1. social influence

Question 1

what is conformity?

Answer 1

a change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure

Question 2

compliance

Answer 2

― the individual changes their behaviour to fit in with the group
― may not agree with the behaviour or belief privately, but they do agree publicly
― usually due to normative social influence

Question 3

identification

Answer 3

― the individual adopts some behaviours or beliefs of a group
― may / may not agree privately
― accept group’s norms out of a desire to fit in
― linked to social identity

Question 4

internalisation

Answer 4

― the individual accepts the behaviour or belief of the majority publicly and privately
― usually due to informational social influence

Question 5

normative social influence

Answer 5

― conforming to the majority to avoid rejection or being seen as an outcast
― driven by a desire to be liked and gain social approval
― motivated by emotional reasons
― leads to compliance

Question 6

informational social influence

Answer 6

― conforming to the majority because of a desire to be correct
― driven by the belief that others have more knowledge or correct information
― motivated by cognitive reasons
― leads to internalisation

Question 7

Asch’s study

Answer 7

― involved a group of 8 to 10 male college students (only one was an actual participant; the others were confederates)
― the task was a line judgement experiment
― participants were shown a standard line and three comparison lines and asked to publicly identify which of the three lines matched the standard line in length
― the real participant was seated near the end, so most confederates would give their answer first
― six trials were conducted where the confederates gave the correct answers
― where twelve trials were conducted, confederates were instructed to give the same incorrect answer unanimously

Question 8

Asch’s findings

Answer 8

― 75% of participants conformed at least once
― 5% of participants conformed every time
― the overall conformity rate was around 32%

His research suggests that people will conform due to normative social influence; they conform for social approval, avoiding rejection or being seen as an outcast

Question 9

variables affecting conformity: group size

Answer 9

Asch varied the number of confederates from 1 to 16.

― With only one confederate, the conformity rate was 3%.
― With two confederates, the rate slightly increased to 13% and jumped to 33% with three confederates.
― At 16 confederates, the conformity rate was 31%.

This suggests that the presence of a small, unanimous group has a strong social pressure, but beyond a certain point, the group size does not proportionally increase this pressure.

Question 10

variables affecting conformity: unanimity

Answer 10

― a confederate broke the group’s unanimity by responding correctly
― in this variation, the conformity rate dropped to 5.5%
― this suggests the presence of a dissenter provides social support

Question 11

variables affecting conformity: task difficulty

Answer 11

― Asch repeated the experiment with smaller differences between the line lengths, making the task more ambiguous
― in this more difficult condition, the rate of conformity increased

Asch argued this was due to the participants being more uncertain about their judgements, making them more susceptible to informational social influence

Question 12

Asch’s experiment strengths (AO3)

Answer 12

― As a lab experiment, Asch’s study has high internal validity. It was carefully controlled, and standardised procedures were followed, giving each participant precisely the same experience. For example, all participants viewed the same lines in the same order with the same responses from the confederates

Question 13

Asch’s experiment limitations (AO3)

Answer 13

― Asch’s task lacks mundane realism; matching the lengths of lines is a task that is quite simple and highly controlled. While this helps isolate conformity and minimise extraneous variables, it doesn’t replicate real life social interactions; conforming happens in a social context, often with people we know rather than strangers. The artificial nature of Asch’s work means it is not a valid measure of real life conformity

― Perrin and Spencer argue Asch’s work lacks temporal validity, suggesting the high conformity rates were due to the cultural conditions in Cold War 1950s America. In their 1980s replication with British students, they found conformity in only one trial out of 396. They suggested that societal changes, including a possible shift towards more individualistic values might explain the lower conformity rates they observed

Question 14

explanations for conformity strengths (AO3)

Answer 14

― Asch’s original research supports normative social influence: 75% of participants conformed to the incorrect majority of at least once despite the correct answer being ambiguous. Participants conformed not because they were unsure of the correct answer but because they wanted to avoid the discomfort of standing out or being rejected by the group. This is further supported by a variation in which participants could privately write down their responses, avoiding disapproval. In this variation, the conformity rate dropped to 12.6%

― In one variation, Asch manipulated the task difficulty of the line-judging task by making the differences between the line lengths less obvious. This increased the ambiguity of the correct answer; when the participants were more unsure of the correct answer due to the task’s ambiguity, they were more likely to rely on the judgement of others. This reliance suggests that participants were seeking information from the group to make the correct decision; this supports the informational social influence explanation of conformity

Question 15

explanation for conformity limitations (AO3)

Answer 15

― There are dispositional factors that suggest conformity is not solely determined by situational factors. Affiliators strongly desire to belong to a group, be liked, and maintain positive interpersonal relationships. As these individuals are more sensitive to social rejection, they are more likely to conform. In contrast, individuals with high confidence or an internal locus of control are less likely to be influenced by the pressure to conform

