Types of conformity Conformity to Social Roles Explanations of obedience

Situational Explanations
Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford
Internalisation (Thinking that the group is right) - When a person genuinely accepts the groups norms. It results in a private as
university to investigate the affect of social roles on conformity.
well as public change of opinions and behaviours). The change is usually permanent and persists in the absence of the group 21 male student volunteers were involved in this study - they were selected by psychological
members because the attitudes have become part of how the person thinks testing that showed them to be ‘emotionally stable’.
Identification (Value the group) - when we identify with a group that we value, we want o become part of it. Therefore we publicly They were randomly allocated to the role of either a guard or a prisoner. The social roles were
change our behaviour/opinions, even if we don’t agree with it privately. encouraged by two routes:
Compliance (Temporary Agreement) - Involves ‘going along with others’ in public but privately not changing opinions/behaviours. • Uniform: prisoners were strip-searched, given a uniform and a number (not a name as they
wanted to encourage de-individualisation). Guards enforced rules, had own uniform with
This results in only a superficial change and the opinion/behaviour stops as soon as group pressure ceases.
handcuffs etc.
• Instructions about behaviour: Prisoners were told they could not leave but instead would
Informational Social Influence - Often we are uncertain about what behaviour and beliefs are right or wrong. You may not know have to ask for parole. Guards were told they had complete power over the prisoners.
the answer to a question n class, but if most of your class give an answer, you go along with them because you feel they are The guards played their roles enthusiastically amend treated prisoners harshly. The prisoners
probably right. ISI is a cognitive process - people generally want to be right. ISI leads to internalisation. rebelled wishing two days - they ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards.
ISI is most likely in situations which are new or where there is some ambiguity, so it isn’t clear what is right. It may happen when The guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed the prisoners - reminding them of how
powerless they are.
decisions have to be made quickly, when we assume the group is likely to be right.
The guards behaviour threatened the prisoners psychological and physical health:
Normative social influence - NSI concerns what is ‘normal’ behaviour for social groups. Norms regulate the behaviour of groups • After the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed.
and individuals. NSI is an emotional process rather than a cognitive process - people prefer social approval rather than rejection. • Three prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance
NSI leads to compliance. • One prisoner went on huger strike; the guards attempted to force feed him and then
NSI is most likely in situations where you don’t know the norms and look to others about how to behave. NSI occurs in punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ which was a tiny dark closet.
situations with strangers if you don’t want to be rejected. Or, with people we know because we are concerned about the social The study stopped after 6 days when it was meant to go on for 14 days.
Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour - most conformed strongly to their roles.
approval from our friends. It may be pronounced in stressful situations where people have a need for social support.
Guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive.
Evaluation
Asch’s Study Variables investigated by Asch
One strength of the Stanford prison experiment is the control over key variables:
Asch devised a procedure to measure the extent to
Group Size emotionally stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard
which people conformed to the opinions of others, even
Asch varied the number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15. The relationship between group size and conformity was
curvilinear. If there were town confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6% but when there were three confederates the and prisoner. The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance. So their
Milgrams baseline study
Milgram recruited 40 male participants, he told them that it was for a study of memory.
Each participant and arrived. They were then allocated a role. However, the participants were always the ‘teachers’ and the confederates were always the
‘learners’. An ‘experimenter’ (also a confederate) wore a lab coat.
The procedure was as follows: the ‘learner’ was strapped to a chair in a separate room and wide with electrodes. The learners task was to try and remember word
pairs. The teacher delivered shocks by pressing switches on the ‘shock machine’ labelled from ‘slight shock’ (15 volts) to ‘danger - sever shock’ (450 volts). If the
teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of 4 standard prods. The shocks were fake but the shock machine was labelled to make
them look they were getting progressively worse.
12.5% of participants stopped at 300 volts. 65% of participants went to the max voltage of 450 volts. As a result of being prodded, participants showed
extreme signs of distress and 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
From this we can draw the conclusion that we obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else. Certain situational
factors encourage obedience.
Evaluation
One strength of this experiment is that replications have supported Milgrams research finings: in a french game show, contestants were paid to give (fake)
electric shocks when ordered by the presenter. 80% gave the maximum shock which in this case was 460 volts. Their behaviour was similar to that of
Milgrams participants, many showed severe signs of anxiety.
