Conformity and Social Influence – Explained Simply

Checking Opinions Before Making Choices

If you're thinking about buying a psychology revision book, a new phone, or booking a
holiday, you might check other people's opinions in di;erent ways. You could:

• Read online reviews on websites like Amazon or TripAdvisor.

• Ask friends and family for their recommendations.

• Check expert opinions from tech reviewers or travel bloggers.

Some people’s opinions matter more than others. For example, you may listen to
experts for technical products, but trust your friends more for holiday
recommendations. Other people's opinions can strongly influence your decision,
especially if you're unsure about something.

Types of Conformity

1. Compliance – Going along with a group to gain approval or avoid disapproval.

o You don't actually believe what the group says, but you pretend to agree
in public.

o Example: Laughing at a joke that you don’t find funny because everyone
else is laughing.

2. Internalisation – Genuinely accepting the group's views both publicly and

privately.

o You believe their ideas are correct.

o Example: If you start studying in a new way because you believe it's more
e;ective, even when alone.

3. Identification – Conforming because you want to be part of a group.

o You adopt the group's beliefs publicly and privately, but mostly because
you want to fit in.

o Example: Supporting a football team because your friends do, even

though you weren’t interested before.

Why Do People Conform?

1. Normative Social Influence – Conforming to be liked and accepted by others.

 o You don’t necessarily agree, but you fear being rejected.

o More likely to happen in social situations where people monitor each

other’s behaviour.

o Example: Dressing a certain way because it's trendy, even if you don’t like
the style.

2. Informational Social Influence – Conforming because you believe the group

knows better.

o Happens in situations where you are uncertain and others seem more
knowledgeable.

o More likely in ambiguous situations where there's no clear answer.

o Example: Copying someone else’s answer in class because you think they
are smarter.

Distinguishing Between Compliance and Internalisation

It's hard to tell if someone is just complying or has actually internalised a belief.

• If they agree in public but disagree in private, it’s compliance.

• But sometimes, people might have internalised a belief at first, then changed
their minds later after getting new information.

• This makes it di;icult to separate compliance from internalisation.

Evidence for Social Influence

✅ Normative Influence Research

• Linkenback & Perkins (2003): Found that teenagers were less likely to smoke
when told that most of their peers didn’t smoke.

o This supports the idea that people conform to fit in with the group.

✅ Informational Influence Research

• Wittenbrink & Henley (1996): Found that people exposed to negative views
about African Americans (presented as the majority opinion) later adopted
those negative attitudes.

o This shows that people rely on others for information, especially in

uncertain situations.
🤔 Hidden EWects of Normative Influence

• Nolan et al. (2008): People believed their neighbours had little influence on their
energy-saving behaviour.

o But results showed that their neighbours' behaviour actually had the
strongest eWect.

o This suggests that people don’t always realise when they are being
influenced.

Asch’s 1956 Study on Conformity – Explained Simply

Procedure

• Participants were seated around a table with a group of confederates (actors

pretending to be participants).

• They were shown a standard line and three comparison lines, then asked to
match the correct one.

• On 12 out of 18 trials, the confederates gave the same wrong answer on

purpose.

• Asch wanted to see if the real participants would go along with the wrong
majority.

Findings

• 33% average conformity rate on the critical trials (when confederates gave
wrong answers).

• 25% of participants never conformed.

• 1 in 20 (5%) conformed on all 12 critical trials.

• Most who conformed admitted they only changed their public behaviour to
avoid disapproval (this is compliance).

Factors AWecting Conformity

1. Group Size

• Small groups (1-2 people) → Very little conformity.

• Larger groups (3+ people) → Conformity increased to 30%.

 • If there is no clear correct answer, people conform more because they want to
fit in.

• If there is a correct answer, people are more concerned with being right than
conforming.

2. Unanimity (Everyone Agreeing)

• If even one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity dropped to 5.5%.

• If a confederate gave a diWerent wrong answer, conformity dropped to 9%.

• This shows that breaking the agreement of the majority is key in reducing
conformity.

3. Task DiWiculty

• When the diWerences between line lengths were smaller,

conformity increased.

• People with high self-confidence (self-eWicacy) were less likely to conform,

even when the task was di;icult.