― It can be difficult to serpate the influence of two explanations; when participants self-report their reasons for conforming, people might not be fully aware of their true motivations. In real-life ambiguous or uncertain situations, individuals might simultaneously seek accurate information and social approval. For example, in a crisis, people might look to others for cues on how to react while also wanting to stick together for safety

Question 16

minority influence

Answer 16

when members of a majority group are converted to the views of a minority

Question 17

consistency

Answer 17

if members of the minority group repeat hte same message over time (diachronic consistency) and all group members give the same message (synchronic consistency), members of the majority group are more likely to consider the minority position and reconsider their own

Question 18

commitment

Answer 18

if members of a minority are willing to suffer for their views but still hold them, members of the majority will take the minority and their ideas seriously, as people consider the causes of behaviour. if the majority members know the minority is not acting out of self-interest, they carefully consider their position

Question 19

flexibility

Answer 19

if seen as dogmatic, minorities will not be persuasive; they need the ability to appear to consider valid counterarguments and show they are reasonable by slightly compromising. this flexibility encourages majority members to move closer to the minority position

Question 20

the snowball effect

Answer 20

minorities changing majority opinions starts as a slow process, as each person only converts a few members of the majority. however, the rate of conversion picks up speed as more and more of the majority convert. additionally, the process of conversion also speeds up as the minority view improves in its acceptability

Question 21

consistency, commitment, and flexibility strengths (AO3)

Answer 21

― Flexibility has been shown to help minorities influence members of the majority. Nemeth asked three real participants and one confederate to act as a mock jury and decide on the level of compensation for the victim of an (imaginary) serious ski lift accident. When the confederate was inflexible, arguing for a low level of compensation ($50,000) and not changing position during negotiations, they were less able to convince members of the majority to lower their offers, than when they showed flexibility by increasing their offer to $100,000 during the negotiation.

― There are many real-life examples of minority groups using commitment, flexibility, and consistency to influence members of the majority population. For example the suffragettes showed commitment by going on hunger strike, and the leaders of the civil rights movement delivered speeches with a consistent message of equality. The LGBTQ+ rights movement campaigned for civil partnerships, a strategic (flexible) compromise that ultimately led to the ultimate goal, the full legalisation of same-sex marriage. The lessons from these previous campaigns and psychological theory can be practically applied to future movements

Question 22

consistency, commitment, and flexibility limitations (AO3)

Answer 22

― Lab-based studies on factors affecting minority influence, such as Moscovici and Nemeth, are highly artificial and may not be valid when generalised to real-world minority influence. In real life, those trying to convince us are often friends and family, and the topics are likely to be important social issues, not meaningless tasks like stating the colour of a slide

Question 23

social change

Answer 23

when a view held by a minority group challenges the majority view and is eventually accepted by the majority. then, whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours

Question 24

minority influence processes

Answer 24

minority groups are more successful in creating social change when they show consistency, commitment, and flexibility in their views. gradually, the minority turns into the majority due to the snowball effect

Question 25

obedience

Answer 25

members of the government are a minority group that can enact dramatic social change by creating laws. when laws are created, societies change to avoid punishment

Question 26

conformity

Answer 26

― NSI/compliance: behaviours or views can become the norm within a minority group; those who go against this norm risk rejection. This norm can then spread to the broader society

― ISI/internalisation: members of a minority group can provide information to the majority. wider society changes its behaviour because it accepts this new evidence

Question 27

social crypto-amnesia

Answer 27

describes how society adopts ideas from a minority group however, once the mainstream accepts these ideas and they become the norm, the sacrifices made by the minority group initiating these positive social changes are not acknowledges but are forgotten over time

Question 28

social influence processes in social change strengths (AO3)

Answer 28

― Leaders and activists in the Civil Rights Movement in the United States demonstrated consistency and commitment in their fight against racial segregation and for equality. They presented a consistently unified front through nonviolent protests, sit-ins, and marches. In many cases, they suffered abuse at the hands of law enforcement. These committed actions led many white Americans to reconsider their beliefs on segregation, and ultimately, this movement led to significant social change, including the passing of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act

― The LGBTQ+ rights movement has used a combination of consistency in its core message of equality and rights, alongside flexibility to influence social change. For example, the gay community successfully campaigned for civil partnerships, a strategic compromise that ultimately led to the full legalisation of same-sex marriage

― Social influence research has practical applications, such as helping governments understand how to change people’s behaviour. For example, persuading people to eat healthily or take sensible social distancing precautions during a pandemic. In these cases, understanding social change can help the economy by reducing society’s healthcare costs

Question 29

social influence processes in social change limitations (AO3)

Answer 29

― Social change often occurs over extended periods, deals with highly sensitive topics, such as inequality and discrimination, and is the sum of the interactions of millions of members in society. For this reason, highly controlled experimental laboratory research on social change is not possible, meaning clear cause-and-effect relationships can’t be established. Instead, researchers depend on natural experiments, case studies and correlational studies to understand social change.

