Social Influence Flashcards
(21 cards)
Conformity
Tendency to change our views in response to influence of a larger group
Compliance
Superficial privately disagree short term e.g laugh at a joke
Identification
Moderate identify with a groups mostly privately accept but main purpose to be part of group
Internalisation
Deepest long lasting vegan
Asch research in conformity
- AIM = if people would conform to groups pressure even when wrong answer obvious
- 123 American undergraduates shown 3 lines one standard compare
- 7 males seated at front 6 were confederates
- 12/18 trials told to say wrong answer
- in critical trial participants last to answer
- found mean conformity rate 37% of critical trials
- 5% conformed on very trial
- 25% completely INDEPENDANT
- in control group only gave the wrong answer in 1% of trails
- compliance main cause
Variables effecting conformity
Unanimity
- extent to all members agree
- asch study dissenter sometimes gave right answer some wrong
- rate dropped to 37%to 25 so concluded unanimity reduces conformity
Group size
- asch manipulated this found when there was small group giving wrong answer of 1 or 2 confederates conformity rates low but under pressure from 3 confederates rates increased to 32%. Further increases in size of majority did’nt increase conformity a great deal
- beyond 7 confederates rate decrease slightly, concluded size of majority important only to a point.
Task difficulty
- more difficult more likely to conform as not confident in their answer look to others tested this by making teh lines more similar so harder to compare rates increased
AO3 Asch
X evidence against this Perrin Spenser 1981 = found when repeated only 1 person conformed in 396 trials concluded people don’t always conform as much as Asch’s original study suggested.problem as Asch’s study may be seen as ‘a child of its time’ lacking temporal validity.
+ strength well controlled= setting of a lab made it easy to control extraneous e.g able to control lighting, lines used to ensure participants could clearly judge length of lines.study measured what it intended to measure (i.e. conformity),high internal validity.
+ easy to replicate:means controlled setting of lab made it easier to repeat research in exactly same way, adjusting variables each time to test their influence on conformity. For example, Asch able to keep everything same (standardised), but change variables such as size of group and the difficulty of the task. This is positive as it allowed Asch’s research to test which variables affect conformity the most to gain a better understanding.
X Low ecological validity: although lab setting controlled, artificial setting doesnt represent real-life as people would usually be able to question why others giving wrong answers in real-life situations but Asch did not allow participants to do this. So not generalise to real-life conformity situations.
X High demand characteristics: because participants were aware taking part in study may have behaved unnaturallymay
have tried to please Asch by behaving in a way they thought they were intended to by conforming.lower the study’s internal validity.
X Deception: deliberately misleading participants Asch told participants that all of the people sat around table were participants when they were really confederates which resulted in many participants reporting feeling embarrassed foolish after experiment. goes against ethical code of conduct. Not possible to gain full informed consent until afterwards when they are told truth in debrief. again against ethical code.
But wouldnt have been able to obtain realistic results if dint use deception.
Explanations of conformity - normative social influence NSI
To get approval public compliance
AO3
+ Evidence to support the NSI explanation comes from Asch’s conformity research:found when group of confederates unanimously have same wrong answer on unambiguous line judgement task mean conformity rate 37%. concluded they conformed to avoid standing out, suggests we do conform out of a desire to be liked, as we will publically conform to gain approval from the group even when we privately disagree (compliance).
+Asch repeated his study but asked participants to write down answers instead of saying rates fell 37% to 12.5%.
suggests conformity rates much lower when as less fear of social disapproval rejection as the group didnt hear their answers
X However, the NSI explanation may struggle to explain individual differences:
Asch’s original research, although found mean conformity rate of 37%, were wide variations between participants. For example, 25% remained completely independent, going against majority giving right answer on all 12 critical trials despite considerable group pressure.so doesnt considerpersonality differences between people that might make some people more susceptible to NSI than others.
Explanations of conformity - informational social influence ISI
When dont know what to do
AO3
1. Asch’s Variation (Task Difficulty):
• When Asch made the lines more similar, the task became harder.
• Conformity increased because participants doubted their own judgement.
• supports ISI: we conform in ambiguous situations as believe others know better and we want to be right.
2. Limitation (Ecological Validity):
• Asch’s study was in an artificial lab using a simple, unrealistic task.