Cultural and Historical Context

1. Conformity and Historical Periods

• Asch’s study happened in the 1950s, a time in the U.S. when conformity was
valued (McCarthy era).

• Perrin & Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s study in the UK with students and
found almost no conformity.

• However, when they tested probation youths (people under legal supervision)
with probation oWicers as confederates, conformity was similar to Asch’s
findings.

• This suggests people conform more when the cost of not conforming is high.

2. Issues with Group Size in Studies

• Bond (2005) pointed out that most conformity studies have only tested small
group sizes (2-4 people).

• No studies besides Asch’s have tested groups larger than nine people.

• This means we don’t know much about how large groups (e.g., 20+ people)
a;ect conformity.
3. Independent Behaviour vs. Conformity

• Asch argued his study showed independence more than

conformity because:

o Only 1/3 of critical trials led to conformity.

o On 2/3 of trials, participants stuck to their own answers, even when

outnumbered.

o This suggests many people resist conformity despite group pressure.

4. Cultural DiWerences in Conformity

• Smith et al. (2006) studied conformity across cultures:

o Individualist cultures (e.g., USA, UK) → 25% conformity.

o Collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan, China) → 37% conformity.

• Markus & Kitayama (1991) explained this by saying collectivist cultures

see conformity as positive, as it promotes group harmony.

Summary

• Asch’s study showed that people often conform even when the majority is
clearly wrong.

• Conformity increases with larger groups, unanimous agreement, and harder

tasks.

• Confidence and breaking unanimity help reduce conformity.

• Cultural and historical factors influence how much people conform.

Milgram’s 1963 Study on Obedience – Explained Simply

Procedure

• Participants were always assigned the role of the teacher, while

a confederate (an actor) played the learner.

• The teacher tested the learner on word pairs. If the learner made a mistake,
the teacher had to give them an electric shock (which was fake).

• The shocks started at 15 volts and increased in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts.
 • In the voice-feedback condition, the learner was in a separate room and
stopped responding after 315 volts.

• The experimenter (authority figure) used verbal prods to encourage the

teacher to continue, such as:

o “Please continue.”

o “The experiment requires you to continue.”

Findings

• Before the study, people predicted that very few participants would go
beyond 150 volts.

• However, all participants went up to at least 300 volts.

• Only 12.5% (1 in 8) stopped at 300 volts.

• 65% went all the way to the maximum 450 volts!

Factors AWecting Obedience

1. Proximity (How Close the Teacher and Learner Were)

• Learner in the same room → Obedience dropped to 40%.

• Teacher forced the learner’s hand onto a shock plate (touch proximity) →
Obedience dropped further to 30%.

• Authority figure (experimenter) left the room → Obedience dropped to

just 21%.

2. Location

• The original study took place at Yale University, which gave participants
confidence in the study.

• When the study was moved to a run-down oWice with no connection to Yale,
obedience dropped to 48%.

• This shows that a prestigious location increases obedience.

3. Power of Uniforms

• People are more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform, as it

signals authority and power.
 • Bushman (1988) found that people obeyed more when a researcher wore a
police-style uniform compared to when they dressed as a business
executive.

Criticisms of Milgram’s Study

1. Lack of Realism

• Orne & Holland (1968) argued that participants might not have believed the
shocks were real, as people know experiments often hide their true purpose.

• Perry (2012) found that many participants were suspicious, and those
who believed the shocks were real were less likely to obey.

• This challenges the validity of the study because, in real life, people might
be less obedient to harmful authority figures.

2. Is the Study Still Relevant Today?

• Some argue that the study is outdated because it was conducted over 50
years ago.

• However, Blass (1999) reviewed obedience studies from 1961 to 1985 and
found that obedience levels stayed the same.

• This suggests that Milgram’s findings are still relevant today (historical
validity).

3. Real-World Events Don’t Always Match Milgram’s Findings

• Mandel (1998) studied the Reserve Police Battalion 101, a group of Nazi
soldiers ordered to kill Jewish people.

• Even though they were in close proximity to their victims, they still obeyed
orders.

• Mandel argued that using obedience as an explanation for

atrocities oversimplifies the real reasons behind such actions.

