Social Psychology

Conformity, obedience & social influence — A-Level Psychology

Types of Conformity

Compliance

Going along with the group publicly but privately disagreeing. Weakest form. Driven by normative social influence (desire to be liked/accepted).

Identification

Conforming to a group we value or identify with. Public and private change, but only while the group is present. Driven by desire to belong.

Internalisation

Genuinely accepting group norms as your own. Deepest, most permanent form. Driven by informational social influence (believing others are correct).

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

Conforming to be accepted, avoid rejection. "Going along to get along." Linked to compliance. Stronger in groups where acceptance matters.

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

Conforming because we believe others have better knowledge. "They probably know better." Linked to internalisation. Stronger in ambiguous or unfamiliar situations.
Asch (1951) — Line Study

Conformity to a Unanimous Majority

Method: Participants judged which comparison line matched a standard line. 6 confederates gave obviously wrong answers on 12 critical trials.
Findings: 36.8% of responses on critical trials were conforming (wrong). 75% conformed at least once. 25% never conformed.
Variations:
Unanimity broken (1 dissenter)
↓ to 5.5%
Group size = 3
~32%
Task difficulty ↑
↑ conformity
Written answers (private)
↓ conformity
+ Controlled lab study — high internal validity, replicable
+ Variations show the effect of specific factors
− Artificial task — low ecological validity (line judgments ≠ real life)
− Cultural/historical bias — 1950s America, conformist era. May not generalise
Milgram (1963) — Shock Study

Obedience to Authority

Method: 40 male volunteers told to administer increasing electric shocks (15V-450V) to a "learner" (confederate) for wrong answers. An experimenter in a grey lab coat gave prods to continue.
Findings: 65% went to 450V (lethal). 100% went to 300V. Many showed extreme distress but continued.
Key variations:
Proximity (same room)
40%
Touch proximity
30%
Remote authority (phone)
20.5%
Run-down office
47.5%
Two peers refuse
10%
+ High internal validity — controlled conditions, standardised prods
+ Real-world applications — explains atrocities (Holocaust, Abu Ghraib)
− Ethical issues — severe distress, deception, right to withdraw compromised by prods
− Demand characteristics — participants may have known shocks weren't real (Orne & Holland)

Explanations for Obedience

Agentic State

People shift from autonomous state (taking personal responsibility) to agentic state (acting as an agent for an authority figure). They diffuse responsibility to the authority — "I was just following orders."

Legitimacy of Authority

We obey people we perceive as having legitimate power. This depends on their position, uniform, and setting. Milgram's experimenter had legitimacy from Yale University.

Authoritarian Personality (Adorno)

Some people are more predisposed to obey. Characterised by rigid thinking, submission to authority, and hostility to those of lower status. Measured by the F-scale. Formed through harsh, critical parenting.

Situational Factors

Gradual commitment (foot in the door), presence of authority, uniform, buffer between obedient person and victim, social support (or lack of it).

Resistance to Social Influence

Social Support

Having an ally reduces conformity (Asch: dissenter dropped conformity from 32% to 5.5%) and obedience (Milgram: two peers refusing dropped obedience from 65% to 10%). An ally breaks unanimity and models independent behaviour.

Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966)

Internal LOC: believe they control their own outcomes → more likely to resist pressure. External LOC: believe outcomes are controlled by external forces → more likely to conform/obey. Those with internal LOC are more independent thinkers.

Minority Influence & Social Change

Moscovici et al. (1969) — Blue Slide Study

How Minorities Influence the Majority

Method: Groups of 6 (4 real participants, 2 confederates). All shown blue slides. In consistent condition, confederates always said "green." In inconsistent condition, they said "green" on 2/3 of trials.
Findings: Consistent minority: 8.4% agreed "green." Inconsistent minority: 1.3%. A consistent minority has genuine influence.
Key factors for minority influence: Consistency, commitment, flexibility (not rigid), and the snowball effect.
Exam tip: Link minority influence to social change: civil rights movement, suffragettes, environmental activism. Use the process: minority is consistent → draws attention → deeper processing (augmentation principle) → snowball effect → social cryptoamnesia (society forgets the origin of the change).