who we perceive to have authority over us because their
authority is legitimate by society.
Most societies are structured in a social hierarchy, meaning certain
positions have authority over others. Eg, police, teachers.
√Supporting Evidence- P: Bickman et al (1974)
L: Therefore, it supports Milgram’s findings.

23.  Dispositional Explanation- Any explanation of behaviour that highlights
the importance of an individuals personality. (In other words) explanations of
behaviours such as obedience emphasise them being caused by an
individual’s own personal characteristics rather than situational factors in
the environment.
 Authority Personality- (Adorno 1951) A type of personality that Adorno
argued was characterised by strict compliance conventional values and a
belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority.
 Authoritarian Characteristics:
• Very obedient to authority.
• Extreme respect to authority.
• Show contempt (Look down on) people they see as inferior.
• No ‘grey areas’- everything is either right or wrong.
Adorno concluded this is formed in childhood as a result of harsh punishment.
Involving parents who were very strict, expected absolute loyalty and high standards.

24.  Procedure:
He investigated the causes of the obedient personality in a study of
more than 2000 middle-class white Americans and their unconscious
attitudes towards other racial groups. They developed several scales
to investigate this, including the potential for a fascism scale (F-
Scale) used to measure authoritarian personality.
Example of questions used: ‘Obedience and respect for authority are
the most important virtues children should learn’.
Findings:
 Strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
 People with authoritarian leanings (High on the F-Scale) identified
with strong people and looked down on the ‘weak’.

25. √Supporting Evidence- P: Elms & Milgram(1966) E:
Wanted to see if obedient participants from Milgram’s study would show
authoritarian personality traits. Participants included 20 who gave 450V and 20 who
refused to continue. Each P completed a questionnaire and questions about their
relationship with their parents. They found that obedient participants scored higher
on the F-scale compared to disobedient ones. Obedient p’s were less close to their
fathers in childhood. Opposite fir disobedient participants.
L: Therefore, it supports the personality explanation of obedience as it suggests
that the obedient group were higher in the trait of authoritarianism.
× Correlational Research- P: Research by Elms & Milgram and Adorno is
correlational.
E: Is a problem because the cause and effect cannot be established there could be
other contributing factors or variables.
L: Therefore, challenges the reliability of the authoritarian personality explanation
because he could not claim that harsh parenting caused the development of an
authoritarian personality.

26. = The ability of people to withstand social
pressure to conform to the majority or to obey
authority. (Situational and Dispositional factors)
Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence...

27.  Social Support- The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help
others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social
influence is possible.
 Conformity
• Social support can help people to resist conformity. Pressure to conform can be reduced if there
are others not conforming. (Non-Conforming Role Model).
 In Asch’s research the non-conforming confederate didn’t have to be giving the right answer,
just the fact that someone else was not conforming is enough.
√Supporting Evidence- P: Allen & Levine.
E: Conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study. This occurred
even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision.
L: Therefore, this supports that resistance enables someone to be free of the pressure of the
group.
 Obedience
• Social support can help people to resist obedience. Pressure to obey can be reduced if there are
others disobeying. (Disobedient Role Model).
• In Milgram’s research the obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the participant was joined
by a disobedient confederate.
√Supporting Evidence- P: Gamson et al.
E: P’s in groups and had to produce evidence to falsely damage the reputation of an oil
company. They found higher levels of resistance in their study than milgram, 29 of 33 groups of
p’s rebelled. This is because they were in groups.
L: Therefore, this shows that social (peer) support is linked to greater resistance.

28.  LOC- This refers to the level of control we recognise to have over
events and situations in our lives.
• Internal LOC- Person believes they are able to control what happens to
them and to control success in their life.
• External LOC- Person believes they have little or no control over what
happens to them and regards success as due to external,
uncontrollable events.
 Rotter (1966) introduced the idea of locus of control…
• The extent to which a person thinks and feels they are able to control
what happens to them.

29. √Supporting Evidence- P:WW2 Oliner & Oliner (1988)
E: Interviewed two groups of non-jewish people who had lived through the
Holocaust and Nazi Germany. They compared 406 people who had protected and
rescued jews, and 126 people who didn’t. group that rescued jews had scores
demonstrating and internal locus of control.
L: Therefore, this shows the impact that LOC can have in resisting obedience, even
in dramatic situations.
× Methodological Problem: Questionnaire- P: Limitation of explanations of LOC
is with methodology of questionnaire.
E: Is a problem because people can lie and give socially desirable answers. If the
questions are hard to understand they may write just anything.
L: Therefore, it challenges the validity of the measurement used for LOC and
questions the explanation for resistance to obedience.