4. The Role of Science and Authority

• Fromm argued that Milgram’s participants obeyed because they saw

the experimenter as a scientist representing a prestigious
institution (science).

• This made them more likely to obey.

 • He suggested that the 65% obedience rate was not surprising, and the real
shock was that 35% disobeyed.

• Because of this, we shouldn’t compare Milgram’s lab study to events like

the Holocaust, where people followed destructive orders in very diWerent
conditions.

Summary

• Milgram’s study showed that people will obey authority figures, even when it
means harming others.

• Obedience levels changed depending on proximity, location, and uniforms.

• Some critics argue that the study lacked realism, but research suggests it is
still relevant today.

• Real-life obedience (e.g., in war crimes) may be influenced by more complex

factors than just obedience to authority.

Agentic State & Legitimacy of Authority – Explained Simply

Agentic State

• A person in an agentic state does not see themselves as responsible for their
actions. Instead, they blame an authority figure.

• Normally, people are in an autonomous state, where they feel

responsible for their actions.

• However, under certain conditions, people shift from an autonomous

state to an agentic state.

Why does this happen?

• Maintaining a positive self-image → If someone shifts responsibility to an

authority figure, they don’t feel guiltyabout their actions.

• ‘Binding factors’ keep them in the agentic state → For example, they
might fear looking rude if they refuse to obey an authority figure.

Legitimacy of Authority

• Authority figures have power because of their social position, not their
personality.
 • In Milgram’s experiment, participants expected someone to be in charge.
The experimenter looked and acted authoritative, so they followed his
instructions.

• People tend to trust authority figures and accept their definition of a

situation.

• In Milgram’s study, when the experimenter reassured participants that the

shocks wouldn’t harm the learner, they believed him without question.

Authority Must Seem Legitimate

• To be seen as legitimate, an authority figure must be connected to

a respected institution.

• In Milgram’s study, the experiment was done in a scientific laboratory at

a prestigious university (Yale), which made the experimenter seem
more trustworthy.

Criticism of the Agentic State Explanation

1. The Case of Nazi Doctors (Lifton, 1986)

• Milgram said that people switch back and forth between autonomous and
agentic states.

• Lifton (1986) disagreed, saying this doesn’t explain the behaviour of Nazi
doctors at Auschwitz.

• These doctors slowly changed from caring professionals to people

who experimented on prisoners.

• Staub (1989) argued that this change happened because they carried
out immoral actions over a long period, not because of a sudden agentic
shift.

2. Could Some People Just Be Cruel? (Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment)

• Milgram admitted that not everyone obeys because of the agentic state.

• Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment showed that some guards were cruel
to prisoners without being ordered to.

• This suggests that some people obey because they enjoy harming others,
not because they feel they have to obey authority.
The Dangers of Legitimacy of Authority

• Legitimate authority can be used for good or bad.

• If people trust authority figures to decide what is right and wrong, they
may ignore their own moral values.

• This can lead to blind obedience, even when the actions are immoral or
destructive.

Real-Life Example: Aviation Accidents (Tarnow, 2000)

• Tarnow (2000) studied aviation accidents and found that excessive

obedience to authority played a role.

• Many accidents happened because crew members didn’t question the

captain’s orders, even when they were clearly wrong.

• This supports the idea that people obey authority figures without thinking,
sometimes with dangerous consequences.

Summary

• Agentic state → People obey because they don’t feel responsible, shifting
blame to authority figures.

• Legitimacy of authority → People trust authority figures, especially when they

are linked to a respected institution.

• Criticism → Some argue that people don’t just shift between states
but change gradually (e.g., Nazi doctors), and some may obey due to sadistic
tendencies (Zimbardo’s study).

• Real-world dangers → Blind obedience can lead to immoral actions, and in

fields like aviation, it can cause serious accidents.

The Authoritarian Personality is a theory that explains why some people tend to
obey authority figures without needing much pressure. Adorno and his colleagues
(1950) developed a way to measure this personality type using the F scale. If
someone agreed with statements like "Obedience and respect for authority are the
most important virtues children should learn," they were considered to have an
Authoritarian personality.
Adorno's study found that people who scored high on the F scale often grew up in
families with strict rules, where obedience was heavily emphasized. Later,
Altmeyer (1981) refined the theory by focusing on three key traits—
conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, and authoritarian submission—which
made people more likely to obey authority. This is known as right-wing
authoritarianism (RWA).