• So, may not reflect real-life conformity – lowers ecological validity.
- Lucas et al. (2006) – Realistic Support:
• Students answered easy or hard maths problems.
• More conformity on harder questions, especially from those with low confidence in maths.
• Supports ISI: we look to others who seem more knowledgeable when we’re unsure. - ISI & NSI Overlap – Asch’s Dissenting Variation:
• When a dissenter added, conformity dropped to 25%.
• Could be due to NSI reduced (less pressure to fit in)
or ISI reduced (alternative source of info).
• Shows hard to separate ISI and NSI – both can happen together.
Zimbardo research into social roles 1973
Social roles = behaviours expected by individuals who occupies position/status
Aim:
• To test if ordinary people would conform to social roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison (Stanford Prison Experiment - SPE).
Method:
• Advertised for student volunteers.
• Chose 24 emotionally stable males.
• Randomly assigned roles of prisoner or guard.
Prisoners:
• Arrested at home by real police.
• Blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused, given uniforms and ID numbers.
• Had to follow 16 strict rules (e.g. call guards “Mr. Correctional Officer”).
Guards:
• Wore uniforms, reflective sunglasses, carried batons, handcuffs.
• Given full control (e.g. deciding toilet breaks).
• Called prisoners by their numbers, not names.
• Zimbardo acted as Prison Superintendent.
• Study planned to last 2 weeks.
Findings:
• Guards became increasingly abusive:
• Woke prisoners at night, made them clean toilets with bare hands.
• Rebellion by prisoners on Day 2:
• Ripped uniforms, shouted at guards.
• Guards responded with fire extinguishers.
• After rebellion:
• Prisoners became depressed, anxious, passive.
• 5 prisoners left early due to extreme reactions (e.g. crying, rage).
• Study stopped after 6 days (planned for 14).
Conclusion:
• People quickly conform to social roles, especially in highly structured environments.
• Both guards and prisoners lost personal identity and identified with their roles.
• Shows social roles have a powerful influence on behaviour.
AO3
Strength – High Control:
• Zimbardo selected emotionally stable participants.
• Randomly assigned them to roles = reduced individual differences.
• Shows behaviour was due to situation, not personality.
• Positive: High internal validity.
Weakness – Not All Guards Were Brutal:
• Some guards were ‘good’ – didn’t harass prisoners, did small favours.
• Suggests they chose how to behave, didn’t blindly conform.
• Weakness: Challenges the idea that roles alone cause behaviour.
Weakness – Demand Characteristics:
• Participants may have been ‘acting’, not genuinely conforming.
• A group of students guessed how people would behave.
• One guard copied a character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’.
• Problem: Reduces internal validity – may not reflect real behaviour.
Weakness – Contradictory Evidence (BBC Study):
• Reicher & Haslam (2006) found prisoners took control.
• Prisoners developed a shared identity, guards didn’t.
• Supports Social Identity Theory instead.
• Problem: Shows we don’t always conform to roles – other factors matter.
Ethical Issues:
• Participants consented, but may not have known how harmful it would be.
• Some experienced severe emotional distress.
• Zimbardo admitted the study should’ve been stopped earlier.
• Weakness: May have broken ethical guidelines (e.g. protection from harm).
• But: Debriefing was done, and no long-term harm was found.
Strength – Practical Applications:
• Shows how normal people can behave brutally in certain social contexts.
• Can help prevent abuse in real prisons (e.g. Abu Ghraib scandal).
• Positive: Raises awareness and may help prevent future cruelty.
Obedience
type of social influence someone acts in response to a direct order which comes from a figure of authority. There is also the implication that person receiving order is made to respond in a way that he or she would not otherwise have done (i.e. they are changing their behaviour).
Milgrams research in obedience 1963
Aim:
• To test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis – the idea that Germans were more likely to obey harmful orders.
Procedure:
• 40 American men volunteered.
• Took place at Yale University (a respected setting).
• Told it was a study on the effects of punishment on learning.
• Participants were always the ‘teacher’, confederate was the ‘learner’.
• Teacher had to give electric shocks for wrong answers on a memory test (word pairs).