30.  Moscovici was the first to discover minority influence.
 Minority Influence- Refers to the situations where a minority persuade others to
adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. (Opposite to conformity.)
 Minority influence is most likely to lead to internalisation- the process changed both
public behaviour and private beliefs.
 Behavioural Characteristics of Minority Influence:
• Consistency: Minority influence is effective if they keep the same beliefs
over time and are consistent, it draws attention to the minority view.
• Commitment: More powerful if they demonstrate dedication to their
position, e.g. making personal sacrifices. Shows minority are not acting
out of self interest.
• Flexibility: constant consistency may be counter-productive if it is seen by
the majority as unbending and unreasonable. More effective is they show
flexibility by accepting possible compromising.

31.  “Calling a blue slide green”
 Aim: To investigate process of innovation by looking at how a consistent
minority effect the opinions of a larger group, possible creating doubt and
leading them to question and alter their views.
 Procedure: All female group of P’s first had an eye test to check they were
not colour blind. Then put in groups of 4 with 2 confederates. Shown 36
slides different shades of blue and had to state the colour out loud. 2
conditions in the experiment. (Control group = no confederates)
• Condition 1: confederates said green for every slide (Consistent).
• Condition 2: Confederates inconsistent and answered green 24 times and
blue 12 times. (Inconsistent).
▶ Findings: Consistent group= 8.42% of trials resulted in participants
answering green. (Agreeing with minority). 32% agreed at least once.
Inconsistent group= 1.25% of trials resulted in p’s answering green.
▶ Link: Therefore, the study shows how minorities can change the opinion of
the majority when they are consistent.
▶ More consistent= More influential.

32. √Supporting Evidence- P: Clarke (1994) ‘Twelve angry men’
E: 270 college students were asked to role play the part of jurors and read the
summary of the court case from 12 angry men. The students did not know the film
and were asked to decide whether he was guilty. P’s given a summary of the case
and the jury’s decision about key pieces of evidence. The persuasiveness of the
arguments and views of the jury were manipulated (IV). P’s were asked for their
views about the guilt of the defendant at different stages (DV).
P’s most persuaded when they heard consistent persuasive arguments from
minority.
L: Therefore, this shows the minority influence is most effective when they are
consistent.
× Methodological Problem: Artificial- P: Tasks involved are artificial.
E: They are not real tasks people do in normal life, the tasks have no consequences
in real life so it affects the way they change their ideas.
L: Therefore, suggests minority influence studies (Eg Moscovici) are artificial in what
they can tell us about how minority influence works in real life situations.

33.  Social Influence: Process which individuals and groups change each others attitudes and
behaviours. Includes conformity. Obedience and minority influence.
 Social Change: Occurs when whole societies, not just individuals, adopt new attitudes, way of
doing things and beliefs. Eg Women’s rights and African-American rights.
 African-American civil rights movement.
1. Drawing Attention: Done through social proof- 1950s America, black separation
everywhere. Civil rights marches drew attention to the situation by providing social
proof of the problem.
2. Consistency: Many marches and many people taking part. Even though they were
the minority of American population, they showed consistency of their message
and intentions.
3. Deeper Processing: Deeper processing of the issue- the attention meant that
people who just accepted the status quo began to think about the unfairness of it.
4. The Augmentation Principle: People risked their lives eg ‘Freedom Riders’ were
mixed race groups who got on busses to show that black people had to sit
separately, many were beaten.
5. Snowball effect: Civil rights activists (Eg Martin Luther King) continued to press for
changes that gradually got the US government’s attention. 1964 civil right acts
passed, prohibited discrimination, represented a change from minority to majority.
6. Social Cryptoamnesia: People know a change has happened but can’t remember
how it happened. People forget the events that led to the change.

34. √Supporting Evidence- P: Nolen et al (2008)
E: Investigated whether social influence processes led to a reduction in energy
consumption in a community. Hung messages about most residents trying to
reduce their energy usage on the doors of houses in San Diego every week for one
month. As a control group some residents had a different message asking them to
reduce their energy with no reference to others behaviour. There was a significant
energy decrease in the first group.
L: Therefore, shows conformity can lead to social change through normative social
influence.
× Limited (Takes a long time)- P: Happens very slowly.
E: Eg it has taken decades for the attitudes to drink-driving and smoking to change.
L: Therefore, challenges the us of minority influence to explain social change
because it shows that it’ effects are fragile and its role in social influence is limited.
× Methodological Problem- P: Explanations of how social influence leads to social
change draw heavily on the studies of Moscovici, Asch and Milgram.
E: These studies can all be questioned because the studies are artificial as the tasks
are not things we do in real life.
L: Therefore, this suggests that the explanations of social change lack external
validity.