obedience Flashcards
consider both AO1 and AO2 and AO3
What is obedience and how is it different to conformity?
In a conformity situation the people involved are of equal status, whereas obedience occurs within a hierarchies where the person giving orders has a position of power. In the case of conformity the behaviour adopted is similar to that of peers, whereas in obedience the behaviour adopted differs to that of the authority figure. Lastly in conformity situations going along with the group is often implicit (not aware of doing so) but in obedience the prescription for action is explicit
Describe and outline the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
A Psychologist named Adorno proposed the idea of the authoritarian personality type which states that people obey due to internal personality factors, known as dispositional factors. This is a collection of traits/dispositions that are developed in an individual as a result of strict/rigid parenting which teaches a child to obey authority blindly and respect hierarchies. Adorno believed that the individual in question was not able to express hostility towards their parents (for being strict and critical). Consequently, the person would then displace this aggression / hostility onto safer targets, namely those who are weaker, such as ethnic minorities. An individual with this personality is likely to blindly obey authority and expect other to obey them without question; they are negative towards those beneath them and obedient towards those of higher status. They are also more likely to categorize people into “us” and “them” groups, seeing their own group as superior. Adorno measured this trait on a questionnaire which he called the ‘fascist scale’. People respond by indicating how much they agree or disagree with statements such as ‘all children should learn respect for authority’.
Evaluation on the research around the authoritarian personality (Milgram and Elms)
Elms and Milgram followed up with some of the original Milgram participants and asked 20 obedient participants, who administered the full 450 volts and 20 disobedient participants, who refused to continue, to complete several personality questionnaires, including Adorno’s F scale, to measure their level of authoritarian personality. 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. It was 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 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 and that this may indeed relate to early parenting.
However, the main way to assess the authoritarian personality is to use the F-Scale to measure this trait and then look at obedience rates. However, the scale is not a valid way to measure disposition as questions in the scale are very limited and do not accurately measure people’s personality as they force extreme responses and over exaggerate certain aspects of personality. It is also a self-report scale which may be confounded by social desirability bias where participants will not answer honestly to questions which will show them to be discriminatory as they will want to appear more normal and acceptable.
What is the main issue with the authoritarian personality theory?
The concept of an ‘authoritarian personality’ has been criticised as not everyone with a strict upbringing is a fascist and a blind follower of orders. Nor does the concept explain the obedience of entire social groups/societies whose members are all likely to have different personalities. The link between these traits and obedience is also only correlational so we cannot claim cause and effect, just a link. Other variables may be to blame e.g. linked to people who are not well educated and of low social class.
How does Milgram disprove the authoritarian personality theory?
The idea of personality or disposition causing obedience has been disproved by Milgram who found that a wide range of ‘normal’ people would all obey an order to harm another due to situational factors, not dispositional (personality) ones. In his study he found that 40 average Americans would electrocute a learner up to 300V at the order of an authority figure and 65% would go all the way to 450V and never disobey. Furthermore by changing situational variables like the location, he could make obedience range from 10% to 100%, thus shoeing the power of situational factors in causing obedience and going against the idea of disposition playing a role.
What were the findings and conclusions of Milgram’s study?
65% (two thirds) administered the max of 450v and 100% went up to 300V. This means only 35% of participants defied the strong pressure of the experiment to go ‘all the way. Secondary effects on participants were signs of extreme stress: Trembling, sweating, stuttering, nervous laughing.
Milgram concluded that obedience was due more to situational factors (the experimental setting, the status of the experimenter, and the pressure exerted on the participant to continue) than to dispositional factors, which contradicted the “Germans are different”. Under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey unjust orders.
What are the 3 situational variables which affect obedience (as said by Milgram and discovered through his variation studies)?
- Proximity
- Location
- Uniform
How does Milgram claim that proximity is a situational variable which affects obedience?
One situational variable that makes people less likely to obey is the proximity of the learner. This is illustrated by the variation experiment where Milgram placed the learner in the same room, rather than in the next room. The effect of this was that obedience dropped to only 40% of PPs giving a 450v shock rather than the 65% of the original study where the learner could not be seen but only heard. This shows the importance of the proximity of the learner, because when the teacher was confronted with the consequences of their actions and felt more responsible obedience was much lower. Conversely in another variation when the learner could not be seen or heard then 100% of participants went up to 450V.
