01 Social Influence Topic Companion Digital Download (2)

AQA A Level
Psychology
Topic Companion
Social Influence
Joseph Sparks & Helen Lakin

Page 2 AQA A LEVEL Psychology topic COMPANION: SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Contents
Topic
Conformity 3

Conformity to social roles 12

Explanations for obedience 15

Disposition explanations of obedience 21

Resisting social influence 24

Minority influence 28

Social change 31

Revision checklist 33
www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

AQA A LEVEL Psychology topic companion: Social influence Page 3
TYPES OF CONFORMITY
Specification: Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance.
Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social
influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task
difficulty as investigated by Asch.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

 Describe the three types of conformity, including:
o Compliance
o Identification
o Internalisation
 Outline and evaluate two explanations for conformity, including:
o Informational social influence
o Normative social influence
 Outline and evaluate Asch’s (1951) original research examining conformity.
 Outline and evaluate variations of Asch’s research which examined how different variables affect
conformity, including:
o Group size
o Unanimity
o Task difficulty
Types of Conformity
Conformity is a type of social influence that describes how a person changes their attitude or behaviour in
response to group pressure. There are many different situations where people conform and psychologists
have categorised three main types of conformity, including: compliance, identification and internalisation.
 Compliance is the shallowest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour, the
way they act, but not their private beliefs. This is usually a short‐term change and is often the result of
normative social influence (NSI). For example, you might say that you like dub‐step music because
many other people in your class like dub‐step music, however privately you can’t stand it.
 Identification is the middle level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and their
private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group. This is a usually a short‐term
change and normally the result of normative social influence (NSI). For example, a person may decide
to become a vegetarian because all of their new flat mates are vegetarian. However, whenever they
walk past a McDonald’s they can’t resist a Big Mac and when they are away from their flat mates they
still eat meat. Identification takes place when we are surrounded by a particular group; we change our
private beliefs while in the presence of the majority but not permanently.
 Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and
their private beliefs. This is usually a long‐term change and often the result of informational social
influence (ISI). For example, if an individual is influenced by a group of Buddhists and converts to this
faith, then their new religious way of life will continue without the presence of the group as they have
internalised this belief.
Explanations for Conformity

In addition to the three types of conformity (compliance, identification and internalisation) which
describe how people conform, there are also two explanations of why people conform, including:
Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Page 4 AQA A LEVEL Psychology topic companion: Social influence
normative social influence (NSI) and informational social influence (ISI).
Normative social influence (NSI) is when a person conforms to be accepted and to feel that they belong to
the group. Here a person conforms because it is socially rewarding, or to avoid social rejection; for
example, to avoid feeling that they don’t ‘fit in’. Normative social influence is usually associated with
compliance and identification. With compliance, people change their public behaviour but not their
private beliefs; with identification people change their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only
in the presence of the group. Therefore, this explanation of social influence leads to a short‐term type of
conformity, which is motivated by the desire to fit in with the majority.
Informational social influence (ISI) is when a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe
that someone else is ‘right’. Informational social influence is usually associated with internalisation, where
a person changes both their public behaviour and their private beliefs, on a long‐term basis. This semi‐
permanent change in behaviour and belief is the result of a person adopting a new belief system, because
they genuinely believe that their new beliefs are ‘right’ or that the majority are ‘experts’. For example, if a
person changes their political ideology from Conservative to Liberal, then they have internalised these new
beliefs on a semi‐permanent basis and believe that voting Liberal is ‘right’ for them.
CHANGE IN PUBLIC CHANGE IN PRIVATE SHORT‐TERM / LONG‐

BEHAVIOUR? BELIEF? TERM
COMPLIANCE Yes No Short‐term
Yes
IDENTIFICATION Yes (Only in the presence of Short‐term
the majority)
INTERNALISATION Yes Yes Long‐term
Exam Hint: It is important to ensure that you understand the distinction between types of conformity
(compliance, identification and internalisation) and the explanations for conformity (normative and
informational social influence).
Evaluating Explanations for Conformity

 Asch’s (1951) study into conformity (see below) provides research support for normative social
influence. He found that many of the participants went along with the obviously wrong answers of the
other group members. When asked by Asch in post‐experimental interviews why they did this,
participants said that they changed their answer to avoid disapproval from the rest of the group, which
clearly shows that compliance had occurred as the participants conformed in order to ‘fit in’. Further
to this, Asch demonstrated in a later variation (1955) that when the pressure to publicly conform is
removed by asking participants to write down their answers on a piece of paper, rather than say them
aloud, the conformity rates fell to 12.5% as the fear of rejection became far less.
 Jenness (1932, see below) provides research support for the role of informational social influence.
Participants were asked to initially make independent judgements about the number of beans
contained in a jar and then discuss their estimates in a group. Participants then made a second,
individual private estimate. Jenness found that this second private estimate moved closer to the group
estimate and that females typically conformed more. This shows that internalisation of group beliefs
will occur especially in unfamiliar, ambiguous situations.

 Individual differences may play a role in explaining social influence, which means that the processes
will not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. For example, Perrin and Spencer (1980)
conducted an Asch‐style experiment, but this time using engineering students in the UK. Only one
conforming response was observed out of nearly 400 trials. This could be due to the fact that the
students felt more confident in their ability to judge line lengths due to their experience in engineering
and so felt less pressure to conform. Alternatively, it could be argued that this difference is due to a
historical bias from comparing research conducted in a different era and almost 30 years apart where
rapid social changes have emerged and norms have changed.
 There are real‐world applications which demonstrate that normative social influence also occurs
beyond the artificial laboratory setting. For example, Schultz et al. (2008) gathered data from many
hotels over a week where guests were allocated to rooms randomly as either control or experimental
conditions. In the control rooms, there was a door hanger informing the participants of the
environmental benefits of reusing towels. In the experimental condition, there was additional
information stating that ‘75% of guests chose to reuse their towels each day’. The results showed that
in comparison to the control conditions, guests who received a message that contained normative
information about other guests reduced their need for fresh towels by 25%, showing they had
conformed in order to ‘fit in’ with the perceived group behaviour.
Key Study: Jenness (1932)

Aim: To examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambiguous (unclear) situation, in
response to group discussion.
Method: Jenness used an ambiguous situation that involved a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His
sample consisted of 26 students, who individually estimated how many beans that the glass bottle
contained. Participants were then divided into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate
through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity to
individually estimate the number of beans, to see if they changed their original answer.
MALES FEMALES
AVERAGE ESTIMATE BEFORE 790 925
AVERAGE ESTIMATE AFTER 695 878
AVERAGE CHANGE 256 382
Results: Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original answer when they were provided
with another opportunity to estimate the number of beans in the glass bottle. On average, male
participants changed their answers by 256 beans and female participants changed their answers by 382
beans. Furthermore, the range of the whole group went from 1,875 before the discussion to 474
afterward, a decrease of 75 per cent, which demonstrates the converging opinions of the participants,
after their discussions.
Conclusion: These results suggest that individuals changed their initial estimate due to informational social
influence, as they believed that the group estimates were more likely to be correct, in comparison to their
own.
Key Study: Asch (1951)

Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from unanimous majority affects

conformity in an unambiguous situation.
Method: Asch’s sample consisted of 123 male undergraduate students from Swarthmore College in the
USA, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed
one real (naïve) participant in a room with six to eight confederates (actors working on behalf of the
experimenter), who had agreed their answers in advance. The naïve participant was deceived and was led
to believe that the other people were also real participants. The real participant was always seated second
from last.
In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length. Unlike
Jenness’ experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. Each participant completed 18 trials and the
confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12 trials, called ‘critical trials’. Asch wanted to see if the
real participant would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was clearly incorrect.
Results: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average,
the real participants conformed to the incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials. 74% of the
participants conformed on at least one critical trial and 26% of the participants never conformed. Asch also
used a control group, in which one real participant completed the same experiment without any
confederates. He found that less than 1% of the participants gave an incorrect answer.
Conclusion: Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out why they conformed. Most
of the participants said that they knew their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in
order to fit in, or because they thought that they would be ridiculed. This confirms that participants
complied due to normative social influence and the desire to fit in publicly without changing their private
viewpoint.
Evaluating Asch
 Asch used a biased sample of 123 male students from colleges in America. Therefore, we cannot
generalise the results to other populations, for example female students, as we are unable to conclude
whether female students would have conformed in a similar way to male students. As a result, Asch’s
sample lacks population validity and further research is required to determine whether males and
females conform differently.
 Furthermore, it could be argued that Asch’s experiment has low levels of ecological validity. Asch’s
test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect conformity in
everyday life which means the task lacks mundane realism. Consequently, we are unable to generalise
the results of Asch to other real‐life situations, such as why people may start smoking or drinking
around friends, and therefore these results are limited in their application to everyday life.
 Asch’s research took place at a particular time in US history when conformity was arguably higher and
has been criticised as being ‘a child of its time’. Since 1950, numerous psychologists have attempted to
replicate Asch’s study, for example Perrin and Spencer (1980) using maths and engineering students,
and found significantly lower levels of conformity. This suggests that Asch’s experiment lacks historical
validity and the conformity rates found in 1950 may not provide an accurate reflection of conformity in
modern times.
 Asch’s research is ethically questionable. He broke several ethical guidelines, including: deception and
protection from harm. Asch deliberately deceived his participants, saying that they were taking part in
a vision test and not an experiment on conformity. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive
participants, Asch’s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If the participants

