A level Notes- Recap (A1 content)
Social Influence (Topic One):
Types and explanations for conformity:
Types of conformity:
• Internalisation: a deep level in which we conform because we believe that the majority opinion is right. Leads to both public
and private acceptance.
• Identification: a moderate level in which we act in the same way as the majority to be part of it but don’t necessarily agree
with everything the majority says.
• Compliance: a superficial and temporary level of conformity in which we publicly agree with the majority but privately
disagree. It only exists whilst the group is there monitoring us.
Conformity explanations:
• NSI: we agree with the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval, and be liked. This may lead to
compliance.
• ISI: we agree with the majority because we believe the majority to be correct and we want to be correct too. This may lead to
internalisation.
Asch- Three Line Conformity Study:
• His 3-line test investigated whether Ps would conform to a majority view when the view was obviously wrong (non-ambiguous).
He used the three lines test which involved 3 comparison lines of various lengths, one of which matched a target line.
• 123 American male undergraduate students were used with each participant completing 18 trials. 7 stooges were used with
the genuine participant seated in the penultimate position. On 12 ‘critical’ trials, the stooges were instructed to give a
unanimous incorrect response.
• The naïve participant gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time with 78% of Ps conforming to the majority on at least one
occasion. Asch concluded that groups exert pressure on an individual to conform to the majority view. As Ps referred to the
need to avoid ridicule and rejection in interviews afterwards, this supported the view of NSI.
• Asch completed several variations to his original study:
» Group size – conformity increased to 31.8% when there was a group size of 3 but didn’t increase as group size
increased suggesting that conformity can occur when there is a small majority.
» Unanimity – the presence of a dissenter from the group led to conformity rates decreasing. This person offers social
support and reduces NSI and ISI.
» Task difficulty – conformity increased as this increased.
Zimbardo- Conformity to Social Roles:
• Social role: ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups e.g., parent. There are
expectations of appropriate behaviour in each role e.g., caring.
• Aim: to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a
role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
• He converted a basement of Stanford University into a mock prison.
• He advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards for a fortnight. 24 male
college students. Roles were randomly assigned.
• When the prisoners arrived, they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away.
They were issued a uniform and referred to by their number only.
• Guards were issued a khaki uniform, together with whistles, handcuffs, and mirrored glasses. No physical violence was
permitted.
• Both (short time) guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.
Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners.
• One prisoner had to be released after 36 hours and the study which had been designed to last 2 weeks ended after 5 days.
Milgram- Obedience Study:
, AO1-
• Obedience= where somebody acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure.
• Milgram used 40 men aged 20-50 in a range of occupations who volunteered to take part in a learning and memory study.
• Location= Yale University.
• Ps were greeted by experimenter in a grey lab coat.
• The Ps were then introduced to another ‘participant’ who was really a stooge.
• The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher.
• The teacher was then taken to another room and seated in front of a shock generator. The
shocks ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts. The teacher’s job was to test the learner on word
pairs and every time a mistake was made to deliver a shock beginning at 15 volts and moving
one level higher as necessary.
• Sample 45v shock.
• The learner did not really receive any shocks but just acted as if he did.
• The experimenter had a list of verbal prods which could be used such as ‘the experiment requires that you continue’.
• Results: all participants went as far as 300 volts and 65% continued to the end.
Situational Variables- Obedience:
• Situational variables: factors related to the external circumstances (the environment) that affect obedience
rather than dispositional (personality) explanations.
• Examples are:
1. Proximity: physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to. In
Milgram’s original experiment, the teacher and learner were in separate (adjoining) rooms so that the teacher
could hear the learner though could not see him.
Variation 1: they were in the same room and obedience decreased to 40%.
Variation 2: teacher had to force the hand of the learner onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when he
refused to answer a question. Obedience decreased to 30%.
2. Location: the place where an order is issued (its prestige).
Variation: a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting of Yale University,
giving the experimenter less authority and lowering the legitimacy of authority. Obedience
decreased to 47.5%.
3. Uniform: a specific outfit that is a symbol of a person’s position of authority. In the original study, the
experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority.
Variation: the role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’
(played by a confederate) in everyday clothes. Obedience decreased to 20%.
Explanations for obedience: Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority:
• Milgram suggests that people have 2 states of behaviour when they are in a social situation:
1. Autonomous state: personal responsibility for our actions.
2. Agentic state: lose our independence and feel no personal responsibility as we believe ourselves to be
acting for an authority figure.
» The shift from an autonomous state to an agentic state is known as agentic shift and occurs when the person
giving the orders is perceived to be legitimate and when the authority figure is believed to accept responsibility
for what happens e.g., experimenter in Milgram’s study.
People may be ordered to act against their moral code, causing stress- moral strain.
Moral strain may be reduced using binding factors, which are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/minimise
the damaging effect of their behaviour e.g., shifting the responsibility to the victim.
