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.
DEFINITION
Solomon Asch was an American Social Psychologist who
conducted a series of studies in the 1950s to examine the extent
Asch
to which people would conform to the opinions of others in an
unambiguous situation.
Compliance is the lowest level of conformity. Here a person
changes their public behaviour (the way they act) but not their
Compliance
private beliefs. This is usually a short-term change and often the
result of normative social influence.
Conformity occurs when someone changes their behaviour or
Conformity
beliefs due to real or imagined pressure from others.
Asch identified group size as a variable that influences
conformity. Asch found that as he increased the size of the
majority, conformity levels increased. With two confederates,
Group Size
conformity occurred on 12.8% of trials, rising to 32% for trials
with three confederates. However, after that group size did not
make a significant difference to the rate of conformity.
Identification is the middle level of conformity. Here a person
changes their public behaviour (the way they act) and their
Identification: Social
private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the
Influence
group they are identifying with. This is usually a short-term
change and often the result of normative social influence.
Informational Social Influence is where a person conforms to
Informational Social
gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is
Influence
‘right’.
SA
M
KEY TERM
PL
E
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Describe the three types of conformity, including:
a. Compliance
b. Identification
c. Internalisation
2. Outline and evaluate two explanations for conformity, including:
a. Informational social influence
b. Normative social influence
3. Outline and evaluate Asch’s (1951) original research examining conformity
4. Outline and evaluate variations of Asch’s research which examined how different
variables affect conformity, including:
a. Group size
b. Unanimity
c. Task difficulty
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
Internalisation:
Social Influence
Normative Social
Influence
Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. Here a person
changes both their public behaviour (the way they act) and their
private beliefs. This is usually a long-term change and often the
result of informational social influence.
Normative Social Influence is where a person conforms in order
to be accepted and belong to a group. They do this because it is
socially rewarding and/or to avoid social rejection (e.g. ridicule
for not ‘fitting in’).
1. Types of Conformity
SA
M
PL
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.
E
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.
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 as
true and this religious way of life as the correct way to behave.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
CHANGE IN PUBLIC
BEHAVIOUR?
CHANGE IN
PRIVATE BELIEF?
SHORT-TERM /
LONG-TERM
COMPLIANCE
Yes
No
Short-term
IDENTIFICATION
Yes
(Only in the presence
of the majority)
Short-term
INTERNALISATION
Yes
Yes
Long-term
E
2. Explanations for Conformity
Yes
PL
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: normative social influence (NSI) and informational
social influence (ISI).
SA
M
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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
Exam Hint: It is important to ensure you understand the distinction between types of
conformity (compliance, identification and internalisation) and the explanations for
conformity (normative and informational social influence).
2. 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 compliance has occurred 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.
SA
M
PL
E


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 demonstrates 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 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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
need for fresh towels by 25%, showing they had conformed in order to ‘fit in’ with
the perceived group behaviour.
Psychology in Everyday Life
E
Everyday examples of conformity are fairly common. For example, have you ever filled
out a sponsorship form and seen that everyone has donated £10 and you feel
compelled to also donate £10, despite the fact you originally only wanted to donate
£5? Or have you ever been to a summer fayre and tried to guess how many sweets are
in the jar? This surprising difficult task is ambiguous, as no one is ever certain. You may
inspect the jar and think that it contains around 100 sweets and then you see that
everyone else has written 500 or more; as a result, you change your answer to reflect
those that were written before you. These everyday examples of conformity have
formed the basis of psychological research in this area.
Extension Key Study: Jenness (1932)
PL
Aim: To examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambiguous
(unclear) situation, in response to group discussion.
SA
M
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 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.
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 1875 before the discussion to 474 afterward, a decrease
of 75 per cent, which demonstrates the converging opinions of the participants, after
their discussions.
MALES
FEMALES
AVERAGE ESTIMATE BEFORE
790
925
AVERAGE ESTIMATE AFTER
695
878
AVERAGE CHANGE
256
382
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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
3. Key Study: Asch (1951)
Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from a unanimous
majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation.
E
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.
PL
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
unambiguously incorrect.
SA
M
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.
3. 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 if 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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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 the 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.
PL
E

