Social Influence

Social influence is the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviour are modified by the presence or action of others. AQA examines four areas: conformity (yielding to group pressure), obedience (following an authority’s order), resistance to social influence, and minority influence (minorities changing majority views).

Conformity (Majority Influence)

Conformity is defined as a type of social influence. It is yielding to group pressure: a change in a person’s behaviour or opinion due to real or imagined pressure from a person or group.

Real pressure involves consequences for conforming, while imagined pressure involves none for not conforming. Conformity is also known as majority influence.

Students will be expected to know:

• Types of conformity: internalisation (accepting the group’s view in public and in private) and compliance (agreeing in public while privately disagreeing).
• Explanations for conformity: informational social influence (conforming to be right) and normative social influence (conforming to be liked).
• Variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.

Types of Conformity

According to Kelman (1958), there are three types of conformity: internalisation, identification, and compliance.

These are also sometimes seen as levels of conformity. Note: you no longer need to learn about identification for the 2027 exam.

An older specification also examined conformity to social roles (Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment) as part of this topic. That content has been removed too, so do not bring Zimbardo’s study into a conformity answer on the current specification.

Compliance AO1

This refers to instances where a person may agree in public with a group, but privately disagrees with the group’s viewpoint or behaviour.

The change is temporary and superficial. It is driven by the desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval, often through normative pressure.

For example, a person may laugh at a joke because their friends find it funny, even though deep down they don’t find it funny themselves.

Drinking alcohol with friends despite not wanting to, then not drinking outside those social situations, is another example.

Compliance is the weakest form of conformity. It lasts only as long as group pressure is present.

For a study on compliance refer to Asch’s Line Study.

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Simply Psychology (@simplypsychologyofficial)

Internalisation AO1

Publicly changing behaviour to fit in with the group while also agreeing with them privately.

An internal (private) and external (public) change of behaviour.

This is the deepest level of conformity, where the beliefs of the group become part of the individual’s own belief system.

This type of conformity usually lasts without the majority present. It links to Informational Social Influence.

An example of internalisation is someone who lived with a vegetarian at university and decided to also become one, because they agreed with their friend’s viewpoint. Converting to a different religion after living among people of that faith would be another good example.

For a study on internalisation refer to Jenness (see below).

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Simply Psychology (@simplypsychologyofficial)

Normative Influence (AO1/AO3)

Normative social influence is where a person conforms because they want to be liked and be part of a group.

It is driven by a person’s need to be accepted or have approval from a group.

Normative social influence is usually associated with compliance, where a person changes their public behaviour but not their private beliefs.

For example, a person may feel pressurised to smoke because their friends do. Normative social influence tends to lead to compliance: the person smokes just for show, but deep down wishes not to smoke. Any change of behaviour is therefore temporary.

For a study on normative influence refer to Asch.

Not everyone is equally affected by normative pressure. People with a high need for affiliation (nAffiliators) are more likely to conform to be liked, whereas others less concerned with social approval may resist NSI.

Informational Influence (AO1/AO3)

Informational social influence is where a person conforms because they have a desire to be right.

They look to others who they believe have more information.

This usually happens when a person is uncertain or unsure of a situation or lacks knowledge.

It usually leads to internalisation. That is a permanent change in view or behaviour, not just a public one.

It occurs in ambiguous, difficult, or novel situations where we lack the knowledge or expertise to make our own decisions.

For example, a person may follow a crowd in an emergency, assuming others know the way.

Imagine going to a posh restaurant for the first time. Confronted with several forks and unsure which to use, a person might look to someone nearby to see which one they pick up first.

For a study on informational influence refer to Jenness (see below).

Asch’s Line Study AO1

• Aim: Asch wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an answer was obvious.
• Procedure: Asch’s study had 5-7 participants per group. Each group saw a standard line and three comparison lines, and said aloud which comparison line matched the standard in length.
• Confederates: One participant in each group was real and the rest were confederates. The confederates were told to give the incorrect answer on 12 of 18 trials.
• Results: Real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials where confederates gave the wrong answers. Additionally, 75% of the sample conformed to the majority on at least one trial.