Social Influence (Topic One):
Types and explanations for conformity:
Types of conformity:
• Internalisation: a deep level in which we conform because we believe that the majority opinion is right. Leads to both public
and private acceptance.
• Identification: a moderate level in which we act in the same way as the majority to be part of it but don’t necessarily agree
with everything the majority says.
• Compliance: a superficial and temporary level of conformity in which we publicly agree with the majority but privately
disagree. It only exists whilst the group is there monitoring us.
Conformity explanations:
• NSI: we agree with the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval, and be liked. This may lead to
compliance.
• ISI: we agree with the majority because we believe the majority to be correct and we want to be correct too. This may lead to
internalisation.
Asch- Three Line Conformity Study:
• His 3-line test investigated whether Ps would conform to a majority view when the view was obviously wrong (non-ambiguous).
He used the three lines test which involved 3 comparison lines of various lengths, one of which matched a target line.
• 123 American male undergraduate students were used with each participant completing 18 trials. 7 stooges were used with
the genuine participant seated in the penultimate position. On 12 ‘critical’ trials, the stooges were instructed to give a
unanimous incorrect response.
• The naïve participant gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time with 78% of Ps conforming to the majority on at least one
occasion. Asch concluded that groups exert pressure on an individual to conform to the majority view. As Ps referred to the
need to avoid ridicule and rejection in interviews afterwards, this supported the view of NSI.
• Asch completed several variations to his original study:
» Group size – conformity increased to 31.8% when there was a group size of 3 but didn’t increase as group size
increased suggesting that conformity can occur when there is a small majority.
» Unanimity – the presence of a dissenter from the group led to conformity rates decreasing. This person offers social
support and reduces NSI and ISI.
» Task difficulty – conformity increased as this increased.
Zimbardo- Conformity to Social Roles:
• Social role: ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups e.g., parent. There are
expectations of appropriate behaviour in each role e.g., caring.
• Aim: to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a
role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
• He converted a basement of Stanford University into a mock prison.
• He advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards for a fortnight. 24 male
college students. Roles were randomly assigned.
• When the prisoners arrived, they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away.
They were issued a uniform and referred to by their number only.
• Guards were issued a khaki uniform, together with whistles, handcuffs, and mirrored glasses. No physical violence was
permitted.
• Both (short time) guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.
Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners.
• One prisoner had to be released after 36 hours and the study which had been designed to last 2 weeks ended after 5 days.
Milgram- Obedience Study:
, AO1-
• Obedience= where somebody acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure.
• Milgram used 40 men aged 20-50 in a range of occupations who volunteered to take part in a learning and memory study.
• Location= Yale University.
• Ps were greeted by experimenter in a grey lab coat.
• The Ps were then introduced to another ‘participant’ who was really a stooge.
• The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher.
• The teacher was then taken to another room and seated in front of a shock generator. The
shocks ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts. The teacher’s job was to test the learner on word
pairs and every time a mistake was made to deliver a shock beginning at 15 volts and moving
one level higher as necessary.
• Sample 45v shock.
• The learner did not really receive any shocks but just acted as if he did.
• The experimenter had a list of verbal prods which could be used such as ‘the experiment requires that you continue’.
• Results: all participants went as far as 300 volts and 65% continued to the end.
Situational Variables- Obedience:
• Situational variables: factors related to the external circumstances (the environment) that affect obedience
rather than dispositional (personality) explanations.
• Examples are:
1. Proximity: physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to. In
Milgram’s original experiment, the teacher and learner were in separate (adjoining) rooms so that the teacher
could hear the learner though could not see him.
Variation 1: they were in the same room and obedience decreased to 40%.
Variation 2: teacher had to force the hand of the learner onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when he
refused to answer a question. Obedience decreased to 30%.
2. Location: the place where an order is issued (its prestige).
Variation: a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting of Yale University,
giving the experimenter less authority and lowering the legitimacy of authority. Obedience
decreased to 47.5%.
3. Uniform: a specific outfit that is a symbol of a person’s position of authority. In the original study, the
experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority.
Variation: the role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’
(played by a confederate) in everyday clothes. Obedience decreased to 20%.
Explanations for obedience: Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority:
• Milgram suggests that people have 2 states of behaviour when they are in a social situation:
1. Autonomous state: personal responsibility for our actions.
2. Agentic state: lose our independence and feel no personal responsibility as we believe ourselves to be
acting for an authority figure.
» The shift from an autonomous state to an agentic state is known as agentic shift and occurs when the person
giving the orders is perceived to be legitimate and when the authority figure is believed to accept responsibility
for what happens e.g., experimenter in Milgram’s study.
People may be ordered to act against their moral code, causing stress- moral strain.
Moral strain may be reduced using binding factors, which are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/minimise
the damaging effect of their behaviour e.g., shifting the responsibility to the victim.