were aware of the true aim they may have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. In
addition, Asch’s participants were not protected from psychological harm and many of the participants
reported feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority. However, Asch interviewed all of his
participants following the experiment to overcome this issue.
Variations of Asch
Following Asch’s original research, numerous variations of his line judgement task were carried out in
order to determine which factors influenced conformity levels. These variations include: group size,
unanimity and task difficulty.
Group Size
Asch carried out many variations to determine
how the size of the majority affects the rate of
conformity. These variations ranged from one
confederate to 15 confederates, and the level of
conformity varied dramatically. When there was 1
confederate, the real participants conformed on
just 3% of the critical trials. When the group size
increased to two confederates, the real
participants conformed on 12.8% of the critical
trials. Interestingly, when there were three
confederates, the real participants conformed on
32% of the critical trials, the same percentage as
Asch’s original experiment, in which there were
six to eight confederates. This demonstrates that
conformity reaches its highest level with just
three confederates, once a majority pressure is
created.
Asch continued investigating group size and in one condition he used 15 confederates. In this experiment
the rate of conformity slightly dropped (~29%). It is possible that the rate of conformity dropped because
the real participants became suspicious of the experiment and not because the pressure to conform is
necessarily less in larger groups.
Unanimity
Unanimity refers to the extent that members of a majority agree with one another. In Asch’s original
experiment, the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer on the critical trials. In one variation of
Asch’s experiment, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this
variation, the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support
for their belief, then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform. Furthermore, in another
variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority. In this variation
conformity still dropped significantly, by this time to 9%. This shows that if you break or disrupt the group’s
unanimous position, then conformity is reduced significantly, even if the answer provided by the supporter
is still incorrect.
Task Difficulty
In Asch’s original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. In one of his variations he made the
task more difficult, by making the difference between the line lengths smaller and therefore appear closer
together and more ambiguous. In this variation, Asch found the rate of conformity increased, although he

didn’t report the percentage. This is likely to be the result of informational social influence, as individuals
look to another for guidance when undertaking an ambiguous task, similar to the results found in Jenness’
experiment, in order to be ‘right’.
CONFORMITY %
VARIATION
(CRITICAL TRIALS)
Group Size: 1 Confederate Lower (3%)
Group Size: 2 Confederates Lower (12.8%)
Group Size: 3 Confederates Remained the same (32%)
Group Size: 15 Confederates Lower (~29%)
Unanimity – Where one of the confederates gave the correct

Lower (5%)
answer throughout.
Unanimity – Where one of the confederates gave a different
Lower (9%)
incorrect answer to the majority.
Task Difficulty – Where the task was made significantly more

difficult, by making the difference between the line lengths Higher*
significantly smaller.
*The percentages were not published by Asch.
Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates

 Social psychology acknowledges the role of situational factors, such as group pressure, in determining
human behaviour such as conformity. However, it also suggests that individuals can exercise personal
responsibility for their actions and demonstrate free will through showing independent behaviour.
 Explanations of conformity (NSI/ISI) adopt a nomothetic approach as they attempt to provide general
principles relating to human behaviour when observed under group pressure from a majority.
 Social psychology uses scientific methods, often in highly‐controlled laboratory settings, to investigate
key concepts which can be replicated, for example, Asch’s original study. However, the fact that Asch
only used male participants in his sample shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or
minimised the differences between men and women in relation to conformity.
Possible Exam Questions

1. Which one of the following is an explanation of conformity? (1 mark)
a) Compliance
b) Identification
c) Group size
d) Normative social influence
2. One type of conformity is compliance. What do social psychologists mean by the term compliance? (1
mark)
Exam Hint: Responses must refer to compliance as private disagreement whilst publicly going along with
the majority for credit to be awarded.
3. Identify which two of the following are types of conformity. Only shade two boxes. (2 marks)
a) Compliance
b) Agentic state
c) Group size
d) Unanimity

e) Identification
4. It is Ajay’s first day in a new job and he spends lots of time observing his work colleagues, so that he
will fit in with them and be approved of. Explain Ajay’s behaviour in terms of compliance. (2 marks)
Exam Hint: It is imperative to read and note the way in which this question is worded. In order to answer
it properly, compliance must be described and applied to Ajay’s scenario, not normative social influence.
5. The following comments refer to alternative types of conformity. Select two phrases which best
describe internalisation. Only select two boxes. (2 marks)
a) The deepest level of conformity
b) Where a person goes along with a majority but does not agree with them
c) The beliefs of the group become part of the person’s own beliefs
d) Where a person goes along publicly while privately disagreeing
e) A short‐term change in a person’s beliefs.
6. What is meant by normative social influence. (2 marks)

Exam Hint: Students often try to enhance their definitions with an example to demonstrate their
understanding, but this is not compulsory for this simple question.
7. Alexandra has recently started working at a new office. On her first day in her new role she noticed that
all her work colleagues were more smartly dressed than she was. Explain the likely effect that
normative social influence will have on Alexandra’s future behaviour. (2 marks)
Exam Hint: It is possible for candidates to take a simple approach to this question. For example,
explaining that Alexandra is likely to dress smarter next time to fit in with the colleagues at her new
work place will earn full marks.
8. Explain what is meant by informational social influence. (3 marks)

Exam Hint: The key issue with a three‐mark explanation question, such as this, is the way in which some
students use examples as means of elaborating their responses. Simply writing “this was shown in Asch’s
study” without explaining how or why this shows informational social influence will gain no additional
marks.
9. Describe the procedure of Asch’s study into conformity. (4 marks)
10. A school council committee must decide what to do with some money left over in the school fund
before the end of term. Most of the students want to give the money to their favourite local charity.
However, two individuals, Lena and Simon, want to buy a snooker table for the common room in the
sixth form.
Briefly explain two factors which might affect whether Lena and Simon will conform to the rest of the
school council committee or not. (4)
Exam Hint: A common snag for this question is muddling explanations and factors. This means that
students can often focus their discussion on normative and informational social influence rather than the
factors which the question actually demands, such as social support or group size. Additionally, some
students fail to get the second mark for one or both of the factors they identify, as they only state that it
will affect conformity, but do not explain how.
11. Jane and Norma have just completed their second year at university studying for a degree in
psychology. They lived in shared accommodation with five other students all of whom were very health
conscious. As a result, their housemates only ate organic food produce. Jane had listened to their
standpoint on this lifestyle choice and now she only eats organic food produce too. Norma was content

to eat organic food whilst living in the house with the others, but when she went home for the holidays
she consumed whatever her mum had bought or made for her. Both girls conformed, but for two
different reasons.
Explain which type of conformity each girl – Jane and Norma – was showing. (2 marks)
Exam Hint: Since this question is asking for an explanation rather than using the command word
‘identify’, it is expected that students will justify their choice with reference to the stem.
12. Explain what is meant by internalisation. (3 marks)

Exam Hint: Secure answers to this question will attempt to explain the term by referring to public and
private behaviour change as well as the duration of the change itself. It is possible to gain credit by
mentioning informational social influence as well. Students should be careful when providing examples
of conformity; however, often they often fail to add to what they have already offered as a response.
13. Asch’s research was conducted in a laboratory setting. Outline one strength and one limitation of
conducting psychological research such as this in a laboratory. (4 marks)
14. David is taking his Year 1 Psychology exam and has answered a tricky multiple‐choice question. He
thinks the correct answer is ‘C’. He strains to look at the exam papers of the students sitting either side
of him in the exam hall and glimpses that Monica, a very clever student, has selected ‘B’. As a result, he
opts to amend his answer to ‘B’ as well. Using your knowledge and understanding of conformity,
explain two reasons why David changed his response from C to B. (4 marks)
15. Outline Asch’s findings in relation to two variables which affect conformity. Briefly explain two
limitations of Asch’s conformity research. (8 marks)
Exam Hint: Students are not required to describe Asch’s original study. Group size, unanimity and task
difficulty are the most likely variables affecting conformity which students will outline. Explaining
possible reasons for the increased or decreased conformity seen in the variations of the study is not
required. Note that generic evaluation points, limitations in this case, are never creditworthy.
16. Discuss research into conformity. (8 marks)