Extension Evaluation
Does Asch’s study actually show conformity, as the average conformity rate was
only 32%? A recent review of psychology textbooks (Griggs, 2015) has revealed
that the majority of the textbooks sampled (16 out of 20) mentioned that 75% of
the participants were influenced by the majority at least once (as we have also
noted above). However, none of the books sampled, mentioned the fact that 95%
of the participants rebelled at least once. Consequently, it would appear that the
textbook coverage of Asch’s classic line study is biased and that textbook authors
and students are misrepresenting the findings and conclusions of Asch by playing
down the incidences of independent behaviour.
SA
M

4. 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.
4a. Group Size
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
one 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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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, although Asch didn’t report
the percentage. 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.
4b. Unanimity
PL
E
Unanimity: 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.
4c. Task Difficulty
SA
M
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’.
VARIATION
Group Size: 1 Confederate
Group Size: 2 Confederates
Group Size: 3 Confederates
Group Size: 15 Confederates
CONFORMITY %
(CRITICAL TRIALS)
Lower (3%)
Lower (12.8%)
Remained the same (32%)
Lower *
Unanimity – Where one of the
confederates gave the correct answer Lower (5%)
throughout.
Unanimity – Where one of the
confederates gave a different incorrect Lower (9%)
answer to the majority.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
Task Difficulty – Where the task was
made significantly more difficult, by
Higher *
making the difference between the line
lengths significantly smaller.
*The percentages were not published by Asch
Extension Evaluation: Issues & 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
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.
PL
E

SA
M
Possible Exam Questions
1. MCQ: Which of the following is an explanation of conformity: A) Compliance, B)
Identification, C) Group size, D) Normative social influence?
2. SAQ: Describe the procedure of Asch’s study into conformity. (4 marks)
3. RM: Asch’s research was conducted in a laboratory. Outline one strength and one
limitation of conducting research in a laboratory. (4 marks)
4. Application: Daniel is taking his AS Psychology exam and has answered a difficult
multiple choice question where he believes the correct answer is ‘D’. He looks
either side and notices that Mila, a very intelligent student, has answered ‘A’. He
decides to change his answer accordingly. Using your knowledge of conformity,
outline two reasons why Daniel changes his answer from D to A. (4 marks)
5. Essay: Outline and evaluate research into conformity. (12/16 marks)
6. Essay: Discuss factors that can affect conformity. Refer to variations of Asch’s
experiment in your answer (12/16 marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
Specification: Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Outline and evaluate Zimbardo’s (1973) research investigating conformity to social
roles: The Stanford Prison Experiment.
Zimbardo
Introduction
E
Conformity to
Social Roles
DEFINITION
Social roles are the parts individuals play when they belong to
social group, and conformity to social roles occurs when people
behave in certain ways because they feel that is expected of
them in that role.
Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment. His aim
was to examine whether people would conform to the social
role of a prison guard or a prisoner, when placed in a mock
prison environment.
PL
KEY TERM
SA
M
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.
1. Zimbardo (1973)
Zimbardo (1973) conducted an
extremely controversial study on
conformity to social roles, called
the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Aim: His aim was 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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
E
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.
PL
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.
SA
M
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 SPE 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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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 over-stated.

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.
SA
M
PL
E

Psychology in Everyday Life
In 2004 the news widely reported on the torturous treatment of Iraqi prisoners held at
Abu Ghraib prison. US Army military police were accused of committing cruel acts of
violence which seriously violated human rights. As a result, a number of soldiers and
officers were disciplined or demoted. Zimbardo was called into the court martial
process as an expert witness as a result of his observations in the Stanford Prison
Experiment to testify that it was in fact situational factors, not dispositional ones,
which were responsible for the abhorrent behaviour. Zimbardo then went on to write
his famous book – The Lucifer Effect - which discussed the remarkable similarities
between his mock-prison research experiment and the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Extension Evaluation: Issues & Debates

Zimbardo’s SPE 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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015

This research used scientific methods in a well-controlled artificial setting to
investigate conformity to social roles which could therefore be replicated, for
example, by Reicher and Haslam (2006) although reliability was low since their
findings were very different from those of Zimbardo.