How does Milgram claim that location is a situational variable which affects obedience?
One situational variable that makes people less likely to obey is the location of the experiment. This is illustrated by the variation experiment where Milgram conducted the experiment in a run-down office block, rather than at the prestigious Yale University. The effect of this was that obedience dropped to only 48% of PPs giving a 450v shock rather than the 65% of the original study. This shows the importance of the location, because when the location is not as prestigious the hierarchy is not as clearly defined and so the experimenter loses some of their legitimacy to give orders which should be obeyed.
How does Milgram claim that uniform is a situational variable which affects obedience?
One situational variable that makes people less likely to obey is the uniform of the experimenter. This is illustrated by the variation experiment where Milgram dressed the experimenter in normal clothes, rather than in a lab coat. The effect of this was that obedience dropped to only 20% of PPs giving a 450v shock rather than the 65% of the original study where the experimenter wore an academic uniform. This shows the importance of the uniform, because when it is not worn the hierarchy is not as clearly defined and so the experimenter loses some of their legitimacy to give orders which should be obeyed.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study - How do demand characteristics impact the validity of the findings?
Another psychologist called Orne thought that the participants in Milgram’s research were not fooled by the situation they were in and that they were just going along with the act as they were paid volunteers who wanted to please. If the participants did not believe in the set-up, then they did not really believe they were hurting Mr Wallace and so the research would tell us little or nothing about destructive obedience in the real world. However, Milgram claims that the participants did believe in the set-up of the experiment as they were led to believe the role draw for teacher or learner was random, they were given a test shock to make them believe the generator was real and they became visibly distressed by Mr Wallace’s shouts of pain. Milgram even interviewed his participants afterwards and they all said they had believed they were shocking Mr Wallace. This suggests Milgram’s experiment was an internally valid test of obedience.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study - How do
Evaluation on Milgram’s study - How does the lack of ecological validity affect the results of the study?
The ecological validity of the study has also been questioned due to the artificial set up of Milgrams’ lab experiment which does not fully resemblance real life situations were obedience is required, therefore we should be cautious when generalising Milgrams’ findings beyond the context of the investigation. Although, research into obedience in to a patient at the telephone orders of a doctor, support the ecological validity of Milgrams’ study as they find similar results.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study - How does population validity affect the results of the study?
In addition to the sample being small, it consisted of just American males meaning that it was very unrepresentative of other groups and cannot be fully generalised; for example it tells us nothing about how females would act in a similar situation as females have different social behaviours. At the time Milgram only used males as he wanted to generalise to soldiers in the army, like in Nazi Germany. Since his original study, replications have been carried out with female participants and finding show the rate of obedience was 65% - exactly the same as in male samples suggesting his results do have population validity.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study - How does cultural validity affect the results of the study?
Milgram carried out his research in America which is an individualistic culture where people are more independent. It may be that in other more collectivists cultures obedience rates would be even higher and so his results may not be generalised to these cultures. There have been lots of replications in many different countries which find similar results, but most of this research has been done in western, individualistic cultures. More research should be done in collectivist cultures to extend the cultural validity of the findings.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study - How does reliability impact the results of the study?
Milgrams’ procedure is given credit for being reliable and replicable as it was standardised and took place in a controlled environment. Despite the fact that ethical guidelines have become stricter now Burger was able to replicate Milgram’s original experiment in 2009, but only went up to 150V so he could remain more ethical. In 1963 Milgram found a 65% level of obedience and Burger found a 70% obedience level (in both men and women) showing that the results have remained very consistent over time and over different participants.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study (ethics) - how does deception/lack of informed consent impact the results of the study?