Exam Hint: A danger with this question is that some students are not aware that the word ‘discuss’
demands both knowledge and evaluation in the response. Many students can write confidently about
Asch (including the variations). Often, confusion occurs with the terms conformity and obedience (which
is not relevant to this question). It is also worth drawing attention to the fact that Moscovici’s research is
a study investigating minority influence, not a study of conformity (majority influence).
17. Outline and evaluate research into conformity. (12/16 marks)

Exam Hint: The most common study students opt to outline here Asch’s research and/or his variations.
Students often demonstrate confidence when describing his procedures but they can occasionally
struggle with reporting his findings accurately and in sufficient detail. The word research in the questions
also indicates that students could also refer to explanations and/or types of conformity. Often students
can forget to refer to the work of Perrin and Spencer in order to create an effective and well‐elaborated
evaluation of Asch’s original research. Secure evaluation points are always specific to the study
described, for example explaining that Asch’s research was a ‘child of its time’ and the results are
therefore era dependent. Students should spend time making their evaluation pertinent to the study they
are discussing, rather than presenting generic comments that could apply to any psychological research
in general.
18. Read the item below and then answer the question which follows.

Anna always phones her friends to ask what they are going to wear before she gets ready for a girl’s
night out. She does this because she doesn’t like being the odd one out in her group of friends.
Mark watches what his work colleagues do really carefully when he starts his new job in a factory. He
does this so that he can identify where to put his personal belongings during his shift and how long he
should take for a lunch break so as not to get into trouble.
Discuss two explanations for conformity. Refer to Anna and Mark in your discussion. (12 marks)
Exam Hint: Possible applications that students can explain in their responses for this question are that
Anna’s change in behaviour is due to normative social influence. She is wanting to fit in with what her
friends are wearing (the majority) in order to go along with the norm, even though she might privately
disagree with their fashion choices. Conversely, Mark is seeing his work colleagues as experts and a
source of reliable information which demonstrates informational social influence in action. As a result, he
will put his personal belongings in the right place at the factory and take the appropriate amount of
break time for lunch.
19. Discuss at least two factors that have been shown to affect conformity. Refer to variations of Asch’s
experiment in your answer. (12/16 marks)
Exam Hint: The most likely factors which students will discuss are those named on the specification: the
effects of group size, unanimity and task difficulty. Students must make sure not to confuse factors
affecting conformity with explanations of conformity.
20. Outline and evaluate normative social influence and informational social influence as explanations of
conformity. (12/16 marks)

CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES

Specification: Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.

 Outline and evaluate Zimbardo’s (1973) research investigating conformity to social roles: The
Stanford Prison Experiment.
Introduction
Conformity to social roles is when an individual adopts a particular behaviour and belief, while in a
particular social situation. For example, whilst at school your teacher adopts the behaviour and beliefs of a
‘teacher’, which may be very different to the behaviour and beliefs they adopt with their friends at the
weekend. This type of conformity represents identification, where a person changes their public behaviour
and private beliefs but only while they are in a particular social role.
People learn how to behave in certain situations by observing the social roles of others and conforming to
this behaviour. Therefore, a new teacher will quickly adopt the behaviours and beliefs of other teachers in
their school as they conform to this social role.
Key Study: Zimbardo (1973)

Zimbardo (1973) conducted an extremely controversial study on conformity to social roles called the
Stanford Prison Experiment.
Aim: To examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner when
placed in a mock prison environment. Furthermore, he also wanted to examine whether the behaviour
displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, the people themselves, or external
situational factors, the environment and conditions of the prison.
Method: Zimbardo’s sample consisted of 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a
newspaper advert. The participants were selected from 75 volunteers on the basis of their physical and
mental stability and were each paid $15 a day to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to one
of two social roles, prisoner or guard.
Zimbardo wanted to make the experience as realistic as possible, turning the basement of Stanford
University into a mock prison. Furthermore, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested by real local police and
fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed around their ankles.
The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon. The guards were
instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks.
Results: Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles.
Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly
abusive towards the prisoners. The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and
forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive,
identifying further with their subordinate role.
Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early, because of their adverse reactions to the
physical and mental torment, for example, crying and extreme anxiety. Although the experiment was set to
run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six days, when fellow postgraduate student Christina
Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment were inhumane.

Conclusion: Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes
against their moral principles. Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible
for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously.
Exam Hint: Although Zimbardo’s research also demonstrates examples of obedience (for example, the
prisoners following the guards’ orders) it is important to only refer to the conformity to social roles
element of the Stanford Prison Experiment as this is what the specification demands.
Evaluation of Zimbardo
 A recent replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment, carried out by Reicher and Haslam (2006),
contradicts the findings of Zimbardo. Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s research by randomly
assigning 15 men to the role of prisoner or guard. In this replication, the participants did not conform
to their social roles automatically. For example, the guards did not identify with their status and
refused to impose their authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the guard’s
authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a collapse of the prison system. These results clearly
contradict the findings of Zimbardo and suggest that conformity to social roles may not be automatic as
Zimbardo originally implied.
 Furthermore, individual differences and personality also determine the extent to which a person
conforms to social roles. In Zimbardo’s original experiment the behaviour of the guards varied
dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour displayed by around one third of the participants in
that role, to a few guards who actually helped the prisoners by offering support, sympathy, offering
them cigarettes and reinstating any privileges lost. This suggests that situational factors are not the
only cause of conformity to social roles, and dispositional factors such as personality also play a role,
implying that Zimbardo’s conclusion could have been overstated.
 Zimbardo’s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines, in particular,
protection from harm. Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse
reactions to the physical and mental torment. Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of
anxiety and guilt, as a result of their actions during the Stanford Prison Experiment. Although Zimbardo
followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he
acknowledged that the study should have been stopped earlier but it has been suggested that he was
responding more in the role of superintendent of the prison rather than as the researcher with
responsibility for his participants.
 An intended benefit of Zimbardo conducting his Stanford Prison Experiment was to provide real‐world
applications to improve the US prison system. Initially, there were some beneficial reforms in the way
that some prisoners were treated, for example, juvenile detainees. However, Zimbardo considers his
research to have been a failure in meeting this overall objective, since prison conditions in America are
arguably worse now than when he conducted his study several decades ago.

 Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment acknowledges the role of situational factors such as the roles
people play as members of certain social groups, in this case prisoner or guard, in determining human
behaviour such as brutality or submission and withdrawal.
 The fact that Zimbardo only used male participants in his sample shows a beta bias, as his research may
have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to conformity to social
roles.

1. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated… (1 mark)
a) Obedience
b) Independent Behaviour
c) Normative Social Influence
d) Conformity to Social Roles
2. Define what is meant by conformity to social roles. (2 marks)
3. Identify which two of the following statements about Zimbardo's prison study are correct. Only shade
two boxes. (2 marks) Zimbardo’s study showed how….
a) Individuals obey authority figures
b) Social roles affect human behaviour
c) Individuals conform due to group pressure
d) Behaviour is affected by a loss of identity
e) Unanimity affects behaviour
4. The Stanford Prison Experiment used the participant observation method as Zimbardo played the role
of Prison Superintendent. Evaluate the use of this observational technique. (4 marks)
5. Outline the procedures and findings of Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles. (4 marks)
Exam Hint: Answers to this question must not waste time or effort outlining the aim or conclusion of
Zimbardo’s research as this will not gain credit. Likely elements of the procedure that students will
describe are the sample used, Zimbardo’s basic prison set‐up, how participants were selected to take
part, and what processes Zimbardo used to deindividuate the participants and establish the different
social roles. The most common findings to outline include the increased passivity of the individuals
assigned to the role of prisoner; the increased cruelty of the guards; and the fact that the study
abandoned after only six days.
6. There was a notorious guard in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment who earned the nickname John
Wayne from the prisoners. When he was interviewed later he explained that his behaviour was
inspired by a character from a film called Cool Hand Luke. This media portrayal shows the role of a
prison guard as being extremely tough and aggressive towards prisoners.
Using your knowledge and understanding of conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo,
explain how demand characteristics could be used to explain the behaviour of this notorious prison
guard. (4 marks)
7. Many people have criticised Zimbardo’s Standford Prison Experiment. Identify and briefly discuss two
reasons why people have criticised Zimbardo’s research. (6 marks)
Exam Hint: The most likely criticisms that students will provide about Zimbardo’s research will refer to
ethical issues such as psychological harm, as the participants soon became distressed in the mock prison.
Additionally, the fact that Zimbardo himself took part as the superintendent/prison warden making him
a participant observer was heavily criticised for the resulting lack of objectivity.
8. Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles. (12/16 marks)

EXPLANATIONS OF OBEDIENCE
Specification: Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and
situational variables affecting obedience including proximity, location and uniform, as
investigated by Milgram.