However, one limitation is that Milgrams study lacked internal validity: Orne and Holland argued that the participants guessed that the electric shocks
were fake so they were ‘play-acting’. This was supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of the participants believed that the shocks were real. This
suggests that the participants may have been expounding to demand characteristics.
However, a counter argument to this would be that Sheridan and Kings participants gave real shocks to a puppy, 54% of males and 00% of
females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. This suggests the obedience in milgrams study might have been genuine.
Situational Factors
Proximity (closeness of teacher and learner):in the baseline study the teacher could hear the learner but to
see the learner. In the proximity variation, the teacher and the learner were in the same room and the
Explanation 1: Agentic State
Agentic state (act on behalf of another person): Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person
becomes an ‘agent’, someone who acts for or in place of another. In an Agentic state a person feels no personal responsibility’s for
their actions
Autonomous State (not an agent): Autonomy means to be independent of free. So a person in an autonomous state behaves according
to their principals and feels responsible for their actions.
Agentic Shift (moving to Agentic State): The shift from autonomous state to the Agentic state.
Binding Factors (reduce moral strain): Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow to person to ignore or minimise the
damaging effect of their behaviour ad reduce the ‘moral strain’ that they feel. Milgram proposed a number of strategies the individual
uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing to victims.
Explanation 2: Legitimacy of Authority
We obey people further ups social hierarchy. Most societies are structured hierarchally. People in certain positions hold authority over
the rest of us.
Authorities have legitimacy through society’s agreement. The power that authorities wield is legitimate because it is agreed by society.
Most of us accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly.
We hand control over to authority figures. People with legitimate authority have the power to punish others. We give up some
independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly. We learn to accept authority during childhood.
Leaders use legitimate powers for destructive purposes. History has shown that some leaders use legitimate authority destructively,
ordering people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways.
Dispositional Explanation
The authoritarian Personality:
High obedience is pathological: Adorno believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder, and tried to find its causes in the individuals personality.
Extreme respect for authority and contempt for ‘inferiors’: Adorno concluded that people with an authoritarian personality are especially obedient to authority, they:
• Have exaggerated respect for authority an submissive to it
• Express contempt to people of inferior social status.

in a intubation when the others sneers are clearly wrong.
The procedure was as follows: 123 American male
participants were tested individually, sitting last or next-
to-last in a group of 6-8 confederates. they were show
two cards. On one was the standard line. On the other
were three comparison lines. One had the same length
as the ‘standard line’. Each group member stated which
of the following three lines matched the standard line.
there were 18 trials involving different pairs of cards.
On 12 of these (‘critical trials’) the confederates all gave
the same clearly wrong answer.
Asch found that the naive participant conformed
36.8% of the time This shows a high level of
conformity when the situation is unambiguous. There
were individual differences, 25% of the participants
never conformed (never gave a wrong answer) 75% of
participants conformed at least once. Asch conducted
rate of conformity increased to 31.8%. Above three confederates, conformity levels levelled off showing that three confederates is the
optmum.
Unanimity
Asch introduced a dissenting confederate - sometimes they would give the correct answer but sometimes they gave an incorrect
answer (however, always agreeing the majority). in the presence of a dissenter, on for its reduced on average to less than a quarter of
the level it was when the majority was unanimous. Conformity reduced if the dissenter gave right or wrong answers. Having the
dissenter allowed the naive participant to behave more independently
Task Difficulty
Asch made the line judging task harder by making stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length. This made it more difficult
to see the differences in the lines. This clearly led to an increase in conformity as the situation was ambiguous, so we are more likely to
look to others for guidance and to assume they are right and we are wrong. His is informational social influence as it plays a greater
role when the task becomes harder.
Evaluation
One strength is there is more evidence to support Asch’s findings. Lucas et al asked participants
to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Participants were given answers that (falsely) claimed
to be from three other students. the participants conformed more often when the problems were
harder. This shows Asch was correct that task difficulty is one variable affecting conformity.
However, one limitation is that Asch’s findings have little application. Only American men were
tested by Asch. Neto suggested that women might be more conformist, possibly because they are
behaviour was due to the role itself and to their personalities. This control increased the
studies internal validity, so we can have more confidence in drawing conclusions about
the effect of social roles on conformity.