Question 30

obedience

Answer 30

behaviour in compliance with a direct command, often one issued by a person in a position of authority

Question 31

the milgram experiment procedure

Answer 31

― Milgram advertised his obedience experiment as a memory study to avoid biasing the results
― Fourty male participants were greeted by individuals they assumed were a scientist in a lab coat and a participant (they were all confederates)

― The roles of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ were assigned with the set up fixed to that the real experiment was always the teacher.
― The learner (confederate) was then strapped into a chair and connected to electrodes

― The real participant was led to another room containing a device with switches labelled from 15 to 450 volts, with descriptions ranging from ‘slight shock’ to danger: severe shock’
― The teacher’s task was to ask the learner questions and give an electric shock for each incorrect answer, escalating the voltage by 15V with each mistake.

― As the shocks increased, the participant could hear the learner’s reactions from the other room and silence after 300 volts, suggesting severe harm or death.

― If a participant questioned their responsibility, the science would say that they (the scientist) was responsible for the experiment. If the participant refused to continue administering shocks, the scientist would encourage continuation using four scripted prompts from: “please continue” to “you have no other choice; you must go on”

Question 32

milgram’s findings

Answer 32

― 100% of participants shocked up to 300 volts
― 65% of participants continued all the way to 450 volts
― footage from the experiment shows the participants were visibly distressed

Question 33

explanations for obedience

Answer 33

― agentic state
― legitimacy of authority

Question 34

agentic state

Answer 34

― a mental state in which the individual sees themselves as acting as the agent of (acting on behalf of) an authority figure

― in agentic state, the individual doesn’t feel guilt or responsibility for their behaviour, as they believe responsibility for their actions lie with the authority figure

Question 35

autonomous state

Answer 35

― individuals act according to their principles and feel responsible for their actions
― the opposite of agentic state

Question 36

agentic shift

Answer 36

the movement from an autonomous state to an agentic state. it happens in the presence of an authority figure

Question 37

legitimacy of authority

Answer 37

― through socialisation, people learn their position within the social hierarchy

― most people generally accept that legitimacy of authority is needed for society to function properly

― communicated through visible symbols such as uniforms and settings

Question 38

situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram)

Answer 38

― proximity
― location
― uniform

Question 39

situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram - proximity)

Answer 39

― Milgram increased the distance between the participant and the authority figure by having the authority provide instructions via telephone instead of being in the same room
― Obedience rates dropped from 65% to 21%
― Milgram argued that due to the increased distance, participants were less likely to remain in an agentic state and more likely to return to an autonomous state

Question 40

situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram - location)

Answer 40

― Milgram originally held his experiment at Yale University; when replicated at a run-down office block, the obedience rate dropped to 47.5%
― As Yale is a high-status university, the status of the location increased the scientist’s legitimacy of authority by making them seem more genuine
― Low status location reduced the legitimacy of authority and level of obedience

Question 41

situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram - obedience)

Answer 41

― Milgram’s original experimenter wore a grey lab coat
― In one variation, the researcher in the lab coat received a phone call, made an excuse to leave, and was replaced by another confederate dressed in regular clothes
― This new experimenter had reduced legitimacy of authority, explaining the drop in obedience rate to 20%

Question 42

explanations for obedience strengths (AO3)

Answer 42

― Milgram argues that his participants act with extreme obedience due to being in an agentic state; as when questioned, the experimenter accepts responsibility for any harm to the learner. The scientist, as indicated by the uniform of a lab coat, has a legitimate authority in the environment of Yale University. The manipulation of these variables supports Milgram’s conclusions. Obedience dropped significantly when he replaced the experimenter in a uniform with one in normal clothes (reducing legitimacy of authority). Obedience also dropped significantly in the proximity variation when the experimenter delivered orders via telephone, which made it less likely for the participant to remain in an agentic state, and more likely to return to an autonomous state

Question 43

explanations for obedience limitations (AO3)

Answer 43

― In Milgram’s study, 35% resisted the authority figure. This level of resistance can’t be explained by situational factors of agentic state and legitimacy of authority alone, as each participant had precisely the same experience. However, Adorno’s dispositional Authoritarian Personality theory acknowledges that the willingness to obey an authority figure can vary from person to person, offering an explanation as to why there are extreme variations in Milgram’s participants.