 Outline and evaluate Milgram’s (1963) research investigating obedience to authority
 Outline social–psychological factors as explanations for obedience including:
o Agentic state
o Legitimacy of authority
 Outline situational variables as explanations for obedience including:
o Proximity
o Location
o Uniform
 Evaluate explanations for obedience
Introduction
In contrast to conformity, where pressure comes from the behaviour of the majority, obedience is a form
of social influence that is in direct response to an order from another person. One of the most famous, and
arguable infamous, research studies in psychology is that conducted by Milgram to investigate obedience
to authority.
Milgram (1963)
Aim: To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and
inflict pain and injure an innocent person.
Method: Milgram’s sample consisted of 40 male American participants recruited through a newspaper
advert. The participants were all volunteers who were paid $4.50 to take part.
They were all invited to a laboratory at the prestigious Yale University, where they met the experimenter
and another participant (who were both confederates). They ‘drew lots’ to see who would be assigned to
each role within the study but this was fixed so that the real participant was always assigned to the role of
‘teacher’ and was instructed by the experimenter to administer an electric shock of increasing strength to
the ‘learner’, ‘Mr Wallace’, every time he made a mistake when recalling a list of word pairs.
The ‘learner’ was strapped by the arms into a chair in the room next door and a shock was demonstrated
to the teacher to make the ‘shocks’ appear real. The participant was required to test the learner’s ability
to recall pairs of words. Each time the learner got an answer wrong the teacher was required to administer
an electric shock of increasingly voltage, starting at 15 volts going up in intervals of 15 to 450 volts. At 300
volts (intense shock) the learner would bang on the wall and complain. After the 315‐volt shock was
administered there were no further responses heard from the learner.
The experiment continued until either the participant refused to continue, or the maximum level of 450
volts, labelled ‘danger severe shock’, was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the
experimenter would respond with a series of verbal prods, for example: ‘The experiment requires that you
continue.’
Results: Milgram found that all of the participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued and
administered the full 450 volts. In addition to this quantitative data, qualitative observations were also

made which report that participants showed signs of distress and tension; for example, sweating,
stuttering and trembling.
Conclusion: Milgram concluded that, under the right situational circumstances, ordinary people will obey
unjust orders from someone perceived to be a legitimate authority figure.
Evaluating Milgram (1963)

 One criticism of Milgram’s study is that it broke several ethical guidelines. Milgram deceived his
participants as they believed that they were taking part in a study on how punishment affects learning,
rather than on obedience. They were also deceived by the rigging of the role allocation that was in fact
pre‐determined. Due to the nature of the task Milgram did not protect the participants from
psychological harm, since many of them showed signs of real distress during the experiment and may
have continued to feel guilty following the experiment, knowing that they could have harmed another
human being. Some critics of Milgram believed that these breaches could serve to damage the
reputation of psychology and jeopardise future research.
 Another criticism of Milgram’s study is that it lacks ecological validity. This is because Milgram
conducted a laboratory study, which is very different from real‐life situations of obedience. In everyday
life we often obey far more harmless instructions, rather than giving people electric shocks. As a result,
we are unable to generalise his findings to real‐life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that
people would obey less severe instructions to the same degree. However, Milgram counters this claim,
stating that the laboratory can reflect wider authority relationships seen in real‐life situations. For
example, Hofling et al. (1966) found that nurses were surprisingly obedient to unjustified instructions
from a doctor in a hospital setting.
 Another methodological criticism of Milgram’s study is that it lacks population validity. This is because
Milgram used a biased sample of 40 male American volunteers from a broadly individualistic society.
Therefore, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, particularly collectivist cultures
or to explain the behaviour of females, since it cannot be concluded that those with other cultural
experiences, or female participants, would respond in a similar way to that observed originally by
Milgram.
 The internal validity of Milgram’s study has also been criticised. Orne and Holland (1968) propose that
so many of the participants went to the higher voltages because they did not believe the shocks to be
real and they were not in fact fooled by the experimental set‐up. This means that Milgram may not
have been testing what he intended to investigate, thus lowering the internal validity. He later argued
that up to 70% of the participants did in fact believe the shocks they were administering were real,
although a recent review of the original tape recordings reports that many more of the participants
vocalise doubt about the genuine nature of the electric shocks.
Exam Hint: Remember that the participants in Milgram’s study did have a right to withdraw, as they
were told before the study began that they could leave at any time. This, therefore, is not a suitable
ethical criticism for the study. However, you could mention that due to the nature of the verbal prods
given by the experimenter that they didn’t think that they had the right to withdraw.
Social–Psychological Factors: Agentic State

Agency theory suggests that we are socialised from a very young age to follow the rules of society. But, in
order for this to happen, a person needs to surrender some of their free will. When a person is acting
independently this is called the autonomous state. The opposite of this is being in an agentic state, which
occurs when an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure and acts as their ‘agent’, with little

personal responsibility and reduced moral strain for their actions. To shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is
referred to as the ‘agentic shift’.
In Milgram’s original experiment, 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts and were arguably in
an agentic state. However, in one variation of Milgram’s experiment, an additional confederate
administered the electric shocks on behalf of the teacher. In this variation the percentage of participants
who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from 65% to 92.5%, which highlights the power of
shifting responsibility (agentic shift) to another person by having them act as the agent.
Legitimacy of Authority
Milgram believed that, by focusing on the procedure and following the instructions that were given by the
experimenter, the participants were recognising the legitimate authority of the researcher. In Milgram’s
original research, which took place at the prestigious Yale University, the percentage of participants
administering the full 450 volts was 65%. However, when the experiment was replicated in a rundown
building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience levels dropped to 47.5%. This change in location reduced
the legitimacy of the authority, as participants were less likely to trust the experiment, and the power of
the authority figure was diminished.
Situational Explanations: Obedience

Situational explanations for obedience focus on external factors that affect the likelihood that someone
will obey orders. Examples of situational factors which are named on the specification are proximity,
location and uniform.
Proximity
Proximity is a situational variable affecting obedience which refers to how close you are to someone or
something. In Milgram’s experiment, proximity worked on numerous levels: how close the teacher was to
the learner, and how close the teacher was to the experimenter.
In order to test the power of proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner
were seated in the same room. In this variation, the percentage of participants who administered the full
450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%. Here obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to understand the
learner’s pain more directly. Milgram also found that when the experimenter left the room and gave the
instructions over the telephone, obedience levels fell to 20.5%.
Location
Milgram conducted his original research in a laboratory of Yale University. In order to test the power of the
location, Milgram conducted a variation in a rundown building in Bridgeport, Connecticut. In this variation
the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%,
highlighting the importance of location in creating a prestigious atmosphere generating respect and
obedience.
Uniform
In most of Milgram’s variations, the experimenter wore a white lab coat, indicating his status as a
university professor or scientist. Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the
experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘participant’ in normal everyday clothes
pretending to be an ordinary member of the public, who was in fact another confederate. In this variation,
the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the learner made a
mistake. The percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 20%,
demonstrating the dramatic power that uniform can have on levels of obedience.

MILGRAM’S VARIATIONS VARIABLE %
Someone else administered the shock. Agentic State 92.5%
Milgram’s Original Study 65%
The experiment took place in a rundown building, i.e. less Location and
47.5%
prestigious environment Legitimate Authority
The teacher and learner were in the same room. Proximity (Learner) 40%
The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over
Proximity (Authority Figure) 20.5%
the phone.
The experimenter was replaced by another ‘participant’ in Uniform and
20%
ordinary clothes. Legitimate Authority
Evaluating Explanations for Obedience

 There is research support for the role of the agentic state in explaining Milgram’s high obedience rates.
When Blass and Schmitt (2001) asked students to watch the original footage and suggest who was
responsible for the ‘harm’ caused to the learner, they named the experimenter. It was thought that
the experimenter, as a scientist wearing a white coat, was at the top of the social hierarchy and
therefore had legitimate authority over the situation and outcomes.
 There are differences in the degree to which authority figures are seen and accepted as legitimate in
some cultures. Kilman and Mann (1974) for example, replicated Milgram’s original study procedures in
Australia but found that only 16% of the participants shocked the learner at the maximum voltage level
of 450V whereas Mantell (1971), on the other hand, showed that it was 85% when conducted in
Germany. This cross‐cultural comparison shows that different societies follow alternative hierarchical
structures and children may be socialised differently from a young age to be more, or less, obedient
towards figures who are viewed as legitimate within that specific culture.
 There is research support for the role of the situational variable of uniform affecting obedience rates.
Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in New York City where confederates stood on the street
and asked members of the public who were passing by to perform a small task such as picking up a
piece of litter or providing a coin for the parking meter. The outfit that the confederate was wearing
varied from a smart suit jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit or a security guard’s uniform. It was found
that in this final condition that members of the public were twice as likely to obey the order given by
the ‘security guard’, which supports Milgram’s idea that a uniform adds to the legitimacy of the
authority figure and is a situational variable which increases obedience levels.
 Milgram’s methodological approach to systematically changing one variable at a time in his

experiments investigating the effect of variations on obedience can be praised for having high
reliability. Since Milgram had high control over these variations it was possible to closely monitor the
effect each was having on obedience rates. All of the procedures followed standardised methods, with
variables being kept as consistent as possible. In total over 1,000 participants took part across all
studies, providing a weight of evidence not seen in other areas of social influence research.