During Milgram’s study participants were deceived in many ways and so could not give their informed consent – for example they were told the aim was to test learning, that the role allocation was random and that the electric shocks and the pain of the learner were real when in fact they were fake. Nearly all the participants interviewed after the study said that they believed they had been shocking the learner. If people think they will be lied to every time they take part in research then psychologists will run out of participants. However Milgram argued that deception was a cost that was outweighed by the benefit of finding the truth out about obedience as without it demand characteristics would have ruined the internal validity of the experiment. Milgram interviewed participants afterwards to find out the effect on them. 83.7% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment”. Only 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved. Milgram argued that he dealt with the ‘problem of lack of informed consent in two alternative ways; Prior general consent which is informing participants that they may be misinformed about the purpose and presumptive consent which is asking people not taking part whether they think the experiment is acceptable and how they think the participants will react.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study (ethics) - How is protection from harm violated within Milgrams study?
The biggest ethical issue with the study is that many participants showed signs of nervous tension; especially when administering high voltage shocks, e.g. sweating and nervous laughter. This shows that the participants were not protected from harm and as a result Milgram’s study is considered to be one of the most unethical ever carried out. However, Milgram argued that the effects were only short term. A prediction from many psychologists prior to the study was that only 1% would obey so Milgram argued that he didn’t expect what happened. Also In interviews one year after most participants were happy that they had taken part. Furthermore the benefits outweighed the costs as it showed the truth about obedience which was different to what many thought at the time – important finding for the good of society.
Evaluation on Milgram’s study (ethics) - How does Milgrams study violate the right to withdraw?
Although Milgram told his participants that the money was theirs just for coming to the lab and that they could keep it even If they withdrew the experimenter gave verbal prods which essentially discouraged withdrawal from the experiment e.g. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’. However Milgram collected participants in response to an ad (volunteer sample) and referred to them as “volunteers” which should have made them feel more able to leave. Also the orders were the IV so were needed for a valid experiment
Evaluation on Milgram’s study (ethics) - How does Milgram use debriefing to try and make the study more ethical?
Milgram conducted a thorough debrief: After the study, all participants were given interviews and psychological tests to ensure that they left the laboratory in a state of “wellbeing”, they were told not to feel ashamed and that their behaviour was normal and they were united with the “learner” and shook hands with them. Participants were later sent a summary of the results and a questionnaire about their participation (in which over 80% said that they were happy to have taken part). However, debriefing cannot justify harm caused during the experiment.
Outline and Describe the agentic state
Milgram explained the behaviour of his participants by suggesting that people actually have two states of behaviour when they are in a social situation.
The autonomous state is where people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions. The agentic state is where people allow others to direct their actions, and the pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.
When we obey we are said to be acting in an agentic state by ‘unthinkingly’ carrying out orders due to the diffusion of responsibility.
Milgram suggested that two things must be in place in order for a person to enter the agentic state. Firstly, the person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behaviour. That is, they are seen as legitimate. People make judgements about an authority figure’s legitimacy, based on evidence that may or may not be relevant. For example, people in uniforms are often perceived to be legitimate authorities, as are people that claim to have a particular status.
Secondly the person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens. This may be because they have told us they are responsible or because we are in a clear hierarchy where chains of responsibility are obvious/clear.
evaluation of the agentic state as a situational explanation for obedience - Milgram’s study
Milgram’s lab experiments support the claim that an authority figure must be legitimate to create obedience. In the variation experiment where Milgram conducted the experiment in a run-down office block, rather than at the prestigious Yale University obedience dropped to only 48% of PPs giving a 450v shock rather than the 65% of the original study. This shows the importance of the location, because when the location is not as prestigious the hierarchy is not as clearly defined and so the experimenter loses some of their legitimacy to give orders which should be obeyed.
Furthermore the variation experiment where Milgram dressed the experimenter in normal clothes, rather than in a lab coat saw obedience drop to only 20% of PPs giving a 450v shock rather than the 65% of the original study where the experimenter wore an academic uniform. This shows the importance of the uniform, because when it is not worn the hierarchy is not as clearly defined and so the experimenter loses some of their legitimacy to give orders which should be obeyed.
evaluation of the agentic state as a situational explanation for obedience - Bickmans study
Furthermore Bickman carried out a field experiment where an experimenter approached passers-by on a city street and asked them to carry out small, inconvenient tasks. The experimenter was dressed either in a milkman’s uniform, a guard’s uniform or a jacket and tie. Bickman found that PPs were twice as likely to obey the orders when the experimenter was dressed in a guard’s uniform. Again this shows that when the authority is legitimate, as demonstrated by a uniform, obedience is higher.
