Summary
Highlights
Conformity is changing beliefs or behavior due to group pressure. The three types are Compliance (public agreement, private disagreement, temporary), Identification (adopting behavior to associate with a group, temporary while part of the group), and Internalization (genuine acceptance of beliefs, permanent). Explanations include Normative Social Influence (need to be liked, leads to compliance, emotional) and Informational Social Influence (need to be right, leads to internalization, cognitive, especially in ambiguous situations).
Jenness (1932) demonstrated informational social influence with the bean jar experiment, where participants' estimates converged after group discussion. Lucas et al. (2006) found higher conformity in difficult math problems, especially for those with low confidence, supporting informational social influence and highlighting individual differences.
Asch's 1951 study showed 75% of participants conformed at least once to incorrect line judgments, supporting normative social influence (desire not to go against the group). Variations explored task difficulty (increased conformity with harder tasks, supporting ISI), group size (conformity peaked with three confederates), and breaking unanimity (a dissenter significantly reduced conformity).
Asch's study had high internal validity due to controlled variables, allowing for replication and cause-and-effect analysis. However, it suffered from low ecological validity (artificial task), population bias (all male American students), cultural bias (individualistic culture underestimating conformity), and ethical concerns (deception and potential distress, though some argue it was necessary).
Zimbardo's experiment showed how social roles influence behavior. Randomly assigned 'prisoners' and 'guards' rapidly adopted their roles, with guards becoming abusive and prisoners becoming passive and distressed, leading to the early release of five participants. Zimbardo himself took on the role of superintendent.
Strengths include high control over variables (screening, random allocation) reducing individual differences and participant bias. Limitations include lack of generalizability (male American students), demand characteristics, and questionable ecological validity due to the artificial setup, though some aspects like external validation and participants' immersive behavior suggest psychological realism. Ethical concerns were significant, particularly regarding psychological harm and difficulty of withdrawal.
Milgram's 1963 obedience study involved participants as 'teachers' administering electric shocks to a 'learner' (confederate). 65% obeyed to the maximum 450 volts. Variations showed factors reducing obedience: proximity (teacher and learner in same room, 40%), remote authority (instructions by phone, 20.5%), location (run-down office, 48%), and uniform (experimenter in ordinary clothes, 20%).
Strengths include laboratory setting for replication and control of variables, allowing for cause-and-effect. Ethical criticisms focused on deception and potential psychological harm, though most participants reported no long-term damage. Limitations include lack of ecological validity (artificial task not reflecting real-life obedience) and population bias (male, American volunteers). Bickman's (1970) field experiment supported the 'uniform' variable, showing higher obedience to a security guard.
Legitimacy of authority suggests people obey those they recognize as having a rightful right to command. The agentic state, proposed by Milgram, explains how people shift responsibility to an authority figure, acting as their 'agent.' This 'agentic shift' occurs when perceiving someone as a legitimate authority. Binding factors like fear of social disruption or punishment prevent disobedience. Hoffling et al. (1966) showed nurses would obey an unauthorized doctor's order. Orasanu (1990) linked pilot obedience to accidents. Bickman and Milgram's variations support the influence of uniform and location on perceived authority. A limitation is that the agentic state ignores dispositional factors like personality.
Adorno's authoritarian personality theory suggests certain traits (respect for authority, hostility to lower status, dogmatism, rigidity) make individuals more likely to obey. This personality develops from harsh, conditional parenting. Adorno (1950) used the F-scale and found correlations between authoritarian traits and prejudice. Elms and Milgram (1966) found obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale and had strained relationships with their fathers.
A major limitation is that much of the research is correlational, not proving causation. Other factors, like education level, could influence both authoritarianism and obedience. The F-scale itself has methodological flaws (e.g., response bias, leading questions - Greenstein, 1969), undermining its validity. The theory also overlooks powerful situational variables, limiting its explanatory power compared to Milgram's context-dependent findings.
Resistance is the ability to withstand social pressure. Social support (situational) involves others resisting, acting as models. Asch's study showed a dissenter reduced conformity from 32% to 25%. Allen and Levine (1971) found even an unreliable dissenter reduced conformity. In Milgram's variation, two resisting confederates reduced obedience to 10%. Locus of control (dispositional) describes how much control people perceive over their lives. Internals (high control) are more likely to resist, while Externals (low control) feel more helpless.
Holland (1967) found that 37% of internal locus of control participants resisted Milgram's maximum shock, compared to 23% of externals. Oliner and Oliner (1988) found that those who rescued Jews during the Holocaust had a higher internal locus of control. A limitation is that locus of control is usually measured by self-report questionnaires, which can be affected by social desirability bias, questioning the accuracy of measurement.
Minority influence is when a small group persuades the majority. Key factors are: Consistency (diachronic and synchronic), drawing attention and creating doubt; Commitment (dedication and sacrifice), which shows confidence; Flexibility (not being too rigid). These factors can trigger a 'snowball effect' and lead to 'social cryptoamnesia' (remembering change but forgetting its origin).
Moscovici et al. (1969) showed that a consistent minority persuaded 8% of participants to call blue slides green, compared to 1% for an inconsistent minority. This highlights consistency's importance. Limitations of Moscovici include low population and ecological validity. Wood et al.'s (1994) meta-analysis found consistent minorities were more influential. Nemeth (1986) demonstrated the importance of flexibility: a flexible confederate had more influence than an inflexible one. Social influence processes (minority influence, ISI, NSI, obedience to authority) collectively explain social change, such as environmental movements or new laws.