• Shock generator: from 15V (‘slight shock’) to 450V (‘XXX’).
Authority Pressure:
• If the participant hesitated, the experimenter used ‘verbal prods’ like:
• “You must continue.”
• Goal: See how far people would obey unreasonable orders.
Findings:
• Participants showed signs of extreme stress: sweating, shaking, stuttering.
• Many protested, but 65% still gave the full 450V shock.
• Before the study, experts predicted only 1 in 1000would go that far.
Conclusion:
• Obedience to authority is common – not just a German trait.
• Ordinary people can show blind and destructive obedience to unjust orders.
AO3
Support – Bickman (1974):
• People were more likely to obey a man in a guard uniform (92%) than in street clothes (49%) when asked to lend money.
• Supports Milgram’s idea that we obey authority figures, even when orders are unusual.
• Though not destructive obedience, it shows appearance of authority increases obedience.
Strength – High Control:
• Took place in a lab setting, so extraneous variables were controlled.
• Milgram controlled:
• Learner’s pre-recorded responses
• Sounds at specific voltages
• Standard verbal prods
• Positive: Increases internal validity (more accurate cause-and-effect).
Strength – Easy to Replicate:
• Lab setting made it easy to repeat.
• Milgram could change one variable at a time (e.g. authority figure’s proximity or uniform).
• Positive: Helped discover which factors most influence obedience.
Weakness – Low Ecological Validity:
• Artificial setting (lab) and task (giving shocks) not like real life.
• People may act differently with real-life authority (e.g. police, bosses).
• Problem: Findings may not apply to real-world obedience.
Weakness – Demand Characteristics:
• Unusual task may have made participants guess the study was fake.
• Orne suggested they didn’t believe the shocks were real.
• Problem: May not have truly obeyed = low internal validity.
Weakness – Ethical Issues (Deception):
• Participants were misled – believed shocks were real.
• They did not give informed consent.
• Only found out the truth during the debrief.
• Problem: Breaks ethical guidelines.
Counterpoint – Necessary Deception:
• Milgram defended the use of deception.
• Said it was essential to get realistic obedience behaviour.
• Without it, participants wouldn’t have acted the same.
Factors effecting obedience
Proximity: physical closeness or nearness of an authority figure to the person giving order to. close increases pressure to obey In Milgram’s research, when researcher left room gave orders over the telephone, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 21%.
Location:place an order is issued.In Milgram’s original study conducted in prestigious setting of Yale obedience rate was 65%. Participants claimed that the location of the study gave them confidence in the integrity of people
involved. In Milgram’s variation where participants were tested in the run-down office, the obedience rate to 48%.
Uniform: symbolic of their authority that indicates to the rest of us that they can expect our obedience. In one of Milgram’s variations, the experimenter was called away at the start of the procedure and was replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat obedience rate dropped from 65% (with a lab coat) to 20% (without).
Explanations of obedience - legitimacy of authority
More likely to obey when believe more authority within social hierarchy apparent more likely to trust respect power to punish
AO3
+ when done in prestigious Yale 65% when run down = 25
+ bickerman 1974 asked passers-by in New York to lend money to a stranger for a parking meter: obey 49% of the time whendressed in street clothes. increased to 92% when dressed in security guard’s uniform. supports the explanation because shows more likely to follow unusual orders when person giving them appears to have ‘true’ authority. Wearing a uniform increases perceived social power, making obedience more likely.
X but many still do obey os showes must be another reason
Explanations of obedience -Agentic state
Obey order seen as working on behalf Asa gent of authoritarian personality so see the self’s as no responsibility agentic shift autonomous to agentic.
AO3
Support for the ‘agentic state’ explanation comes from Milgram (1963):he asked a range of people before his obedience study to predict how far participants would go before refusing to obey, they predicted only 1 in 1,000 would continue to the maximum level of 450 volts (which might represent the autonomous state), but, in the study, when faced with an authority figure saying he would take responsibility, 65% of participants continued to 450 volts (representing the agentic state).supports the idea that people obey when they shift responsibility to an authority figure.
X It doesn’t explain individual differences: Milgram’s study, 65% obeyed, but 35% didn’t. This shows that not everyone shifts to the agentic state. Maybe some personality types resist it more.explanation is limited—it doesn’t explain why only some people obey.