 Milgram’s research acknowledges the role of environmental forces in the form of situational factors
such as location, uniform and proximity to the authority figure, which determine human behaviour
such as obedience to unjust orders. The agentic theory suggests that people do not take responsibility

or admit to having free will over their obedient behaviour.
 Explanations of obedience adopt a nomothetic approach, as they attempt to provide general principles
relating to human behaviour when people are observed responding to the direct order of a legitimate
authority figure.
 The fact that Milgram only used male participants in his original sample shows a beta bias, as his
research may have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to the
conclusions drawn regarding obedience to authority. It can also be criticised as being androcentric,
since the results cannot be generalised to females.

1. Identify which one of the following is not a situational variable know to affect rates of obedience. (1
mark)
a) Locus of Control
b) Proximity
c) Uniform
d) Location
2. With reference to obedience, explain what is meant by the agentic state. (2 marks)
3. Aside from personality type, outline one psychological explanation for defiance of authority. (2 marks)
Exam Hint: Most students can identify one explanation, such as ‘social support’. However, some students
then struggle to develop their response with, for example, research evidence or a case to illustrate the
explanation they have named.
4. When you are a passenger travelling on a bus, you are much more likely to move to another seat if the
bus driver tells you to move compared to if another passenger asks you to.
Use your knowledge of why people obey to explain this behaviour. (4 marks)
Exam Hint: This is an application question (AO2) which entails students applying their knowledge to an
unfamiliar situation presented in the scenario. For the top mark band to be accessed, there has to be
clear engagement with the scenario. Secure answers will highlight the legitimate authority held by the
bus driver, the fact he is likely to be wearing a uniform, his power over the passengers on the vehicle and
that there could be negative consequences if people defy his command, such as being ejected from the
bus.
5. Describe one study of obedience. (4 marks)
6. If you are in a hospital setting, you are likely to obey the commands of a nurse who works there.
However, if you were to meet her outside the hospital, for example in a cafe, it’s much less probable
that you will obey her orders. Using your knowledge and understanding of how people resist pressures
to obey, explain why you are less likely to obey the nurse when not in the hospital setting. (4 marks)
Exam Hint: Students must engage explicitly with the scenario to move beyond the basic mark band.
7. Describe two ethical issues that can be illustrated by Milgram’s research into obedience to authority. (4
marks)
Exam Hint: The most common ethical issues that students are likely to select here are the lack of
informed consent, deception or lack of protection from harm. However, caution must be applied with the
latter as Milgram did inform all of the participants that they had to right to withdraw at the beginning of

the study. The procedure, particularly the verbal prods used by the experimenter, then made it difficult
for participants to feel that they could leave the study. So, if students chose to describe the right to
withdraw as one of their ethical issues, they must clearly explain how it applies to Milgram’s research.
8. When in class, Miss Williams asks all her students to listen without speaking when a story book is being
read aloud to the whole group. Her class of Year 6 students all obey and do not speak or interrupt
whilst she is reading aloud. When Miss Williams hears some of her students at the weekend in her local
cinema talking loudly during an animated film she tells them to stop. They refuse to obey her
command. Using your knowledge and understanding of Milgram’s research variations, explain the
difference in the children’s behaviour between school and at the cinema. (4 marks)
9. Aside from ethical issues, explain one strength and one limitation of Milgram’s methodology. (4 marks)
Exam Hint: Students often find writing about limitations of research much easier than the strengths.
Limitations which can be used effectively include the lack of external validity, population validity and/or
demand characteristics. Strengths of a laboratory experiment which are relevant and creditworthy for
this question include control over the variables and the ability to replicate the procedure to test for
reliability.
10. Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for lacking in validity. Evaluate the validity of Milgram’s
original research into obedience. (6 marks)
11. Some psychologists criticise Milgram’s research into obedience to authority, in terms of both
methodological issues and ethical issues. Explain two criticisms of Milgram’s research. (6 marks)
Exam Hint: The main snag here is that students can often identify the criticism, but not explain why it is
an issue.
12. Outline two explanations for obedience. (6 marks)

Exam Hint: The most obvious explanations for this question are the authoritarian personality
(dispositional explanations), the legitimacy of authority and/or the agentic state. However, gradual
commitment and situational ‘factors’ that affect obedience can also be awarded marks if they are
presented effectively as explanations.
13. Discuss research into obedience as investigated by Milgram. (12/16 marks)
14. Outline and evaluate how situational variables have been shown to affect obedience to authority.
(12/16 marks)
15. Outline one or more explanation of why people obey. (12/16 marks).
Exam Hint: There is no need here for students to waste time outlining Milgram’s original research as it
does not answer the question. Candidates must read the question carefully to understand that it is a
discussion of explanations of why people obey that is being demanded.

DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS OF OBEDIENCE

Specification: Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.

 Outline and evaluate one dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.
Introduction
In addition to situational variables, psychologists have also examined dispositional (internal) factors that
contribute to obedience. One particular characteristic is the authoritarian personality, which has been
associated with higher levels of obedience.
Adorno et al. (1950) believed that the foundations for an authoritarian personality were laid in early
childhood as a result of harsh and strict parenting, which made the child feel that the love of their parents
was conditional and dependent upon how they behaved. It is argued that this then creates resentment
within the child as they grow up and, since they cannot express it at the time, the feelings are displaced
onto others that are seen as ‘weak’ or ‘inferior’, as a form of scapegoating.
Key Study: Adorno et al. (1950)

Aim: Adorno et al. (1950) conducted a study using over 2,000 middle‐class, Caucasian Americans to find
out their unconscious views towards other racial groups.
Method: To do this, Adorno and his colleagues developed a number of questionnaires including one called
the F‐scale, which measures fascist tendencies, as fascism (an extreme right‐wing ideology) is thought to
be at the core of the authoritarian personality.
Examples of items from the F‐scale include:

 ‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn’
 ‘Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished’
 ‘There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his
parents’
Findings: Individuals who scored highly on the F‐scale and the other questionnaires self‐reported
identifying with ‘strong’ people and showed disrespect towards the ‘weak’. In addition, those high on the
F‐scale were status‐conscious regarding themselves and others, showing excessive respect to those in
higher power. Adorno and colleagues also found that authoritarian people had a particular cognitive style,
which categorised other people into specific stereotypical categories, leading to a strong positive
correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
Conclusion: It was concluded that individuals with an authoritarian personality were more obedient to
authority figures and showed an extreme submissiveness and respect. They are also uncomfortable with
uncertainty, with everything being seen as either right or wrong with ‘no grey areas’ inbetween,
demonstrating an inflexible attitude. They, therefore, believe that society requires strong leadership to
enforce rigid, traditional values.
Exam Hint: Remember that a correlation, such as those found by Adorno and his colleagues between
authoritarianism and prejudice, only demonstrates a relationship not causation.
Evaluating the Authoritarian Personality

 There is research support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience. Milgram

and Elms (1966) conducted post‐experimental interviews with participants who were fully obedient in
Milgram’s original study, to see if there was a link between high levels of obedience and an
authoritarian personality. It was found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F‐scale in
comparison to the disobedient participants. Furthermore, the obedient participants were less close to
their fathers during childhood and admired the experimenter in Milgram’s study, which was quite the
opposite for disobedient participants. It was concluded that the obedient participants in Milgram’s
original research displayed more characteristics of the authoritarian personality.
 There may be individual differences that contribute to the development of the authoritarian
personality. Research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) has found that less‐educated people are
more likely than well‐educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics. If these
claims are correct, then it is possible to conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics
alone that lead to obedience, but levels of education.
 There may be methodological criticisms associated with the measures used to determine authoritarian
personality traits. It is possible that the F‐scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where
participants provide answers that are socially acceptable. For example, participants may appear more
authoritarian because they believe that their answers are the socially ‘correct’ and consequently they
are incorrectly classified as authoritarian when they are not. This, therefore, reduces the internal
validity of the questionnaire research method used in determining the degree of authoritarianism.
 It is argued that the F‐scale may in fact represent a political bias. Christie and Jahoda (1954) highlight a
weakness in the F‐scale for only measuring extreme right‐wing ideologies, thus ignoring the role that
authoritarianism has also played historically in left‐wing politics such as Chinese Maoism and Russian
Bolshevism, for example. This identifies a bias in what is believed to be at the core of the authoritarian
personality and therefore poses a limitation of Adorno’s theory, since the F‐scale cannot account for
obedience to authority across the diverse political range.