Overall evaluation of the agentic state due to field and lab research
Research support for the legitimacy of authority explanation comes from both lab and field experiments. This creates greater support for the theory as lab experiments have good internal validity and field experiments have good external validity. As both types of research find consistent results we can be surer this result is a valid one.
what are the 2 explanations of resistance to social influence
- social support
- Locus of control
resisting social influence is about how to resist both conformity and obedience
Describe and outline social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence
Defiance or non-conformity is more likely if others are seen to resist the influence. Seeing others disobey or not conform gives the observer confidence to also resist.
In conformity the other resister acts as an ally and breaks the unanimity of group. This reduces the amount of normative social influence as it is less painful to be rejected if we are not alone.
In obedience the other resister acts as a disobedient role model who challenges the legitimacy of authority figure. If an authority figure were truly legitimate in their position then others would not disobey them.
Evaluate social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence
The effect that social support can have is clearly illustrated by the Milgram variation in which two confederates were paired with the real participant and declared early on that they would go no further. Under these conditions only 10% of participants gave the maximum 450 volt shock, which is substantially lower than the 65% in the first study. Milgram suggested that the behaviour of the confederates may have demonstrated the possibility of defying the experimenter and reduced the legitimacy of their authority; the confederates were disobedient role models which reduced the legitimacy of the authority figure.
In an experiment on conformity to an incorrect majority answer to a line judgement task Asch fount that when one other person in the group gave a different answer from the others and the group answer was not unanimous, the conformity of the participant dropped. The social support of the other person who went against the majority reduced the normative influence of the group and meant the participant did not fear rejection as much.
Outline and describe Locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence
Locus of control (LOC) is a personality dimension concerning the extent to which people perceive themselves as being in control of their own lives. Individuals with high internal LOC believe they can affect the outcomes of situations, as a result of an individual’s choices and decisions. Individuals with high external LOC believe things turn out a certain way regardless of their actions as a result of luck, fate of other uncontrollable external forces.
Rotter, who devised a self-report scale to test LOC, believed that having an internal LOC makes individuals more resistant to social influence. This is because they see themselves in control of a situation and are more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice. They are less likely to enter the agentic state in an obedience situation and in conformity are less likely to be influenced by normative social influence as thy don’t fear rejection from a group.
Evaluate locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (Holland and Shute)
Shute exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed positive attitudes to drug taking. It was found that undergraduates with internal LOC conformed less to expressing pro-drug attitudes, supporting the idea that having internal LOC increases resistance to conformity. However, research in this area is unclear and a cause and effect relationship cannot be claimed – some studies find small links between external LOC and conforming behaviour but others find none.
Holland (1967) used Milgram’s electric shock procedure to investigate if participants with an internal locus of control would be less obedient. He found that people with an internal locus of control were more likely to resist obeying as 37% stopped before the maximum voltage compared to only 23% stopping with an external LOC.
LOC is assessed using questionnaire scales, like ‘Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale’; these may not be suited for purpose in examining social behaviour as they do not measure the participants actual behaviour, only their personal opinions of how they might behave which is open to social desirability bias and may not be valid.
Outline and describe the process of minority influence
Sometimes we will conform to the behaviour of the minority rather than the majority. In these situations normative influence does not have an effect as the minority is not large enough to create pressure to ‘fit in’. Instead Internalisation via informational social influence is necessary; we must take on the beliefs of the minority both publicly and privately in a permanent way.
Minority influence is normally key in bringing about social change as the majority group in any society will not promote change, they will simply conform and keep the current system maintained. However, minorities can kick start big changes in society, for exam the civil rights movement which helped to alleviate racism in America.
This is based on the assumption that minority influence works to convert people – change their own personal beliefs to cause internalisation, this is known as ‘conversion theory’. Moscovici suggests there are attributes required in an individual or minority group if they are to be successful in enacting social change.