X It doesn’t explain all real-life obedience: Mandel (1998) found that a Nazi Police Battalion killed civilians even though they were told they didn’t have to and could do other jobs. shows they obeyed without needing to shift responsibility to an authority figure.So, again, not all obedience is about the agentic state.
The Dispositional Explanation for Obedience: The Authoritarian Personality
personality type especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. hostile to people of inferior status but obedient to people of higher, rigid beliefs opinions strictly uphold traditions due to strict parenting during childhood.
Research into the Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950):
Adorno wanted to find out if certain personality types make people more likely to obey authority.
• He studied 2,000 middle-class Americans, using the Fascism Scale (F-Scale) to measure Authoritarian Personality traits.
• Participants rated how much they agreed or disagreed with statements about ethnic and religious minorities, politics, economics, and morals.
• Those who scored highest were then interviewed to explore what might cause this personality type.
Findings:
• People with an authoritarian personality had rigid thinking—they saw people in strict categories with fixed, stereotypical views.
• They admired strong leaders, disliked the ‘weak’, and were obsessed with status—showing too much respect to those in authority.
• There was a positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice—the more authoritarian someone was, the more prejudiced they were
Conclusion:
People with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey authority because they believe in strong leadership and traditional values like patriotism, religion, and family
AO3
Can’t explain mass obedience:
• In pre-war Nazi Germany, millions obeyed orders and supported racist ideas.
• But they didn’t all have the same personality.
• So, the Authoritarian Personality theory can’t explain obedience across an entire population.
• It may work for individual cases, but not for society-wide behaviour.
Ignores important situational factors:
• Milgram’s studies show obedience depends on context, not just personality.
• Factors like:
• How close the authority figure is (proximity)
• Where the study takes place (location)
• Whether the authority figure wears a uniform
• These things significantly affect obedience.
• So, the theory is incomplete if it ignores the power of the situation.
No cause and effect – just a correlation:
• Just because someone is authoritarian and obedient doesn’t mean one causes the other.
• There could be a third variable, like low education, that affects both.
• So, it’s only a correlation, not proof.
Risk of investigator bias in the research:
• The interviewers knew the F-Scale scores and the research aims.
• This could cause investigator effects (they may have unconsciously influenced the participants).
• This would reduce the internal validity of the findings.
Supporting evidence – Elms & Milgram (1966):
• They interviewed 20 obedient participants from Milgram’s study.
• These people scored higher on the F-Scale (more authoritarian).
• They also saw the experimenter as admirable and the learner as less likeable.
• This supports Adorno’s theory—that authoritarian people are more likely to obey
Explanations of resistance to social influence including locus of control
Rotter 1966 is the persons perception of personal control over their own behaviour usually measured by self report questionnaires scored between high internal to high external with levels in between
Diagram in booklet
High internal = in control high external = blame external influences e.g wrong place time so internals likely to resist conformity
AO3
Supporting evidence – Holland (1967):
• He replicated Milgram’s study and measured people’s Locus of Control (LOC).
• Found that 37% of internals resisted (didn’t give the full shock), compared to only 23% of externals.
• So, internals were more resistant to authority.
• This supports the idea that a high internal LOC helps people resist social influence (like obedience).
Contradictory evidence – Twenge et al. (2004):
• They looked at studies from 1960 to 2002 and found that over time, people became:
• More resistant to obedience
• But also more external
• This goes against the theory, because if resistance is linked to being internal, we’d expect people to become more internal, not more external.
• So, this challenges the validity of the LOC explanation.
LOC may only matter in new (novel) situations – Rotter (1982):
• LOC seems to only influence behaviour in unfamiliar situations.
• In familiar situations, people tend to act based on past experiences instead.
• For example, someone who obeyed before will probably do so again—even if they have an internal LOC.
• This means the role of LOC is limited and may not apply to all situations
Social support
• Pressure to conform is strongest when the group is unanimous (everyone acts the same).
• Pressure to obey is strongest when everyone obeys the authority figure.
• If one person resists conformity or obedience (a dissenter), it can help others resist too.
• Dissenters act as models, showing that resistance is possible.
• They also show how to resist and the consequences of doing so.