However, one limitation of this experiment is that the Stanford prison experiment lacked
the realism of a true prison, Banuazizi and Mohavedi suggested participants were play-
acting. their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are
supposed to act and behave. One guard base his ole off of a character in a film. prisoners
rioted because they thought that was what real prisoners did. This suggests that the
experiment tells us little about conformity so social roles in actual prisons.
However, a counter argument to this would be that participants behaved as if
it was real, eg 90% of conversations about prison life, prisoner 416 believed
it was a prison run by psychologists. This suggests that the Stanford prison
experiment replicated the roles of guards and prisoners just as in real prison,
once again increasing the experiments internal validity.
obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40%. In the touch proximity variation, the teacher forced the
learners hand on the shock plate. Obedience rates fell by a further 10% down to 30%. Decreased
proximity allows people psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Location (Prestige of setting): The study was conducted in a run-down building rather than at the
prestigious Yale university. Obedience dropped to 47.5%. This was due to the fact that obedience was
higher in the university setting because the setting was legitimate and had authority.
Uniform (Communicates authority): in the baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat. In one
variation, he was called away by an ‘inconvenient’ phone call at the start of the experiment. His role was
taken over by an ‘ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes. Obedience fell to 20% (the lowest of the
Authoritarians tend to follow orders and view other groups a responsible for society’s ills.
Originates in childhood: Authoritarian personalities form in childhood through harsh parenting - extremely strict discipline, expectations of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticisms. It is
also characterised by ‘conditional love’ - parents love depends entirely on how their child behaves.
Hostility is displaced onto social inferior: These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, but they cannot express these feelings directly agains their parents because they fear them. So the
feelings are displaced onto others who are weaker - this is scapegoating.
Adorno et al, The authoritarian Personality
The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans. Several scales were developed, including the potential-for-racism scale (f-scale)
which rates people on a scale fro 1 - 6
• obedience and respect for authority are the mos important virtues for children to learn
• There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents.
These statements were made by people who score 6 on the f-scale both insist on complete obedience
Authoritarians identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous for the ‘weak’. They were conscious of their own and others status, showing excessive respect and deference to those of higher status.
Authoritarian people also had a cognitive style where there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups.
Dispositional vs Situational
Adorno had the same aim as Milgram, to understand the holocaust. But, they came to very different conclusions. Milgram was convinced that everyone has the potential to behave in destructively obedient
ways given the ‘right’ circumstances. This is a situational explanation for obedience. In contrast, Adorno believed that the causes of obedience lie within the individual themselves, a Dispositional view.
Evaluation
One strength is the evidence that authoritarians are obedient. Elms and Milgram interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgrams original obedience studies. They scored significantly higher on the F-
scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants. This suggests that obedient people may share many of the same characteristics of those with an authoritarian personality. However, one
limitation is that the F-scale is politically biased. Christie ad Jahoda suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology. But right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both
insist on complete obedience to political authority. Therefore Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive Dispositional explanation as it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarian is

further studies where he showed that certain variables more concerned about social relationships. Also the US is an individualist culture and studies in variations). This was due to uniform being a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society.
lead to different levels of conformity. collectivist cultures (china) have found higher conformity rates. This means that Asch’s findings
tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures. Someone without a uniform has less right to be respected.

Social Influence Revision

Explanations for Resisting Social Influence Minority Influence Social Change
Explanation 1). Social Support Lessons from minority influence research
Minority influence refers to how one person or a small group influences the beliefs and behaviours of other people.
Resisting conformity - Pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming 1). Drawing attention - Segregation in 1950’s America - places such as certain schools and restaurants in the southern states were
Dissenting peer - Asch’s research showed that the dissenter doesn’t give the correct answer. Simply someone else The minority may influence just one person or a small group (minority). exclusive to whites. Civil rights marches drew attention to the situation by providing social proof of the problem.
not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a model. The dissenter → this is different from conformity where the majority do the influencing. 2). Consistency - people took part in the matches on a large scale. Even though it was a minority of the American population, they
shows the majority is no longer unanimous. displayed consistency of message and intent.