Question 44

Milgram’s experiment strengths (AO3)

Answer 44

― Milgram’s use of standardised procedures, such as pre-recordings of the participant responses and clear scripts for the experimenter to follow, led to a high level of control, ensuring each participant had precisely the same experience. Those clear instructions also enabled replications by Milgram and other researchers. The results found in Milgram’s original experiment have been shown by Blass to be reliable across eight additional countries and across time periods

Question 45

Milgram’s experiment limitations (AO3)

Answer 45

― Milgram’s reseach support for the agentic state and legitimacy of authority has been criticised for multiple multiple methodological flaws. The task lacks mundane realism; it’s not a task that is realistically compared to everyday life. Additionally, the study lacks ecological validity as the environment of Yale University was not normal for the participants. People do obey, but in places and with tasks they are familiar with. Orne and Holland claimed the task was so unusual that the participants figured out they were not actually shocking anyone and acted to demand characteristics, guessing Milgram’s aims and acting accordingly. Another issue is the gender bias of Milgram’s work. As his original experiments used entirely male samples, his findings of agentic state and legitimacy of authority are not generalisable to women

Question 46

Milgram’s experiment variation strengths — unknown drug (AO3)

Answer 46

― Hoffling conducted a field experiment in a hospital, 22 real nurses were called by an unfamiliar voice claiming to be Dr Smith. Dr Smith ordered the nurses to give twice the daily dose of an unfamiliar drug to a patient, an obviously dangerous drug. It was actually a placebo, however 21 of the 22 nurses completed this order, suggesting even in a situation with high ecological validity and a task with mundane realism, people are highly obedient to those they feel have legitimacy of authority

Question 47

Milgram’s experiment variation strengths ― New York

Answer 47

― Bickman conducted a field experiment in the ecologically valid environment of the streets of New York. An experimenter approached passersby in either a guard’s uniform, a milkman’s uniform or no uniform and asked them to compete a task. When asked to pay for a parking meter, the obedience rate was 89% when dressed in the guard uniform and only 33% in no uniform. This study supports Milgram’s theory that uniforms are a visible symbol of authority, increasing the legitimacy of authority of the person in the uniform

Question 48

Milgram’s experiment variation strengths — electric shocks to a puppy (AO3)

Answer 48

― Sheridan and King avoided the possibility of demand characteristics or gender bias by ordering 13 male and 13 female participants to deliver real electric shocks to a puppy by electrifying the puppy’s cage, causing it to run, yelp, and howl. At more intense shock levels, the puppy responded more strongly, showing extreme emotional reactions, such as crying. 54% of the male and 100% of the female participants delivered the maximum shock to the puppies

Question 49

the authoritarian personality

Answer 49

Adorno suggested people with an authoritarian personality had their obedient personalities shaped early in life by strict authoritarian parenting with harsh physical punishments. Adorno suggested that the anger they felt towards their parent was displaced onto others, mainly minority groups

Question 50

authoritarian personality characteristics

Answer 50

― high respect for people with higher social status (leading to obedience)
― hostile to people they see has having low status
― fixed stereotypes about groups of people
― black and white thinking

Question 51

F-scale (fascism scale)

Answer 51

― Adorno studied the authoritarian personality with a questionnaire called the F-scale
― People who scored highly had fixed stereotypes, identified with strong people, disliked weak people and were inflexible with ideas of right and wrong
― Questions measured nine factors such as: authoritarian submission; power and ‘toughness’

Question 52

dispositional explanation for obedience strengths (AO3)

Answer 52

― Twenty obedient males who had given the highest levels of shock in previous Milgram studies and twenty defiant males who had refused were given the F scale. The obedient males scored significantly higher on the F scale, suggesting they had authoritarian personalities. They also tended to dehumanise or hold more negative attitudes towards the learner and see the experimenter as someone knowledgeable and trustworthy

Question 53

dispositional explanations for obedience limitations (AO3)

Answer 53

― Adorno’s theory of a link between an abusive childhood, the development of an authoritarian personality and obedience can only be studied using correlation. However, alternate situational explanations of obedience, such as the agentic state and legitimacy of authority are backed up by significant experimental research. This research by Milgram, Bickman, Hoffling, and others shows the majority of people have the capacity to be highly obedient.

― The F-scale has been criticised as a measurement of an authoritarian personality. One reason is due to acquiescene bias: people tend to agree to questions; the F-scale was written in a way that agreeing to all the questions would artificially inflate their score on the authoritarianism scale leading to inaccurate measurement. Additionally, Adorno was a left-wing thinker, and some questions are argued to be biased against people with a right-wing political view

― Relying solely on the authoritarian personality theory can lead to stereotyping, where complex historican events such as the horrors of WW2 are overly simplified into personality flaws of the people involved. This approach risks reducing the accountability of social structures and leaders. It also ignores how societal norms, peer pressure, or legal force can lead people with no authoritarian personalities to feel they need to participate in widespread social obedience

Question 54

zimbardo