• For example, if someone disobeys an authority figure and avoids punishment, others may feel less afraid to disobey.
• Social support from allies can free people to follow their own conscience.
AO3
Asch (1951) – conformity dropped with a dissenter:
• In the line judgement task, if one person disagreed with the majority, conformity dropped from 37% to 25%.
• This was true even when the dissenter gave a different wrong answer—it still gave others a reason not to conform.
• This supports the idea that social support helps people resist conformity.
Allen & Levine (1971) – vision-impaired dissenter still reduced conformity:
• In an Asch-style experiment, a dissenter who wore thick glasses and said he had poor vision still reduced conformity.
• This shows that it’s not about blindly following others, but about feeling freer from group pressure when someone disagrees.
• Again, this supports the idea that social support gives people confidence to resist.
Milgram (1963) – disobedient allies reduced obedience:
• When participants were paired with others who refused to obey, the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10%.
• This suggests people feel ‘freed’ to disobey when others do too.
• So, social support also helps people resist authority and not just conformity.
Minority influence
form of social influence in which a minority persuade majority to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. most likely to lead to internalisation
(Moscovici, 1969): aimed to test whether a minority group were more likely to influence a majority group into giving the incorrect answer on a colour perception test if they were consistent in their views.
172 female participants all had their eyesight tested, Each test involved a group of six people, made up of four participants and two confederates (a minority trying to influence the participants’ behaviour). Shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to say what colour each slide was. In one condition, the two confederates stated out loud that the blue slides were green (incorrect answer) every time (the consistent condition). In another condition, the two confederates answered green 24 times and blue 12 times (the inconsistent condition).
It was found that in the inconsistent condition, 1.25% of the participants’ answers were green but in the consistent condition, 8.42% of the answers were green. In the control condition (with no confederates), only 0.25% of incorrect answers were given.concluded that that if minority wants to influence need to be consistent .
AO3
strength was well controlled:
• It took place in a laboratory, which made it easier to control extraneous variables.
• For example, lighting and slides were controlled so participants could clearly judge the colours.
• This is positive because it means the study measured what it intended to (i.e. it had high internal validity).
However, the study had low ecological validity:
• A lab is an artificial setting and doesn’t reflect real-life situations.
• In the real world, minorities argue for serious issues (e.g. civil rights), not over colours of slides.
• This is a problem because the findings may not generalise to real-world minority influence.
The study may also have suffered from high demand characteristics:
• Participants knew they were in a study and may have acted in unnatural ways.
• They may have tried to please the researcher by conforming.
• This is a problem because it reduces internal validity – we can’t be sure they acted naturally.
Deception is another ethical issue:
• Participants were misled – they were told everyone around the table was a participant.
• In reality, some were confederates working with the researcher.
• This could have caused embarrassment or distress.
• This breaks the ethical principle of informed consent.
• Since deception was used, fully informed consent could only be gained afterwards during the debrief.
• Again, this goes against ethical guidelines.
• However, without deception, Moscovici would not have been able to get realistic results.
Evidence Against Moscovici: Nemeth & Brilmayer (1987)
• In a mock jury study, a confederate gave a different view about compensation in a ski-lift accident.
• If the confederate was inflexible and refused to compromise, they had no influence.
• But when they showed flexibility, they did influence the group.
• This suggests that being too consistent can seem rigid, and flexibility may be more effective.
Factors involved in Minority Influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility
Consistency’:
is more likely to influence majority group if consistent views synchronic consistency – they’re all saying the same thing), and/or consistency over time diachronic consistency – they’ve been saying the same thing for some time now). This consistency leads the majority to doubt themselves which can lead to behaviour change.
AO3
Evidence from Moscovici (1969) supports the importance of being consistent:
• When a minority consistently said blue slides were green, they influenced 8.42% of the majority.
• When the minority were inconsistent, they only influenced 1.25% of the majority.
• Why it matters: This shows that being consistent makes minorities more persuasive.
Further support comes from Wood et al. (1994):
• They did a meta-analysis of nearly 100 studies on minority influence.
• Results showed that consistent minorities were the most influential.