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Simply Psychology (@simplypsychologyofficial)

Factors Affecting Conformity AO3

In further trials, Asch (1952, 1956) changed the procedure (i.e., independent variables) to investigate which situational factors influenced the level of conformity (dependent variable).  His results and conclusions are given below:

Contemporary Research

The classic percentage is a product of period and place. Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis of 133 Asch-type experiments from 17 countries found conformity had declined in US studies since the 1950s. It was higher in more collectivist countries. Has the effect vanished? A recent replication suggests not.

The incentive manipulation was randomised, which is a strength. However, an error on the line task cannot separate private acceptance from public compliance. The result therefore says little about the informational versus normative distinction on the specification.

Obedience

Obedience is a type of social influence where a person follows an order from another person who is usually an authority figure.

Students will be expected to know:

• Explanations for obedience: agentic state (acting for an authority and feeling no personal responsibility) and legitimacy of authority (the perceived right to give orders).
• Situational variables affecting obedience including proximity and location, as investigated by Milgram, and uniform.
• Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality (a rigid, status-conscious personality type linked to obedience).

Explanations for Obedience

The Agentic State

This is when a person believes that someone else will take responsibility for their actions.

Agency theory suggests people obey more readily in the agentic state. They do not believe they will suffer the consequences of their actions.

They believe they are acting on behalf of an agent.

 The shift from an autonomous state (where a person takes responsibility for their own actions) to the agentic state is called an Agentic Shift.

Agency theory is supported by Milgram’s evidence. When participants were reminded they had responsibility, few obeyed; but many who had been refusing continued if the experimenter said he would take responsibility.

Another example of the agentic state involved a variation of Milgram’s study whereby participants could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches.

In this condition 92.5% shocked to the maximum 450 volts. This shows when there is less personal responsibility obedience increases.

Being in the agentic state makes a person ‘unthinkingly’ carry out orders and involves diffusion of responsibility.

Limitations AO3

• Nazi behaviour: Mandel described the German Police Reserve shooting civilians in a Polish town without a direct order, despite being told they could be reassigned. They were not powerless to obey, which challenges the agentic state.
• Plain cruelty: Zimbardo’s guards inflicted rapidly escalating cruelty with no authority figure telling them to, suggesting obedience may reflect aspects of human nature.

The Stanford prison study is itself contested, however. An archival investigation found demand characteristics and guards who received precise instructions (Le Texier, 2019). The BBC prison study found that guards who failed to identify with their role were overcome by prisoners (Reicher & Haslam, 2006).

Situational Variables Affecting Obedience as Investigated by Milgram

The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram varied the basic procedure (changed the IV).

By doing this Milgram could identify which situational factors affected obedience (the DV).

Obedience was measured by how many participants shocked to the maximum 450 volts (65% in the original study).

Adorno felt that personality (dispositional) factors, rather than situational (environmental) ones, could explain obedience. This is the authoritarian personality.

It is a person who favours an authoritarian social system and admires obedience to authority figures. One characteristic of the authoritarian personality is that the individual is hostile to those of inferior status, but obedient toward people with high status.

They show a strict adherence to conventional norms, an intolerance of ambiguity, and a black-and-white worldview with no grey areas. Everyone should know their place.

There is no challenge to those above, and no mercy to those below. Adorno measured this using the F-scale, testing around 2,000 middle-class white Americans’ unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.

Those with higher F-scale scores showed the traits of an authoritarian personality. They were more prejudiced. They also viewed society as needing strong leaders to eradicate evil, and were inflexible in their outlook.

Limitations AO3

• Correlation, not causation: Adorno found many significant correlations (e.g. authoritarianism correlated with prejudice against minority groups). But one variable cannot be said to cause another. Adorno cannot claim that a harsh parenting style caused an authoritarian personality, so other explanations like legitimacy of authority must be considered.
• Obedience without the personality: Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient behaviour but did not share the same personality. It is unlikely that most of Germany’s population possessed an authoritarian personality. Social identity theory may be more realistic. People identify with groups they belong to and discriminate against others.
• Better explanations: Prejudice and submissiveness could just as easily be caused by a poor standard of education as a child. The theory lacks internal validity. It assumes obedience is dispositional when it may be situational.
• Biased sample: Adorno used only 2000 middle class white Americans. They are more likely to have an authoritarian personality because of their demographics and the time of the study. The research lacks population validity and historical validity, so conclusions cannot be generalised to people outside the sample.