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.
Extension Evaluation
Does Zimbardo’s study really show conformity to social roles, or were the
participants acting up to established stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are
supposed to behave? For example, one guard reported afterwards that he had
based his behaviour on the role of a character from a film called Cool Hand Luke,
which stereotyped staff working in prisons as tough and aggressive. This could also
explain prisoners’ behaviour, since rioting in prisons is often shown on television
and in the cinema.
PL
E

Possible Exam Questions
1. MCQ: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated: A) Obedience, B)
Independent Behaviour, C) Normative Social Influence, D) Conformity to Social
Roles?
SA
M
2. SAQ: Define what is meant by conformity to social roles. (2 marks)
3. RM: 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)
4. Application: The most notorious guard in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison
Experiment, whom the prisoners nicknamed John Wayne, explained afterwards
that he was simply trying to emulate the behaviour of a character from the film
Cool Hand Luke, which portrays the role of a prison guard as tough and
aggressive. Using your knowledge of conformity to social roles as investigated
by Zimbardo, explain how demand characteristics could be used to explain the
behaviour of this guard. (4 marks)
5. Essay: Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles. (12/16
marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
KEY TERM
Agentic State
DEFINITION
The agentic state is an explanation of obedience offered by
Milgram and is where an individual carries out the orders of an
authority figure, acting as their agent. The shift from autonomy
to ‘agency’ is referred to as the ‘agentic shift’.
Legitimacy of authority is an explanation of obedience offered
by Milgram. Milgram suggested that we are more likely to obey
a person who has a higher position or status in a social
hierarchy.
Milgram found that location affected the level of obedience in
his research. When he conducted a variation in a run-down
office block he found that the percentage of participants who
went to 450 volts on the ‘electric shock’ generator fell from 65%
(at the prestigious Yale University) to 47.5%.
Stanley Milgram was an American social psychologist who
conducted research into obedience.
Proximity is a situational variable affecting obedience and 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. Milgram found that proximity affected
levels of obedience. When the teacher and learner were in the
same room, the percentage of participants who administered
the full 450-volt shock fell from 65% to 40%. He also found that
when the experimenter left the room and gave the instructions
over the telephone, obedience levels fell to 20.5%.
Situational explanations for obedience focus on external factors
that affect the likelihood that someone will obey orders.
Examples of situational factors in Milgram’s research are
SA
M
Legitimacy of
Authority
PL
E
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Outline and evaluate Milgram’s (1963) research investigating obedience to
authority
2. Outline social-psychological factors as explanations for obedience including:
a. Agentic state
b. Legitimacy of authority
3. Outline situational variables as explanations for obedience including:
a. Proximity
b. Location
c. Uniform
4. Evaluate explanations for obedience
Location
Milgram
Proximity
Situational
Explanations:
Obedience
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
Uniform
proximity, location and uniform.
Uniform is a situational variable affecting obedience. This is
because authority figures often wear clothes that symbolise
their position of authority.
In Milgram’s research, the
percentage of participants who were fully obedient fell from
65% to 20% when the experimenter wore his own clothes,
rather than the ‘uniform’ of a white lab coat.
Introduction
PL
E
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 Stanley Milgram to
investigate obedience to authority.
1. Milgram’s (1963) Research
Aim: To investigate whether ordinary people would
obey an order from an authority figure and inflict
pain and injure an innocent person.
SA
M
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. At 300 volts
(intense shock) the learner would bang on the wall, and then gave no response to the
next question. 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.’
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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 reallife 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.
SA
M
PL
E


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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
2a. Social-Psychological Factors: Agentic State
PL
E
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’.
SA
M
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.
Conversely, in another variation of his study in which the researcher was not in the
same room but instead gave orders over the phone, obedience rates dropped to just
over 20%, which suggests that the participants were more likely to be in an
autonomous state.
2b. 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.
3a. Situational Variables: Proximity
In Milgram’s original research the teacher and the learner were in separate rooms. 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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to understand the learner’s pain more
directly.
3b. 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.
E
3c. Uniform
PL
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.
VARIABLE
Someone else administered the shock.
Agentic State
SA
M
MILGRAM’S VARIATIONS
Milgram’s Original Study
92.5%
65%
The experiment took place in a rundown Location &
building. i.e. less prestigious environment
Legitimate Authority
47.5%
The teacher and learner were in the same
Proximity (Learner)
room.
40%
The experimenter gave instructions to the Proximity
teacher over the phone.
Figure)
21%
(Authority
The experimenter was replaced by another Uniform &
‘participant’ in ordinary clothes.
Legitimate Authority
Evaluating Explanations for Obedience