• Why it matters: This means there’s strong evidence across multiple studies for the power of consistency
Commitment
engage in quite extreme activities to draw attention to their views. It is important that these extreme activities
are at some risk to the minority because this demonstrates commitment to the cause. Majority group members then pay even more attention the minority issue (the augmentation principle).
AO3
• Evidence from Xie et al. (2011) supports the importance of commitment:
• In a social network study, people were more influenced by those who were clearly committed to an alternative point of view.
Shows that being committed to a belief can help change others’ minds — a key part of minority influence.
Many studies lack ecological validity
• Research is often done in a lab, which is an artificial setting.
• In real life, minorities usually fight for important social causes — not trivial tasks like colour judgement.
• Why it matters: These findings may not apply to real-life situations.
Flexibility
Nemeth has suggested that the downside to being extremely consistent and repeating the same arguments is rigid and unreasonable. So argues minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view accept reasonable counter-arguments. Therefore minority influence is more effective if the minority show flexibility by showing a willingness to compromise.
AO3
Evidence to support the role of ‘flexibility’ comes from Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987): tested a mock jury situation where group members discussed amount of compensation to be paid to someone involved in a ski-lift accident. They found that when a confederate put forward an alternative point of view and refused to change his position, this had no
influence on the group, but when they showed flexibility and compromised, they did have an influence on the group. This is positivesuggests flexibility might play an important role in minority influence.
X limitation of minority influence research is that real-life minority groups are more complicated than much of the research suggests: means there is more involved in the difference between a minority and a majority than just numbers. For example, majorities usually have much more power status than minorities whilst minorities can be tight-knit groups whose members know each other well and turn to each other for support. problem as
minority influence research may over-simplify the processes involved.
The Role of Minority Influence in Social Change
Social Change happens when whole societies adopt new attitudes and behaviour.
Drawing Attention to the Issue
• The minority first grabs the majority’s attention to their cause.
• This creates a conflict between what the majority believes and what the minority is saying.
• Example: The suffragettes protested to highlight that women couldn’t vote.
• Modern example: Media (adverts, social media, leaflets) is now used to raise awareness.
Consistency
• A consistent message makes the minority seem confident and serious.
• Two types of consistency:
• Synchronic consistency – everyone in the minority says the same thing
• Diachronic consistency – they say it for a long time
• Example: The suffragettes repeated the same message over years.
The Snowball Effect
• At first, the minority has a small influence.
• But as more people start to agree, support builds and spreads.
• Eventually, it reaches a ‘tipping point’, causing widespread social change.
• Example: Laws are often passed to cement the change (e.g. equality laws).
AO3
Evaluation of the Role of ‘Minority Influence’ in Social Change
Support for Consistency – Moscovici (1969):
• When confederates consistently said blue slides were green, 8.42% of participants were influenced.
• When they were inconsistent, influence dropped to 1.25%.
• This shows consistency is key – minorities can cause change if they stick to their message.
Low Ecological Validity (Realism):
• Most studies are in artificial lab settings with trivial tasks (like colour judgement).
• But in real life, minority groups deal with serious issues (e.g. civil rights, climate change).
• So the findings may not generalise to real-world social change.
Real-Life Minorities Are More Complex:
• In real life, minorities often have less power and status, while majorities usually control the media, laws, etc.
• Real minorities are also often tight-knit and support each other emotionally.
• This means research may oversimplify how minority influence works in society.
Role of ‘Conformity’ (Majority Influence) in Social Change
• Social change doesn’t just come from minorities — majority influence (conformity) also matters.
• People are influenced by social norms – what they think everyone else is doing.
• According to Normative Social Influence (NSI), people conform to be liked and avoid rejection.
• If people believe the majority is acting differently (e.g. recycling, eating healthy), they’re more likely to copy them.
Evaluation of Conformity in Social Change
Support from Nolan et al (2008):
• Messages were placed on doors saying “most people are saving energy.”
• Compared to a control group, this led to a real drop in energy use.
• Shows NSI can cause real behaviour change.
Economic Benefits – Nudge Unit:
• The UK government used social psychology research to form the Behavioural Insight Team (“Nudge Unit”).
• They’ve used NSI strategies to reduce drink driving, tax avoidance, and junk food consumption.
• This saves money, improves health, and helps run systems more efficiently.