Firstly, the minority must be consistent in their opposition to the majority; they must maintain a consistent position over time or agreement among members of the minority group.
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 as they show commitment. This gives the minority’s message credibility because people are unlikely to be prepared to suffer for a cause which is not worthwhile.
Third, they must also be flexible, which is the opposite of adopting a rigid position that could lead to the perception of the minority as being dogmatic and narrow minded.
(Moscovici’s ‘conversion theory’ suggests that minority influence can be explained via informational social influence which results in internalisation – people change their true beliefs. However, it has been found that majorities are often more effective than minorities at influencing direct private measures and causing internalisation, which does not support the idea that only minorities are responsible for conversion or internalisation on internal attitudes.
Moscovici exaggerated the differences between minority and majority influence. Other psychologists have concluded that a mixture of compliance and internalisation is at work for both majority and minority influence.)
evaluate the process of minority influence using Moscovici et als study
Moscovici et al aimed to see if a consistent minority of participants could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception test. 32 groups of six female participants were told were taking part in a study on perception. Each group was presented with 36 blue slides differing in intensity of shade and were asked to say what colour the slides were. However two of the participants were confederates and answered in one of two ways depending on the condition: Condition 1: They always said the slides were green. Condition 2: They said the slides were green on two thirds of occasions. Results showed that when the confederates said ‘green’ every time: 8% of the majority agreed. When the confederates were less consistent this fell to 1%. From this Moscovici concluded that consistency is vital for minority influence to occur. If the minority consistently give the same answer they are more likely to sway a majority. However, as this is a lab experiment the task is artificial and so lacks ecological validity – it does not mirror minority influence in real life and so findings should not be applied to real life social change.
evaluate the process of minority influence using Nemeth et als variation
Nemeth et al (1974) carried out a variation on the procedure but allowed the participants to answer with a combination of colours, rather than only blue or only green (e.g. could say green-blue). This time there were three conditions: 1. The 2 confederates said ‘green’ on 50% of the trails and ‘green-blue’ on the other 50% in a random way. 2. The 2 confederates said ‘green’ on 50% of the trails where the slides where bright blue and ‘green-blue’ on the other 50% of slides which were a darker blue. 3. The two confederates said green to all of the blue slides. In this variation the majority were most influenced by condition 2 since it is seen as flexible. 21% of participants were influenced by the minority in this condition. In the other two conditions no participants were influenced. In the first there is lack of consistency, (supporting Moscovici’s findings), and in the third there is a total lack of flexibility and no attempt by the confederates to use the more complex descriptions allowed which would seem rigid and unrealistic to the other participants.
Nemeth also conducted a more ecologically valid experiment based on a mock jury in which groups of three participants and one confederate had to decide on the amount of compensation to be given to the victim of a ski-lift accident. When the consistent minority (the confederate) argued for a very low amount and refused to change his position, he had no effect on the majority. However, when he compromised and moved some way towards the majority position, the majority also compromised and changed their view. This experiment questions the importance of consistency. The minority position changed, it was not consistent, and it was this change that apparently resulted in minority influence. This is more ecologically valid support for the effect of flexibility as it is much more meaningful and representative of real life minority influence than judging the colour of slides which has no consequences.
The role of social influence process in social change (brief summary)
social change happens when minority view (e.g. gay rights campaigners, challenge majority views and is eventually accepted as the majority)
Outline and explain how social change happens via minority influence
Minority influence is normally key in bringing about social change – the majority group in any society will not promote change, they will simply conform and keep the current system maintained. Minority influence for social change is based on the assumption that minority influence works to convert people – change their own personal beliefs to cause internalisation, this is known as ‘conversion theory’. Moscovici suggests there are attributes required in a minority group if they are to be successful in enacting social change. For example, the minority must be consistent in their opposition to the majority; and they must show commitment by making sacrifices and maintaining their position in the face of adversity.
Minority views eventually become majority ones once they have created social change. This is known as the snowball effect where minority influence initially has a relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely as more and more people consider the issues being promoted. For example Martin Luther King continued to press for changes that gradually got the attention of the US government. In 1964 the US civil rights act was passed.