Resistance to Social Influence

Resisting social influence means not yielding to pressures to conform or obey. Two key factors help people resist: the presence of social support, and an individual’s locus of control. Locus of control is how much control a person feels they have over events in their life.

Students will be expected to know:

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

Other possible explanations for resistance include reactance (the “boomerang effect”), status, morality, and being in an autonomous state.

• Previous experience and a high level of moral reasoning
• Situational factors: lack of uniform, increased distance, reduced group size, or lack of task ambiguity
• Prior commitment

Social Support

The presence of people helps others resist pressure to conform or obey.

Having an ally or seeing someone else resist can strengthen an individual’s ability to withstand group or authority pressure

1. Resisting Conformity:

Seeing others non-conform gives confidence to do so. Having an ally breaks the unanimity of the group.

In Asch’s conformity experiments, a single confederate who disagreed with the majority cut a participant’s conformity to about a quarter of its previous level. This held even with a different wrong answer.

Just one dissenter broke the unanimity and provided a model of independent behaviour, making it easier for the participant to follow their own conscience.

The ally’s dissent confirms the participant’s own perceptions: “I’m not the only one who sees it differently.” It also reduces normative pressure. The majority is no longer unanimous in disapproval.

Essentially, the presence of a non-conforming person frees others to not conform. This effect isn’t long-lasting if the ally starts conforming again, but at least temporarily, it boosts confidence.

2. Resisting Obedience:

Disobedient models facilitate disobedience.

Seeing others disobey shows that defying the experimenter is possible. It can also sharpen a participant’s own sense of personal responsibility. This is powerful.

In Milgram’s obedience variations, participants worked in a team of three teachers, two of them confederates who refused to continue at certain points. The real participant’s obedience plummeted.

Only 10% continued to 450V once they saw their peers disobey the experimenter.

The disobedient confederates modelled rebellion. They showed the participant that one can stand up to authority, making it far easier to defy the experimenter’s orders.

Gamson et al. (1982) ran a related study. Participants in groups discussed a morally questionable situation, helping an oil company smear a manager’s reputation.

They found that 88% of groups rebelled against the orders, a much higher rate than Milgram found in individuals. Groups can reinforce each other’s resistance. This is the key difference from Milgram’s individually tested participants.

These findings show that social support undermines the legitimacy of authority or majority pressure, giving individuals courage to resist.

Why does it work? Social support works through two pathways: normative social influence (NSI) and informational social influence (ISI).

An ally reduces the fear of isolation, since you’re not the only deviant. That is NSI. They can also provide an alternative viewpoint that might be correct. That is ISI.

For example, in Asch’s study, a dissenter giving the correct answer broke unanimity and validated the participant’s own judgment. This reduces conformity through both normative and informational influence.

In essence, there is strength in numbers. Even a small break in consensus can tilt the balance towards independent behaviour.

Locus of Control

Locus of control (LOC) is a measurement of an individual’s sense of control over their lives.

It measures the extent to which people feel events in their lives are under their own personal control. This is internal LOC, versus under the control of external powers like fate, which is external LOC.

There is a continuum, with most people lying in between.

Internal LOC:

People with a more internal locus of control conform and obey less.

• They take more responsibility for their actions and see themselves as having more control.
• An internal LOC enables greater personal efficacy and self-confidence.
• They are more likely to make decisions based on their own moral code.
• People with a high internal LOC are more likely to be leaders, not followers.

External LOC:

People with an external locus of control believe the majority of their life events are beyond their control.

• They are more likely to act on behalf of another (as an agent) and shift responsibility.
•  They are particularly susceptible to obedience.
• Externals may be more prone to learned helplessness and tend to follow others because they don’t think they can control what happens anyway.
•  In social influence, externals are more likely to conform or obey, attributing outcomes to external pressure rather than their own agency.

Research Support (AO3)

Limitations (AO3)

Minority influence occurs when a minority group influences the majority. Minority influence is the main cause of social change: a society’s large-scale shift in its attitudes, beliefs or behaviour. It often leads to internalisation: the majority actually change their private views after being influenced, though this tends to happen gradually.