%
20%
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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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 1000 participants took
part across all studies, providing a weight of evidence not seen in other areas of
social influence research.
SA
M
PL
E

Psychology in Everyday Life
In 1968, during the Vietnam War, American soldiers killed over 350 civilians, including
children, in a small village called Mai Lai. It is reported that during this massacre that
the soldiers shot people who were surrendering from their homes and even gangraped the women. Milgram’s findings can be used to explain this horrific example of
war crime since the soldiers were simply following orders from their legitimate
authority figures and were therefore in the agentic state. In fact, only one soldier was
found guilty and charged, due to the fact they were completing their ‘duty’.
Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates
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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
This research used scientific methods, often in a well-controlled artificial, laboratory
setting, to investigate obedience to authority and could therefore be replicated due to
the standardised procedures.
Extension Evaluation
Do Milgram’s research findings suggest that obedience can provide an alibi for
evil behaviour? David Mandel (1998) heavily criticises Milgram’s conclusions that
obedience is due to situational factors, as this pardons the individual from having
to take responsibility for their, often terrible, actions. Mandel believes it is
offensive to the survivors and relatives of those affected by the Holocaust. To
simply suggest that the Nazi soldiers were blindly following orders from their
superiors implies that the Nazi soldiers were ‘victims’ of the social situation they
found themselves in, and at the mercy of situational factors and environmental
pressures beyond their control. This provides an ‘alibi’ or excuse for their evil
actions.
SA
M
PL

E
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.
Possible Exam Questions
1. MCQ: Which of the following is not a situational variable know to affect rates of
obedience: A) Locus of Control, B) Proximity, C) Uniform, D) Location?
2. SAQ: With reference to obedience, explain what is meant by the agentic state.
(2 marks)
3. SAQ: Describe one study of obedience (4 marks)
4. RM: Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for lacking in validity. Evaluate
the validity of Milgram’s original research into obedience. (6 marks)
5. Application: When in class, Miss Williams asks all her students to listen without
speaking when a story is being read aloud to the group. Her class of Year 6
students all obey and do not speak or interrupt. When Miss Williams hears
some of her students at the weekend in her local cinema speaking loudly
during a film she asks them to be quiet. They refuse to follow her order. Using
your knowledge of Milgram’s research variations, explain the difference in the
children’s behaviour. (4 marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
6. Essay: Discuss research into obedience as investigated by Milgram. (12/16
marks)
7. Essay: Outline and evaluate how situational variables have been shown to
affect obedience to authority. (12/16 marks)
SA
M
PL
E
8. Essay: Discuss one or more situational and/or dispositional explanations of
obedience. (12/16 marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS OF OBEDIENCE
Specification: Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian
Personality.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Outline and evaluate one dispositional explanation for obedience: the
Authoritarian Personality.
Dispositional
Explanations
Introduction
E
Authoritarian
Personality
DEFINITION
The authoritarian personality was first identified by Adorno et
al. (1950) and refers to a person who has extreme respect for
authority and is more likely to be obedient to those who hold
power over them.
Dispositional explanations of obedience focus on internal
characteristics that lie within the individual (e.g. personality)
that lead them to be more or less likely to follow the orders of
an authority figure.
PL
KEY TERM
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.
SA
M
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.
1. Authoritarian Personality
Aim: Adorno et al. (1950) conducted a study
using over 2000 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 Fscale, 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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015


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.’
E
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.
PL
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’ in-between, demonstrating an inflexible
attitude. They, therefore, believe that society requires strong leadership to enforce
rigid, traditional values.
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 Fscale 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, although
this is only a correlational link.
SA
M


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 also 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,
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
E

Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates
PL
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.
SA
M
Extension Evaluation
 Could the whole authoritarian personality explanation for obedience be based on
flawed methodology? Greenstein (1969) delivers a severe blow to the F-scale
validity by arguing that it is ‘a comedy of methodological errors’. One section of
the scale was structured in such a way, for example, that it was possible to get a
high score indicating authoritarianism simply by ticking all of the boxes down one
side of the page in a line. This, therefore, does not measure an authoritarian
personality at all, but rather the tendency to agree with every question, which is
called acquiescence bias.
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.
Psychology in Everyday Life
The Authoritarian Personality was a book published by Adorno and other social
psychologists in 1950, in an attempt to explain the conditions which led to the Nazi
regime securing a foothold in Europe some years before. It was over 1000 pages long
and included contributions from many of the psychological scales used to explain the
prejudiced attitudes people hold towards others. However, from the beginning The
Authoritarian Personality caused huge controversy and was torn to pieces,
metaphorically, by its many critics as lacking in scientific rigour. However, one part of
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
the book – the F-scale – has endured, partly due to its utility in measuring fascist
tendencies.
Possible Exam Questions
1. MCQ: Which of the following is not a characteristic of the authoritarian personality:
A) an inflexible viewpoint, B) intolerance of others who are weak, C)
contemptuousness towards people of lower social status, D) disobedience to
authority?
E
2. SAQ: With reference to obedience, explain what is meant by the authoritarian
personality. (2 marks)
3. SAQ: Briefly describe one dispositional explanation of obedience. (4 marks)
PL
4. RM: Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for lacking in validity. Evaluate the
validity of Milgram’s original research into obedience. (6 marks)
5. Application: Adam’s grandmother, Evelyn, holds very traditional views about how
children should behave today. She feels that youngsters do as they please rather
than as they are told and that this shows a lack of respect for their elders. Evelyn
often says things to Adam like, “It wasn’t like that in my day” and “I would have
done anything my parents asked me to”. Using your knowledge and understanding
of dispositional explanations of obedience, explain Eve’s attitudes. (4 marks)
SA
M
6. Essay: Outline and evaluate the authoritarian personality as a dispositional
explanation for obedience. (12/16 marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
RESISTING SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Specification: Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social
support and locus of control.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence, including:
a. Social Support
b. Locus of Control (LoC)
Social Support
Introduction
E
Locus of Control
DEFINITION
Rotter (1966) proposed the idea of locus of control (LoC), which
is the extent to which people believe they have control over
their lives. People with an internal locus of control believe that
what happens in their life is largely the result of their own
behaviour, and are more likely to resist pressure to conform or
obey.
One way in which 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.
PL
KEY TERM
SA
M
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.
1a. Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence
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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
PL
E

1b. Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence
Locus of Control
SA
M
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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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 nonJewish 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 wuth 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.
PL
E

Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates
SA
M
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.
Extension Evaluation
Could there be a link between moral disengagement and locus of control that could
have real-world implications for criminal acts? Jones and Kavanagh (1996)
investigated this and found that individuals with an external locus of control were
more likely to obey, and thus less likely to resist the pressure from an unethical
authority figure. This could go some way to explain cases of institutional fraud or
reported instances of abuse of power from senior staff in an organisation when staff
members fail to resist the immoral or illegal instructions given.
Exam Hint: Always make sure to relate your answer on resistance back to conformity,
obedience or both types of social influence to gain maximum credit for your response.
Psychology in Everyday Life
Rotter (1982) suggests that locus of control may only really have a role to play in novel
situations rather than the mundane everyday occurrences and as such has minimal
influence over our behaviour, with our prior experiences holding more importance.
Therefore, the role of locus of control in influencing our independent behaviour and
helping us to resist the pressures of social influence has been exaggerated.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
Possible Exam Questions
1. MCQ: Social support can increase resistance to social influence. This was
demonstrated in Asch’s research studies when: 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. SAQ: With reference to resistance to social influence, explain what is meant by
social support. (2 marks)
E
3. SAQ: Briefly describe locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social
influence. (4 marks)
PL
4. RM: Rotter used a questionnaire to measure locus of control. Identify one strength
and one weakness of using this method. (4 marks)
5. Application: 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
punishment for not obeying, most students started to tuck their shirts in every day.
However, Hafsa and her classmate Helen continued to leave theirs 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)
SA
M
6. Essay: Discuss explanations of resistance to social influence. (12/16 marks)
7. Essay: Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence.
(12/16 marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
MINORITY INFLUENCE
Specification: Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social
support and locus of control.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Outline and evaluate research examining minority influence, with reference to:
a. Consistency
b. Commitment
c. Flexibility
Consistency
Flexibility
SA
M
Minority Influence
E
Commitment:
Social Influence
DEFINITION
Commitment refers to the way that minority influence is more
likely to occur if the minority shows dedication to their position.
Commitment typically involves some form of personal sacrifice,
which shows the majority that one is not just acting out of selfinterest.
Consistency refers to the way in which minority influence is
more likely to occur if the minority members share the same
belief and retain it over time. This then draws the attention of
the majority to the minority.
Flexibility refers to the way in which minority influence is more
likely to occur if the minority is willing to compromise. This
means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable.
Minority influence occurs when an individual or small group
influences the attitudes and behaviour of a larger group.
PL
KEY TERM
Introduction to Minority Influence
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.
1a. Consistency
One of the most influential experiments investigating minority influence was
conducted by Moscovici (1969).
Aim: He wanted 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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
1b. Commitment
E
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.
SA
M
1c. Flexibility
PL
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.
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 investigated 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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
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.
SA
M
PL
E