In 1966, Elms and Milgram did a follow-up study using people from Milgram's
original obedience experiment. They tested 20 obedient and 20 disobedient
participants, giving them personality tests and asking about their upbringing. They
found that obedient people scored higher on the F scale, meaning they had more
authoritarian traits. They also found that obedient participants reported having less
of a close relationship with their fathers and admired the authority figure more than
the learner in the experiment.

Despite these findings, some researchers questioned whether people truly

believed they were giving electric shocks in the experiment. In 2010, Dambrun and
Vatine used a virtual environment, and even though the situation wasn't real,
participants responded as if it were. Those with higher RWA scores obeyed more,
confirming a link between authoritarianism and obedience.

However, Milgram (1974) argued that social context (like how close the victim was
to the participant) played a bigger role in obedience than personality. He believed
that focusing only on the Authoritarian personality didn't fully explain the
diWerences in obedience, especially given that many people in his study obeyed
without having strict upbringings.

Elms and Milgram found that obedient participants didn’t report having harsh or
strict parents. This made it unlikely that most participants in Milgram’s study came
from authoritarian families. Additionally, research suggests that education may
influence both authoritarianism and obedience. Studies (like Middenthorpe and
Meloen, 1990) showed that less educated people tend to be more authoritarian,
and Milgram found that people with lower education levels were more obedient.
This suggests that a lack of education, rather than authoritarianism, could lead to
both more obedience and more authoritarian beliefs.
**Social support** refers to the feeling that a person has help available from others
in their group, which makes them better able to stay independent in situations
where they would normally conform or obey. Having support from others helps
people resist pressures to conform because it breaks the agreement among the
majority. Disobedient peers can act as role models for a person, showing them how
to resist orders from an authority figure.

**Locus of Control (LOC)** is the way people perceive control over their own
actions. People with an **internal LOC** believe that what happens to them is the
result of their own abilities and eWort, rather than being influenced by others. Since
they are less likely to rely on others' opinions, they are less aWected by social
influence. On the other hand, people with an **external LOC** believe that external
factors, like luck or the influence of others, determine what happens to them. As a
result, they are more likely to follow others and less likely to behave independently.

**Allen and Levine (1969)** conducted a study where they found that social support
was more eWective when confederates (people pretending to be part of the study)
gave the correct answer first, rather than fourth (just before the real participant
gave their answer). When a confederate gave the right answer first, it helped the
participant stick to their own judgment, even if others disagreed. This created an
initial commitment to the correct answer, making them more likely to resist the
majority.

**Rees and Wallace (2015)** showed that social support from friends helped
adolescents resist conformity pressures from the majority. For example, if most of
their friends drank alcohol, a person was more likely to resist the pressure to drink
if they had a friend who also resisted. This study demonstrated that having a friend
who doesn't give in to peer pressure (like not drinking) can make it easier for others
to resist drinking, even when most people around them are doing it.

In a study of **undergraduates**, **Spector (1983)** found that people with an

internal LOC were more likely to resist social pressure to conform, especially when
it was about gaining approval (normative social influence). However, the LOC did
not significantly aWect people's ability to resist **informational social influence**
(where people conform because they believe others have the correct information).
This suggests that having an internal LOC mainly helps people resist conformity
when the goal is to gain approval from others.

**Twenge et al. (2004)** found that the LOC of U.S. students became more external
between 1960 and 2002. They suggested that young people started believing more
in luck and the power of others, instead of thinking that their own actions
determined their fate.

An example of **resisting authority** in real life is the **Rosenstrasse protest** in

Nazi-controlled Berlin in 1943. German women protested when their Jewish
husbands were arrested. Despite being threatened with violence, the women
refused to disperse, and their husbands were eventually released. This protest
mirrors Milgram’s findings, where disobedient peers give others the courage to defy
authority. The women in this case were able to resist orders because they had
support from others who were also standing up against the authorities.