 Adorno et al. came to believe that a high degree of authoritarianism was similar to suffering from a
psychological disorder, with the cause lying within the personality of the individual (nature) but
originally caused by the treatment they received from their parents at a young age (nurture). Obedient
behaviour is, therefore, determined by our socialisation experiences and not a result of free will.
 The dispositional explanation uses a nomothetic approach to establish general laws of behaviour
relating to authoritarian characteristics displayed by those scoring highly on the F‐scale and other
measures.

1. Identify which of the following is not a characteristic of the authoritarian personality: (1 mark)
a) an inflexible viewpoint
b) intolerance of others who are weak
c) contemptuousness towards people of lower social status
d) disobedience to authority
2. With reference to obedience, explain what is meant by the authoritarian personality. (2 marks)
3. Briefly describe one dispositional explanation of obedience. (4 marks)

Exam Hint: Answers which fail to move beyond the basic mark band answers often talk in general about
factors that they believe might influence obedience, such as ‘high status’, but don’t refer to the

dispositional explanation directly. Accurate descriptions will refer to the authoritarian personality as a
collection of traits which arise as a result from strict parenting.
4. Explain one or more reason why people obey authority. (6 mark)

Exam Hint: Explanations which are creditworthy include the agentic shift, legitimacy of authority,
proximity, location, uniform and the authoritarian personality.
5. Adam’s grandmother, Evelyn, holds very old‐fashioned opinions about how children should behave
today. She feels that teenagers often do as they please, rather than as they are told, and are
disrespectful towards their elders.
Evelyn says to Adam: “It wasn’t like this back in my day. I would have done everything my Mum or Dad
told me to without answering back”.
Using your knowledge and understanding of dispositional explanations of obedience, explain Evelyn’s
attitudes. (4 marks)
6. Outline and evaluate the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience. (12/16
marks)

RESISTING SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Specification: Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and
locus of control.

 Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence, including:
o Social Support
o Locus of Control (LoC)
Introduction
Asch’s (1951) research demonstrates the power of social influence through conformity and his variations
provide an insight into how group size, unanimity and task difficulty can increase or decrease the influence
of the majority. Milgram (1963), on the other hand, highlights our susceptibility to obeying orders, and his
variations reveal the different variables that can increase or decrease our willingness to follow orders.
Since Asch and Milgram’s research, psychologists have examined explanations of resistance to social
influence; our willingness to resist pressure to conform or obey, including social support and locus of
control.
Social Support
One reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally – someone
supporting their point of view. Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain
independent.
Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid
normative social influence. Although Asch reports that if this dissenter then returns to conform then so
does the naïve participant, meaning that the effect may only be short‐term.
Furthermore, individuals who have support for their point of view are less likely to obey orders and feel
better able to resist the pressure if there is another person present who also does not obey.
Evaluating Social Support

 There is research support for social support in reducing pressure to conform. In one of Asch’s (1951)
variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this
variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has
support for their belief (social support), then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
This suggests that social support lowers the pressure of the group making it easier to demonstrate
independent behaviour.
 There is research support for social support in reducing pressure to obey which comes from Milgram
(1974). In one of Milgram’s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional
confederates, who also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates
refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, the percentage of real
participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%. This shows
that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the
pressure of an authority figure.

Locus of Control
In some cases people can resist the pressure to conform or obey because of their personality. Rotter
(1966) proposed the idea of locus of control, which is the extent to which people believe they have control
over their own lives.
People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their
own behaviour and that they have control over their life. Individuals with an internal locus of control are,
therefore, more independent and find it easier to resist pressure to conform or obey. Conversely, people
with an external locus of control believe that what happens to them is controlled by external factors and
that they do not have complete control over their life. This means they are more likely to succumb to
pressure to conform or obey and are less likely to show independent behaviour.
Evaluating Locus of Control

 There is research that supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely
to conform. Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control
is associated with conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal
locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in
situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted. There was no
difference between the two groups for informational social influence. This suggests that normative
social influence, the desire to fit in, is more powerful than informational social influence, the desire to
be right, when considering locus of control.
 Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the
pressure to obey. Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non‐Jewish survivors of WWII and compared
those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazis with those who had not.
Oliner & Oliner found that the 406 ‘rescuers’, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high
internal locus of control, in comparison with the 126 people who had simply followed orders. These
results appear to support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to
follow orders, although there are many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders
in WWII and it is difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor.
 However, there is contradictory evidence, since not all research supports the link between locus of
control and resistance to social influence. Twenge et al. (1967) conducted a meta‐analysis of studies
spanning over four decades and found that, over time, people have become more external in their
locus of control but also more resistant to obedience, which is incongruent to Rotter’s original
suggestions. This challenges the established link between internal locus of control and higher
resistance.

 The locus of control explanation of resistance to social influence uses a nomothetic approach to
establish general laws of behaviour relating to characteristics displayed by those scoring high or low on
Rotter’s internal/external scale.

1. Social support can increase resistance to social influence. This was demonstrated in Asch’s research
studies when: (1 mark)
a) the task difficulty was increased making the line task more ambiguous
b) the participants were asked to write down their answers instead of say them out loud
c) the confederates were unanimous in giving the wrong answers

d) a dissenter gave a different answer from the rest of the confederates and agreed with the naïve
participant.
2. With reference to resistance to social influence, explain what is meant by social support. (2 marks)
3. When in a large group of friends, it is very easy for an individual to simply go along with their views,
even if they don’t agree privately. However, sometimes people are able to resist the pressure to
conform. Using what you have learned from studying conformity, outline one reason why someone
might resist the pressure to conform. (2 marks)
Exam Hint: This is straightforward question but often students can misread the question and provide
reasons why we conform, rather than resist, or even give more than two reasons why we resist. A
common response is likely to be the presence of allies.
4. Two students, Georgina and Peter, have just started in Year 12 at their local college. By the end of the
first term Peter has put his name forward to be a prefect. He believes it is luck whether he will be
selected and feels that there is nothing he can do to influence the process. Georgina did not put her
name forward because her mother told her not to. (2 marks)
a) What type of locus of control does Peter’s behaviour show?
b) What type of locus of control does Georgina’s behaviour show?
5. Briefly describe locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence. (4 marks)

Exam Hint: A pitfall for this question is that students often mistakenly use the words high/low with
reference to internal/external locus of control.
6. Rotter used a questionnaire to measure locus of control. Identify one strength and one weakness of
using this method. (4 marks)
7. Using your knowledge of psychology, explain why some people might resist pressures to conform. (4
marks)
Exam Hint: A common issue within the social influence topic is that students use the terms conformity
and obedience interchangeably, when in fact they are separate and distinct notions.
8. Hafsa likes to leave her shirt untucked when at school and notices that lots of other students do the
same, including a girl in her class called Helen. However, when the new head teacher introduced strict
uniform guidelines and harsh punishments for not obeying, most students started to tuck their shirts in
every day. However, Hafsa and her classmate Helen continued to leave their shirts untucked.
Using your knowledge of resistance to social influence, explain why Hafsa and Helen continued to resist
the pressure to obey the school rules. (4 marks)
9. Discuss one or more explanation of why people resist the pressure to conform. (8 marks)
Exam Hint: It is crucial that students read this question carefully and make sure that they understand
what the command word requires: both AO1 and AO3. For evaluation commentary to be effective it is
not enough simply to say a study supports or challenges an explanation, they must also explain how or
why this is so.
10. Discuss explanations of resistance to social influence. (12/16 marks)
11. Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence. (12/16 marks)
Exam Hint: Out of panic, many students provide three or four suggestions when it is only necessary to
deal with two in appropriate detail.

12. Read the item below and then answer the question that follows.
Two A level students were discussing the topic of social influence after their last psychology lesson.
Louise: “It’s incredible how some people can resist social influence isn’t it, Matt? They must have a
strong personality with lots of confidence”.
Matt: “I don’t agree with you, Louise, I think people are more likely to resist social influence if the
people they are with do so too”.
Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence. In your answer, refer to the
views expressed by Louise and Matt in the conversation above. (16 marks)
Exam Hint: Possible application points for this question include that fact that Louise is alluding to
dispositional factors in resisting social influence as being the most important. Conversely, Matt’s
comment indicates that he believes situational factors are more powerful. When he refers to ‘strong
personality’, this could be interpreted as having an internal locus of control.