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’.
Extension Evaluation: Issues & Debates

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.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015

Does a minority viewpoint lead to a greater depth of processing of the message
by the audience? Martin et al. (2003) measured the support of participants
towards a particular viewpoint. It was found that people who had heard support
from a minority group were less likely to change their opinions when faced with a
conflicting view than the group of people who had initially heard support for the
viewpoint from a majority group.
Psychology in Everyday Life
E
Exam Hint: When writing your answers in the exam, be sure to include as many key
terms as possible as it provides the necessary detail that the Examiner is looking for.
PL
Although research studies can make very clear distinctions between what is classed as
a ‘majority’ or a ‘minority due to the high level of control exerted over the artificial
situations, in a real-life setting this is not so clear cut. In more naturalistic settings it is
often more complicated to determine, since there may be more involved than simply
the number of people present, such as status.
Possible Exam Questions
1. MCQ: Which of the following has the smallest impact on minority influence: A)
consistency, B) flexibility, C) inconsistency, D) commitment?
2. SAQ: Define what is meant by minority influence. (2 marks)
SA
M
3. SAQ: In relation to minority influence, explain what is meant by the terms
consistency and flexibility. (4 marks)
4. RM: 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)
5. Application: When Mariyah was a young girl, not many people on her estate used
to return their glass milk bottles for recycling. Now, Mariyah’s household has three
bins that are collected each week by the council, which segregates all type of
household waste for recycling including glass, tins, paper and cardboard.
6. With reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility, explain how the
minority viewpoint of recycling being seen as an important activity has become so
widely accepted by the majority. (6 marks)
7. Essay: Outline and evaluate research into minority influence. (12/16 marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
SOCIAL CHANGE
Specification: The role of social influence processes in social change.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. Outline and evaluate how social influence research has contributed to our
understanding of social change
Social Change
DEFINITION
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.
E
KEY TERM
Introduction
PL
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
SA
M
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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015
cause, risking imprisonment and even death through extended hunger strikes and
thereby making their influence even more powerful. Overtime their minority influence
influenced people to consider the issue, leading to social change and all adults gaining
the right to vote.
1. 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.
E
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.
PL
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, augmenting its importance, into their personal viewpoints due to
the personal sacrifice made by the minority.
SA
M
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
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
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015

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.
Minority influence can often act as a barrier to social change. Bashir et al. 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.
SA
M
PL
E

Extension Evaluation: Issues and Debates

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.
Extension Evaluation
Do minorities really have much of an influence? Nemeth (1986) states that the
influence of minorities is often indirect and delayed, because the majority only
responds with social change to issues that are important at that given point and
making the changes on a societal level will inevitably take time. For example, it
took decades for the drink driving laws and smoking ban to be implemented so this
could be seen as a limitation of using minority influence to explain social changes.
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015

Exam Hint: If a question contains a stem then be sure to relate your answer directly
and repeatedly to the context to achieve maximum credit for your response.
Possible Exam Questions
1. MCQ: 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: A) gradual commitment, B) flexibility, C)
the augmentation principle, D) the snowball effect?
E
2. SAQ: Explain what is meant by social change, in reference to social influence. (2
marks)
PL
3. SAQ: Describe the role of social influence processes in bringing about social
change. (6 marks)
4. RM: 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)
SA
M
5. Application: For many years smoking indoors at restaurants and pubs and even
on public transport was acceptable behaviour. Over time, this started to be
seen as unacceptable and now is against the law in the UK. Using your
knowledge of the processes of social influence, explain how this social change
has occurred. (4 marks)
6. Essay: Outline and evaluate the role of social influence processes in social
change. (12/16 marks)
© tutor2u AQA A Level Psychology Optional Core Companion (Edition 1)
Specification 7181, 7182 For Teaching from September 2015