Outline and explain how social change happens via obedience
Sometimes we change our attitudes due to obedience pressures. Authority figures can create social change by putting laws into place or giving out orders which must be followed. Society follows the orders of authority figures due to the legitimacy of their authority.
– They may have the right to give the order (prime minister)
– They may have the power to administer sanctions for disobeying (police man)
– They may have more knowledge and expertise which makes them qualified to give orders in the particular context (expert scientist)
This works best when the process of ‘gradual commitment’ is used and people ‘drift’ into the new behaviour (e.g. Milgram’s shock machine)
This happens because we are socialised to follow orders given by legitimate authority figures with higher status than our self. For example it used to be OK to smoke inside public buildings but a big social change occurred as a result of a law banning smoking in public places. Now it is both illegal and socially unacceptable to be a smoker in public. (the coronavirus pandemic also provides a wealth of examples).
Give a real life example when social change happened through minority influence
A real life example of social change is the end to apartheid in South Africa (white ruling elite suppression, segregation and discrimination of the black population). At first minority figures such as Nelson Mandela promoted the view via behavioural attributes such as commitment; Mandela went to prison for 27 years for the cause and wrote a persuasive book which converted people to the cause. Then global laws were changed to introduce economic sanctions on the apartheid government which made it harder for them to continue in their discrimination. Finally, majority influence played a part where Mandela, who was eventually president of South Africa, sought to end all remaining discrimination through the publicity of unity in areas such as rugby, in order to highlight that the majority of South Africans were now pro integration. Unfortunately, there is still a great deal of racial tension and inequality in South Africa but the official apartheid is at an end.
What research did Maass et al do to do in support of the social impact theory?
To support social impact theory 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.
Why is social change not as simple as the social impact theory suggests?
Social change is not always as simple as portrayed above, with many being quite settled in their views and unwilling to change. Psychologists suggest that there are social barriers due to the stereotypes which many have. For example, despite the obvious perks to recycling, many are still unwilling to admit that they recycle in fear of being labelled ‘weird’ or a ‘tree-hugger’. This suggests that minority influence and social influence are not always completely effective because they cannot tackle these kinds of issues.
Evaluate how social change happens via minority influence
In a lab experiment Moscovici aimed to see if a consistent minority of participants could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception test. Female participants were shown 36 blue slides differing in intensity of shade and were asked to say what colour the slides were. Two of the participants were confederates and answered
in one of two ways depending on the condition: Condition 1: They always said the slides were green. Condition 2: They said the slides were green on two thirds of occasions.
Results showed that when the confederates said ‘green’ every time: 8% of the majority agreed. When the confederates were less consistent this fell to 1%. From this Moscovici concluded that consistency is vital for minority influence to occur. If the minority consistently give the same answer they are more likely to sway a majority and bring about social change.
Evaluate how social change happens via obedience
In support of obedience causing a change in social behaviour this Bickman carried out a field experiment to see if the legitimacy of an authority figure can cause different behaviour. An experimenter approached passers-by on a city street and asked them to carry out small, inconvenient tasks. The experimenter was dressed either in a milkman’s uniform, a guard’s uniform or a jacket and tie. Bickman found that PPs were twice as likely to obey the orders when the experimenter was dressed in a guard’s uniform. Again, this shows that when the authority is legitimate, as demonstrated by a uniform, obedience is higher and social change can be promoted.
(Could use Milgram instead by comparing lab coat to no lab coat or Yale to run down office)
Evaluate how social change happens via majority influence
In support of normative influence causing a change in views Asch conducted a lab experiment to see if people would go along with an incorrect majority. Male college students were asked to estimate which line of 3 matched a target line. They did so in the presence of 6 other male college students who all gave the incorrect answer as they were actually secret confederates of the experimenter. Participants conformed to the unanimous incorrect answer on one third of the critical trials. 78% of participants conformed at least once. During post-experimental interviews many said that they yielded because they could not bear to be in a minority and risk being excluded by the group which can be explained due to normative social influence.