MINORITY INFLUENCE
Specification: Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and
locus of control.

 Outline and evaluate research examining minority influence, with reference to:
o Consistency
o Commitment
o Flexibility
Introduction
So far, this chapter has examined research that focuses on the persuasive power of the majority and our
willingness to obey an authority figure. However, social influence can occur when a minority (small group)
changes the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of a majority; this is known as minority influence.
Psychologists have identified different factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority, including:
consistency, commitment and flexibility.
Consistency
Consistency refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority
members share the same belief and retain it over time. This then draws the attention of the majority group
to the minority position. One of the most influential experiments investigating minority influence was
conducted by Moscovici (1969).
Aim: To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour
perception task.
Method: His sample consisted of 172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a
colour perception task. The participants were placed in groups of six and shown 36 slides, which were all
varying shades of blue. The participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide.
Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said
that all 36 slides were green; in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the
slides were green and 12 were blue.
Findings: Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the
trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials.
Conclusion: Moscovici’s results show that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an
inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor in exerting minority influence.
Commitment
On occasion, minorities sometimes engage in very risky or extreme behaviour in order to draw attention to
their views. In psychological terms, it is important that these behaviours place the minority at risk in order
for them to demonstrate commitment to their cause. This is called the augmentation principle, as the
majority then in turn pays more attention to the actions being taken and is therefore more likely to
integrate it into their personal viewpoints, augmenting its importance, due to the personal sacrifice made
by the minority.

Flexibility
Flexibility refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority is willing
to compromise. This means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable.
Aim: Nemeth (1986) believed that consistency was not the most important factor in minority influence,
suggesting that it can often be misinterpreted as a negative trait. She set about investigating the idea of
flexibility as a key characteristic of successful minorities who exert pressure.
Method: Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a
victim of a ski‐lift accident.
One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions:
1) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change their position
(inflexible).
2) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher
rate of compensation (flexible).
Results: Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority;
however, in the flexible condition, the majority members were much more likely to also compromise and
change their view.
Conclusion: Nemeth’s research highlights the importance of flexibility, and questions the idea of
consistency, suggesting that striking a balance between the two is the most successful strategy for a
minority to adopt.
Evaluating Minority Influence

 Moscovici used a biased sample of 172 female participants from America. As a result, we are unable to
generalise the results to other populations, for example male participants, and we cannot conclude
that male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way. Furthermore, research
often suggests that females are more likely than males to conform and therefore further research is
required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants to improve the low
population validity of this experiment.
 Moscovici has also been criticised for breaching ethical guidelines during his study. He deceived his
participants, as they were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test when in fact it was
an experiment on minority influence. This also means that Moscovici did not gain fully informed
consent. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Moscovici’s experiment required
deception in order to achieve valid results, as if the participants were aware of the true aim, they might
have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. Thus, a cost–benefit analysis would deem
that the insight gained from such research was worth the short‐term cost to the participants which
could be dealt with by means of a debrief following the study.
 There are methodological issues with research into minority influence. Judging the colour of a slide is
an artificial task and therefore lacks mundane realism, since it is not something that occurs every day.
Research conditions are criticised as being too far removed from cases of real‐world minority influence
such as political campaigning. The implications of real‐world cases are also grossly disproportionate to
those seen in a lab setting as they can, for some people, literally be cases of life or death and as such
Moscovici’s research lacks external validity.

 Moscovici’s research into minority influence provides support for informational social influence. In
one of his variations, participants were asked to write down their answers rather than say the colour of
the slide out loud. This meant that their response was private and not shared with the other group
members. Under these circumstances, it was found that agreement with the minority position was in
fact higher, suggesting that they had internalised the viewpoint as true and correct. Moscovici suggests
that the majority was convinced of the minority’s argument but found it easier to confess this privately,
as being associated with a minority position may seem ‘radical’.

 Moscovici’s research can be criticised as being gynocentric since the results cannot be generalised to
males, as his research takes an exclusive focus on the conforming behaviour of female participants to a
minority influence.

1. Identify which of the following has the smallest impact on minority influence: (1 mark)
a) consistency
b) flexibility
c) inconsistency
d) commitment
2. Define what is meant by minority influence. (2 marks)
3. Moscovici had three conditions in his famous blue/green slide experiment. The first group of
participants was exposed to a consistent minority, the second to an inconsistent minority and the third
acted as a control group. Explain what is meant by the term ‘control group’. (2 marks)
4. Identify three behaviours that enable a minority to influence a majority. (3 marks)

Exam Hint: Many students are able to name three relevant behaviours, and most will choose the ones
named explicitly on the specification.
5. In relation to minority influence, explain what is meant by the terms consistency and flexibility. (4
marks)
6. A small group of environmentally‐conscious A level students are protesting for their sixth form to
become ‘paper‐free’ for the next academic year, to save precious world resources. Recently, they had
a meeting with some teachers as representatives of the whole teaching staff at the college. The staff
told the students that the sixth form could become ‘paper‐free’ if they could convince the rest of the
students it was a great idea.
Use your knowledge of conformity and minority influence to explain the factors that will determine
how successful the small group of students will be. (7 marks)
Exam Hint: Possible content for the application element of this question includes the fact that the other
students in the sixth form are more likely to be convinced if the minority group of students are
consistent, committed but show flexibility in their views about being ‘paper‐free’. Suggesting examples
of how the students might demonstrate this is needed for full justification. Additionally, explanations of
minority influence such as social cryptoamnesia or the snowball effect are creditworthy. Likewise,
explanations of how views may change through informational social influence/internalisation can also
gain marks.
7. Outline and evaluate research into minority influence. (12/16 marks)

SOCIAL CHANGE
Specification: The role of social influence processes in social change.

 Outline and evaluate how social influence research has contributed to our understanding of social
change.
Introduction
The work of Moscovici (1969) and Nemeth (1986) concluded that a consistent, committed and flexible
minority is most effective in influencing an individual. However, minority groups also play an important
role in facilitating social change by influencing an entire society to change its attitude, behaviours and
beliefs.
Social change refers to the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to
replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations.
Psychology in Everyday Life

History has provided many real‐life examples of circumstances in which consistent individuals have
challenged and questioned the values and norms of society. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela led
civil rights movements and were consistent in their views against apartheid for many years, which helped
bring about social change.
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white male passenger in the 1950s, she was arrested for
violating US law. This event helped trigger the civil rights movement to end the racial segregation laws in
America. The case of Rosa Parks demonstrates that people who are willing to make a sacrifice (in her case
being arrested) to show their commitment to their cause and as a result are more influential in bringing
about a social change.
Another real‐world example of social change is seen with the suffragettes who were consistent in their
view and persistently used educational and political arguments to draw attention to female rights. They
remained consistent for many years and despite opposition continued protesting and lobbying until they
convinced society that women were entitled to vote. Many of the suffragettes made significant sacrifices
for their cause, risking imprisonment and even death through extended hunger strikes and thereby making
their influence even more powerful. Over time their minority influence influenced people to consider the
issue, leading to social change and all adults gaining the right to vote.
Social Change
There are a number of processes that can be used to explain these, and many more, examples of social
change which have occurred throughout history:
a) Consistency – displaying consistency of viewpoint and intended outcome is beneficial in bringing about
social change, as a consistent message appears more credible and can help to convince a majority.
b) Deeper Processing – the more people think about the issue at hand, rather than blindly accepting it,
the more they will, in turn, be able to challenge the existing social norms to bring about change.
c) Drawing attention – in order for a social change to occur, the majority must first of all be made aware
of the need for the change.
d) The Augmentation Principle – when the majority pays attention to selfless and risky actions being
taken by the minority group and is more likely to integrate the group’s opinion into their own personal
viewpoints due to the personal sacrifice made by the minority.
e) The Snowball Effect – once the minority viewpoint has got the attention of some of the majority group

members, more and more people begin paying attention and the minority viewpoint gathers
momentum, much like a snowball growing in size when rolled along a snowy field.
f) Social Cryptoamnesia – the majority knows that a social change has occurred but the source of the
change and the message itself have become disassociated through the process of social cryptoamnesia
and they do not recall how it has happened.
g) Normative Social Influence – social change can be encouraged by reporting the behaviour or attitudes
of the majority, to urge others to follow suit for normative reasons (e.g. to fit in with the majority).
h) Gradual Commitment – once a small instruction has been followed, it is harder for larger requests to
be declined. This is often referred to as ‘the foot in the door technique’ and means that people
effectively find themselves adopting a new way of behaving gradually over a period of time.
Evaluating Social Change