Resisting obedience - pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey. Internalisation (Beliefs change) 3). Deeper processing - This activism meant that many people who had accepted the status quo be an thinking deeply about its
Obedience is reduced by another dissenting partner - Milgrams research - obedient behaviour greatly decreased in injustice
the disobedient peer condition (decreased from 65% to 10%). The participants may not follow the disobedient peer
Minority influence leads to the internalisation ( both public behaviour and private beliefs change) this is done in 4). Augmentation principal - ‘Freedom riders’ were both white as well as black people who boarded busses in the south to challenge
but the dissenters disobedience frees the participant to act from their own conscience. A disobedient model challenge three processes: separate seating for the black people, many were beaten. The personal risk strengthened (augmented) their message
the legitimacy of the authority figure. Consistency (Always do the same thing) Commitment (Showing deep involvement) 5). Snowball effect - Civil rights activists (for example martin Luther king) gradually got the attention of the US government. In
Explanation 2). Locus of Control This means the minority’s view gains more interest. This helps to gain attention for example through extreme 1964 the civil rights act was passed. Chang happens bit by bit just as rolling snowballs grow in size as it rolls further down the hill.
Internals place control with themselves - People who have an internal locus of control believe things that happen to Consistency makes others rethink their own views: activities 6). Social cryptomnesia - social change came around but some people have no memory (cyptomenesia) of the events leading to the
them are largely controlled by themselves (for example: doing badly in an exam depends on how hard you work) • Synchronic consistency: people in the minority are all saying the Activities must creat some risk to the minority to demonstrate change.
Externals place control outside themselves - people with an external locus of control believe that things happen same thing Lessons from conformity research
• Diachronic consistency: they’ve all been saying the same thing
commitment to the cause.
outside their control. If they fail an exam they say it was because they had a bad teacher or had bad luck because he Augmentation principal: the majority pay even more attention Dissenters make social change more likely: Asch’s research- the variation where one confederate always gave the correct
for some time
questions were hard. answers broke the power of the majority encouraging others to dissent. This demonstrates potential for social change
There is a continuum - locus of control is not just being internal or external - there is a scale from one to the other Normative social influence: Environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to the normative social
Flexibility (Showing willingness to listen to others)
and people differ in their position on it. High internals at one end and high externals are at the other end, low The minority should balance consistency and flexibility so that they don’t seem rigid.
influence. They provide information about what others are doing. For example: reducing litter by printing normative messages on
externals and low internals lie in-between Nemeth argued that being consistent and repeating the same arguments and behaviours is seen as rigid and off-putting to the majority. bins.
Internals show greater resistance to social influence - people with an internal locus Instead the minority should adapt their points of view and accept reasonable counter arguments. Lessons from obedience research
of control are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey.
Disobedient models make change more likely: Milgrams research - disobedient models in the variation where the
1). If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions (good or bad) they are Individuals think deeply about the minority position because it is new/unfamiliar.
more likely to to base their life decisions on their own beliefs. confederate refused to give shocks. The rate of obedience in genuine participants plummeted.
Snowball effect- over time, more people become converted (like a snowball
2). people with high internal LOC are more confident, more achievement-orientated and have higher intelligence-traits that lead to greater Gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’: Zimbardo - once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to
resistance (also traits of leaders, who have less need for social approval). gathering more snow as it rolls down a hill). There is a switch from minority to resist a bigger one. People drift into a new type of behaviour
majority. Evaluation
The more this happens the faster the rate of conversion. One strength is support for normative influence in social change: Nolan hung messages on the front door of houses. the key message was
Gradually the minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred. most residents are trying to reduce energy usage. Significant decreases in energy consumption compared to control groups who saw
Evaluation messages to save energy with no reference to other peoples behaviour. This shows conformity can lead to social change through the operation
of NSI.
One strength is research supporting consistency: Moscovici found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on the people One limitation however, is deeper processing may apply to majority influence: Mackie disagrees with the view that minority influence causes
than an inconsistent opinion. Wood conducted a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities seen as individuals i the majority to think deeply about an issue. Majority influence creates deeper processing because we believe others think as we do.
being consistent were most influential. When a majority thinks differently, it creates pressure to think about their views. Therefore a central element f minority influence has been
challenged, casting doubt on its validity as an explanation for social change