Key processes that make minority influence effective are consistency, commitment, and flexibility.

Other processes involved in minority influence and social change include:

• Drawing attention to their beliefs, and deeper processing of the issue by the majority group
• The augmentation principle: a risky or costly act of commitment makes a minority more persuasive
• The snowball effect: converted individuals bring others with them until a once-minority view becomes the majority one
• Social cryptomnesia: a society adopting a once-minority position while losing conscious memory of where the idea originally came from

Consistency

Consistency is one of three behaviours that enable a minority to influence a majority.

What Consistency Means

Minorities need to be consistent.

This has two parts: staying consistent over time (diachronic consistency) and staying consistent between members (synchronic consistency). Both parts matter.

Diachronic consistency means the minority sticks to its guns and does not modify its views.

Synchronic consistency means all members agree with each other and back each other up. Both matter equally.

For example, a minority group that repeats the same argument at every meeting, with every member saying the same thing, is highly consistent on both counts.

AQA’s specification names consistency explicitly as one of the three processes examiners expect students to describe and evaluate. Learn the two terms precisely, since exam questions sometimes ask for them by name.

Why Consistency Works

Consistency forces the majority to think deeply about the issue. The repetition and united front imply a strong, valid point.

A consistent minority causes the majority to at least reassess the issue: “They keep saying the same thing… they might have a point.”

Moscovici theorised that consistency makes majority members start to doubt themselves and take the minority view more seriously. That doubt is the point.

Confronted with a consistent opposition, the majority sits up and takes notice, because the minority has focused attention on itself.

A consistent minority also disrupts established norms, creating uncertainty and doubt that makes the majority question its own views.

However, too much consistency without flexibility can seem dogmatic.

In practice, consistency should be combined with rational argumentation. Simply repeating an assertion isn’t enough, but holding firm to a clear stance is what matters (see Flexibility, below).

Key Study: Moscovici’s Blue-Green Slide Study

Wood et al.’s (1994) meta-analysis of nearly 100 minority-influence studies confirmed the pattern: consistent minorities were significantly more influential than inconsistent ones.

Commitment

Minorities need to demonstrate commitment. They show resistance to social pressures and abuses against their viewpoint.

The Augmentation Principle

A minority that shows dedication to their cause, especially through personal sacrifice or suffering, is more likely to be influential.

This is explained by the augmentation principle: if the minority undergoes extreme activities or risks to further their cause, it amplifies their impact.

It shows they are not acting out of self-interest. They truly believe in their view.

For example, environmental activists who chain themselves to trees or go on hunger strikes make their commitment obvious.

This is why hunger strikes, public sacrifice, or highly visible risk-taking are such persuasive minority tactics: the cost to the individual signals the strength of their conviction.

A minority that risks nothing looks far less credible than one that visibly risks something real.

The Effect on Observers

Observers are more likely to pay attention. They ask themselves: “why would they do that unless they really have a strong point?”

High commitment can also create a sense of guilt in the majority: “perhaps our complacency is wrong if these people are willing to suffer for this.”

This works both ways.

Commitment can therefore convert more onlookers by demonstrating certainty and courage, making the minority’s message more compelling.

This is informational social influence at work.

Observers treat the minority’s willingness to suffer as evidence that their position deserves serious consideration. Over repeated exposure, this can shift bystanders from indifference to active reconsideration of their own views.

Commitment, in other words, quietly buys attention it would not otherwise get.

Flexibility

Minorities should be moderate, co-operative, and reasonable.

While consistency is vital, being inflexible and rigid can backfire.

If the minority refuses to compromise or consider alternate ideas, the majority may dismiss them as extremists or unrealistic.

Psychologist Nemeth (1986) argued that effective minorities strike a balance. They stay consistent in principle but show flexibility by adapting arguments, listening to others and making small concessions.

A flexible minority can engage the majority in dialogue.

For instance, imagine a jury where one juror argues a defendant is not guilty, but also acknowledges valid points from others and stays open to discussion. The rest of the jury are more likely to take his view seriously than if he simply repeated himself.

AO3

In short, consistency without being inflexible is key. Consistency shows commitment to the core issue, while flexibility shows an open mind.

This possibility was investigated by Nemeth (1986).