 Minority influence can often act as a barrier to social change. Bashir et al. (2013) were interested in
investigating why so many people resist social change even when they believe it to be needed. It was
found that some minority groups, such as environmental activists or feminists, often live up to the
stereotypes associated with those groups, which can be off‐putting for outsiders. This means that the
majority often does not want to be associated with a minority for fear of being stereotypically labelled.
 There is research support for the role of normative social influence as a process for social change.
Nolan et al. (2008) conducted a study which spanned one month in California and involved hanging
messages on the front doors of people’s houses in San Diego encouraging them to reduce energy
consumption by indicating that most other residents in the neighbourhood were already doing this. As
a means of control, some houses received a message about energy usage but with no reference to the
behaviour of other people in the area. It was found that the experimental group significantly lowered
their energy consumption, showing that conformity can lead to positive social change.
 Minority influence and majority influence may involve different levels of cognitive processing.
Moscovici believes that a minority viewpoint forces individuals to think more deeply about the issue.
However, Mackie (1987) counters this, suggesting the opposite to be true. She suggests that when a
majority group is thinking or acting in a way that is different from ourselves we are forced to think even
more deeply about their reasons. This, therefore, casts doubt on the validity of Moscovici’s minority
influence theory, suggesting it may be incorrect.
 Methodological issues may undermine the links drawn between social influence processes and social
change. For example, many of the research studies providing an explanation for social change, such as
those conducted by Asch, Milgram and Moscovici, can themselves be criticised for issues in their
methodology ranging from low generalisability to demand characteristics. This means that there are
doubts about the validity of some of the processes involved in social influence and social change due to
the research informing the theories.

 Reports of social change within society can involve concepts that have not been, or cannot be, tested
empirically, which means they lack scientific credibility. Therefore, an idiographic approach is often
taken, as there is a large amount of subjective interpretation involved in explaining the occurrences of
social norms being superseded in society. That being said, each piece of research that contributed to
the processes involved in social influence, such as that of Asch, Milgram and Moscovici, takes a
nomothetic approach, as they have each created universal laws to explain human behaviour under
certain social circumstances.


1. What is the key term which refers to the behaviour of a minority when they are willing to make a
personal sacrifice such as risking their own safety in order to bring about a social change? (1 mark)
a) gradual commitment
b) flexibility
c) the augmentation principle
d) the snowball effect
2. Explain what is meant by social change, in reference to social influence. (2 marks)
3. Many examples of social change come from real‐world, naturalistic incidences that have not been
manipulated experimentally. Explain what is meant by the term ‘ecological validity’. (2 marks)
4. For many years smoking indoors at public venues such as restaurants, pubs and even on public
transport was lawful behaviour. Over time, this became more and more unacceptable and it is now
against the law in the UK to do so.
Using your knowledge of the processes of social influence, explain how this social change relating to
smoking has occurred. (4 marks)
Exam Hint: Students must engage with the stimulus material to explain how this social change has
occurred. Sound answers might offer legitimate authority (the law) or consider the role of a consistent
minority and/or the snowball effect.
5. Social influence research helps us to understand how it is possible to change people’s behaviour. For
example, psychology can influence how campaigns to persuade people to eat healthy meals are
structured.
With reference to this example of social change, explain how psychology might affect the economy. (4
marks)
Exam Hint: There are two elements to this question which need to be addressed: the social influence
research which was informed by the psychology of social change and the element of the economy in this.
Social influence research tells us how behaviour can be adapted, for example through minority influence
or conformity. The economic implications include saving money for the NHS as fewer people will need
treatment for food/obesity related illnesses and employers will benefit by having their staff take less
time off work.
6. Explain how a minority can bring about social change. (4 marks)

Exam Hint: Students who wish to show thorough understanding of how minorities influence social
change will refer to minorities as being consistent, committed and flexible. Students could also outline
the snowball effect and the impact of social cryptoamnesia in the process.
7. When Mariyah was a young girl, not many people on her housing estate used to return their glass milk
bottles to the curb for recycling collection. Now, Mariyah’s household has three bins that are collected
each week by the local council refuse lorries, who segregate all household waste for recycling including
glass, tins, paper and cardboard.
With reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility, explain how the minority viewpoint of the
importance of recycling has become so widely accepted by the majority. (6 marks)
Exam Hint: There are two skills required here: sound understanding of the psychology of social change
and an application to the novel situation as outlined in the stem.

8. Read the item and then answer the question that follows.
The following article appeared in a national newspaper recently:
Great Britain’s opinions on homosexuality

– is this the largest social change in the last 30 years?
In the UK, views on homosexuality have changed significantly over time, when until the 1960s it was a
criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. Thirty years ago, almost 65% of the British public were
against same sex relationships thinking they were morally inappropriate. Today, homosexuality is
widely recognised and accepted with the majority of British people supporting new changes to the law
on both gay marriage and adoption by same sex parents.
With reference to the newspaper article above, explain how social influence can lead to social change.
(6 marks)
Exam Hint: Likely content for students to refer to include consistency, commitment and flexibility. Social
change also occurs when a minority view, e.g. Gay Rights campaigners, challenge the majority view
(morally unacceptable) and it is eventually accepted as the new norm. Explanations of conformity, for
example informational social influence, is also creditworthy, in addition to obedience factors.
9. A small environmental group wants to persuade more individuals to use public transport or to ride
bicycles in their local town, instead of using their cars to reduce carbon emissions.
Using your knowledge of the role of minority influence in social change, what advice would you give
the environmental group?
Exam Hint: Answers here need to be shaped to fit the question by making suggestions such as that the
small environmental group needed to demonstrate to the majority of individuals in their local town that
they are willing to suffer for their cause, for example, by using bicycles rather than cars even though it is
less convenient (augmentation principle).
10. Explain how social influence research helps us to understand social change. (6 marks)
11. Outline and evaluate the role of social influence processes in social change. (12/16 marks)

Checklist
Specification Content
Conformity Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and
compliance. Explanations for conformity: ISI and NSI.
Variables affecting conformity: group size, unanimity
and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.
Conformity to social Conformity to social roles as investigated by

Zimbardo.
roles
Explanations for Explanations for obedience: agentic state and

legitimacy of authority, and situational variables
obedience affecting obedience including proximity, location and
uniform, as investigated by Milgram.
Dispositional Dispositional explanation for obedience: The

Authoritarian Personality.
explanations
Resisting social Explanations of resistance to social influence,

including social support and locus of control.
influence
Minority influence Minority influence including reference to consistency,

commitment and flexibility.
Social change The role of social influence processes in social

change.

More Psychology revision and support at:
www.tutor2u.net/psychology
@tutor2uPsych ALevelPsychStudentGroup tutor2uPsych

01 Social Influence Topic Companion Digital Download (2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Social Influence Topic Companion Digital Download (2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AQA A Level

Joseph Sparks & Helen Lakin

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Explanations for Conformity

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

CHANGE IN PUBLIC CHANGE IN PRIVATE SHORT‐TERM / LONG‐

COMPLIANCE Yes No Short‐term

INTERNALISATION Yes Yes Long‐term

Evaluating Explanations for Conformity

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

Key Study: Jenness (1932)

AVERAGE ESTIMATE BEFORE 790 925

AVERAGE ESTIMATE AFTER 695 878

AVERAGE CHANGE 256 382

Key Study: Asch (1951)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Unanimity – Where one of the confederates gave the correct

Task Difficulty – Where the task was made significantly more

Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates

Possible Exam Questions

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

6. What is meant by normative social influence. (2 marks)

8. Explain what is meant by informational social influence. (3 marks)

9. Describe the procedure of Asch’s study into conformity. (4 marks)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

12. Explain what is meant by internalisation. (3 marks)

16. Discuss research into conformity. (8 marks)

17. Outline and evaluate research into conformity. (12/16 marks)

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Key Study: Zimbardo (1973)

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

2. Define what is meant by conformity to social roles. (2 marks)

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Evaluating Milgram (1963)

Social–Psychological Factors: Agentic State

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

Situational Explanations: Obedience

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Evaluating Explanations for Obedience

 Milgram’s methodological approach to systematically changing one variable at a time in his

Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

Possible Exam Questions

5. Describe one study of obedience. (4 marks)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

12. Outline two explanations for obedience. (6 marks)

13. Discuss research into obedience as investigated by Milgram. (12/16 marks)

www.tutor2u.net/psychology Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted

DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS OF OBEDIENCE

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Key Study: Adorno et al. (1950)

Examples of items from the F‐scale include:

Evaluating the Authoritarian Personality

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology