Social Psychology – Essay plans

Outline and evaluate explanation for conformity

AO1 - 8m
- Conformity is the change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined social
pressure from the majority
- There are two types of conformity: compliance. This is where an individual may
agree with the majority but privately disagrees with their viewpoint/behaviour.
- This type of conformity is a temporary change and it is a shallow level of conformity
- Internalisation. This is where an individual agrees with the majority; publicly
changing their viewpoint/behaviour whilst also agreeing with them privately.
- The belief of the group becomes part of the individuals belief system and it is the
deepest level of conformity
- There are two explanations of conformity: Normative social influence. This is where
an individual conforms due to a desire to be liked and fit it with the group. They
don’t want to appear foolish or be left.
- NSI tends to lead to compliance as person conforms just for show but deep down
they disagree. Therefore, any change of behaviour is temporary
- Informational social influence. This is where an individual conforms due to
uncertainty of the situation or lack of knowledge. They have a desire to be right so
they look to others who they believe have more information than them.
- ISI tends to lead to internalisation as the belief of the group becomes part of the
individual and is therefore permanent.
AO3 – 12m
1 Jenness There is supporting research evidence for ISI as an explanation for
conformity.
- Jenness’ conducted a bean jar experiment where P’s were asked to estimate how
many beans they thought was in a jar. Each P had to make an individual estimate,
and then do the same as a group.
- Jenness’ found that when the task was carried out in a social group, P’s would
estimate roughly the same value. Even though they previously reported different
estimates as individuals.
- Shows effects of majority influence, suggests that individuals behaviour and beliefs
can be influenced by a group. P’s were uncertain of number of beans of the jar
therefore, they looked to others as they believed they had more knowledge which
links to ISI
2 However, Jenness’ study lacked ecological validity and had sample bias as the
experiment was conducted under lab setting. Additionally, the P’s used in the
experiment knew each other as they were all psychology students and were
classmates.
- This suggests that the findings cannot be generalised to real life settings nor
situations as it is less likely that people would be this familiar with each other in a
 setting where one would conform. Furthermore, due to the familiarity between P’s
this could’ve created a larger influence to conform.
- Therefore,
3 Asch. There is supporting evidence for NSI as an explanation for conformity.
- E.g) Asch’s line study P’s were presented with 4 lines; a standard line and 3
comparison line which they had to match to the standard line out loud. Conf would
call out the wrong answers 12/18 trials and he observed how often P’s would
conform. He found that on 12 critical trials, there was a 32% conformity rate to
wrong answers. 75% conformed at least once ad 5% conformed every trial. Only 25%
never confirmed. P’s conformed to the incorrect responses given by the conf even
when the correct answer was obvious.
- P’s conformed because they wanted to be part of the majority and had a desire to be
liked and fit in. Additionally, P’s didn’t want to appear foolish by disagreeing with the
majority
- Therefore, This supports the role of NSI as an explanation of conformity as it shows
why people conform with the majority, increasing its validity.
4 However, A limitation for NSI is that it fails to account for individual differences in
conformity
- E.g.) some individuals care more about being accepted by others and are more
likely to be influenced by the majority and conform to be liked than those who care
less about being liked. Additionally, Shute found individuals with an external locus of
control are more likely to conform, as they believe the cause of behaviour lies
externally and beyond their own control
- Thus, the problem with the dual process model is that it believes that all humans
react to conformity in the same way. This is a key oversight because these
personality related factors are key in determining the likelihood of conforming and
are factors that vary between individuals
- Therefore, individual differences are not accounted for, rendering the NSI
explanation incomplete and reducing its validity

Discuss variables affecting conformity as investigated by Asch, including group size,

unanimity and task difficulty
AO1
- Asch carried out a number of variations of his original study to find out which factors
had an effect on conformity levels. This research has identifies several situational
variables; qualities of an environment that influences levels of conformity in
individuals.
Group size
- Asch altered the number of conf to see how this affected conformity levels.
- With one other conf in the group conformity was 3%, with 2 it increased to 13% and
with 3 it was 32%. Asch found that conformity levels does not seem to have further
 effects when adding more than 3 conf. so 3 is considered as the optimal group size
for conformity.
- This suggests that a person is more likely to conform if all members of the group are
in agreement as it increases their confidence in the correctness of the group and
decreases their confidence in their own answer.
Unanimity
- Unanimity is to what degree the group members are in agreement with each other
- When joined by another P (or a conf instructed to give the right answer) conformity
fell from 32% to 5.5%. Asch found that the presence of one conf who goes against
the majority can reduce conformity as much as 80%
- This suggests that an individual is more likely to conform when all members of the
group are in agreement as the more unanimous the group is the more confidence
the individual will have that they’re all correct. Therefore unanimity is vital in
establishing a consistent majority view by providing NSI through preventing any
conflicting views arising
Task difficulty
- Asch altered the comparison lines to be more similar in length since it was harder to
judge. He found that P’s were more likely to conform to the wrong answers.
- Conformity increases when the task is more difficult as the correct answer becomes
less obvious and the confidence in the individuals own judgment drops
- This suggests that ISI is a major mechanism for conformity when the individual
doesn’t have enough knowledge or info to make an informal decision independently
AO3
1 Lack of population validity
- Asch’s research on the variation consisted of only white American male p’s
- Suggests that findings cannot be generalised to females or people from different
cultures as there was gender and cultural bias
- Asch may have got vastly different conformity results if females were used as P’s,
because women are potentially more conformist than men. Additionally, Asch may
have got increased levels of conformity in collectivist cultures because the tendency
is to focus on the groups’ needs, which may have encouraged conformity as opposed
to individuality
- Therefore, we cannot infer if women or people of different races/culture will have
the same levels of conformity when these variables are placed into situations of
conformity
-
2 Jenness – Task difficulty
- Jenness’ conducted a bean jar experiment where P’s were asked to estimate how
many beans they thought was in a jar. Each P had to make an individual estimate,
and then do the same as a group.
 - when the task was carried out in a social group, P’s would estimate roughly the same
value.
- P’s were uncertain of number of beans of the jar therefore, they looked to others as
they believed they had more knowledge which links to ISI
3 Lucas et al
- Research support for task difficulty. Asked students to give answers to mathematical
problems that were easy or difficult
- Students were more likely to give the wrong answer when the questions were
difficult rather than when they were easy ones. This was especially true for students
who rated their mathematical ability as poor
- Supports Asch’s findings by providing further evidence
- Suggests that people will conform due for the need of ISI
- Therefore, this increases the validity of Asch’s research
- Limitation for unanimity
- In Asch’s variation it was always the same confederate going against the majority.
Likely to lead to demand characteristics
- As p’s could’ve inferred the aim of the study therefore being more eager to please
psychologist and thus giving them the response they want to hear
- This suggests that P’s may have been more likely to conform due to demand
characteristics and P’s conforming possibly wasn’t due to the breaking up of
unanimity
- Therefore, this decreases the validity of Asch’s findings as we cannot infer why they
conformed.
Outline and evaluate explanation for obedience: Agentic state and legitimacy of authority
AO1
Agentic state
- Milgram argued that people make an agentic shift, back and forth between an
autonomous state and an agentic state
- The autonomous state is when an individual acts on their own decision
- The agentic state is when an individual believes that the responsibility of the
consequences of their actions is placed on the authoritative figure
- An agentic shift may occur when a person is able to diffuse responsibility for their
actions onto another person. By doing this they no longer view themselves as acting
out their own wishes but sees themselves as an agent of carrying out wishes of
others Legitimacy of authority
Legitimacy of authority
- People are most likely to obey when they recognise the authoritative figure as
morally right and/or legally based and therefore has credibility
- Legitimate social power is held by authority figures whose roles is defined by society
E.g. police officers and teachers
 - This usually gives the person the right to exert control over behaviour of others and
others will usually accept it
- For example in Milgram’s experiment the experimenter had legitimate authority as
he had scientific status
AO3
Agentic state
1 Research support from Milgram’s variation of his shock study supports the theory of
Agentic state as an explanation of obedience
- In one of Milgram’s variation he had a conf present to press the switches on the
electrode for the shocks administered to the ‘teacher’
- Found that obedience levels increased to 92.5% from 65% in his original study
- This suggests that the p’s felt less personal responsibility for their actions as a
confederate was present and the responsibility has now shifted onto the conf which
reduces the moral strain of P’s
- Therefore, this supports the agentic state theory as an explanation of obedience as
obedience increased when less personal responsibility is felt
- However, due to the unusuality of the task. Milgram lacks mundane realism
- This reduces the validity of the study as we cannot infer that obedience levels would
be the same in real life
- Therefore, it is unclear how the agentic state would affect levels of obedience in
real-life setting with mundane tasks

Legitimacy of authority
2 Research support from Milgram’s variation of his shock study supports the theory of
legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience
- Milgram’s original study was located at the prestigious university of Yale in America.
However, in his variation he conducted the experiment in a rundown office block
where conformity dropped from 65% to 48%
- This is because the university gave the study credibility and respect to the eyes of
the p’s. Thus, making them more likely to obey. So when it was in a less credible
location obedience levels dropped as P’s no longer saw the experiment as legitimate
- This suggests that in order for people to obey they must believe that the authority is
legitimate which supports legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
both
3 Adorno
- argued that personality factors could explain obedience. He created the F-scale to
look at the authoritarian personality. He stated that people with an authoritarian
personality. This is when an individual believes that people should strictly obey or
submit to their figures and supress their own beliefs. Those perceived as lower than
the individual should submit to them. They have a fixed cognitive style where they
 don’t challenge stereotype which prevents any grey areas emerging from
uncertainty. He believed that this personality trait stemmed form childhood issues
from one’s parents. He found that when a child had harsh, strict parents grew to be
obedient.
4 However, the authoritarian personality can be considered as deterministic.
- This is because it assumes that all obedient behaviours of an individual is down to
strict upbringing and does not take into account other mediating factors such as free
will. People who are brought up with strict upbring don’t always grow up to be
obedient but instead rebel against authority figure
- This suggests that the theory is too narrow and does not consider that there are
other factors which contributes to the obedience of an individual which decreases
the validity of this experiment
- Therefore, when taking the authoritarian personality into account as an explanation
for obedience we should also consider other factors as it may not only be due to the
individuals personality and what their childhood was like.
Outline and evaluate Milgram’s study.
AO1
- Milgram conducted the electric shock to evaluate the effect of a destructive
authority figure on obedience (seeing whether people would obey when asked to
harm someone else)
- He obtained 40 white American male volunteers paying them $4.50 and had them
separated in groups of 2. He then had them flip a coin which assigned them the role
of teacher or learner. However, the coin flip was rigged so that the participant
always got teacher and the role of learner was always given to the confederate. The
p and conf were put into separate rooms, the teacher was asked by the
experimenter to administer electric shocks (that were actl harmless) if the learner
gave a wrong answer or no answer at all. The shocks were incremented by 15V
marking 330V as lethal and the max was 450V. A series of 4 prods were used by the
experimenter if the p refused to continue an example of one of the prods is “The
experiment requires you to continue.”
- Milgram found that 100% of P’s went up to 300V, 65% went up to the max 450V and
12.5% stopped at 300V. Additionally, the p’s showed signs of extreme stress as many
of them were trembling, sweating, stuttering, biting their lips (etc)
- Milgram’s findings suggest that ordinary people will obey an authority figure even
when they know what they’re doing is wrong
AO3
1 A limitation of Milgram’s study is that it lacked ecological validity and mundane
realism.
- It was carried out in a lab under artificial setting therefore it may not be possible to
generalise findings to a real life setting
- Additionally, the task the participant was given is unnatural as people do not usually
receive orders to harm another person by shocking them based on questions that
were wrong
2 However, there is supporting evidence from real-life application studies.
- E.g.) Hofling et al observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses in a natural
experiment. They had a doctor (who was a conf) give 22 nurses an order through a
phone call to administer medication to a patient that was over the recommended
dosage shown on the bottle
- They found that 95% of the nurses obeyed although it was illegal to do so and they
could have lost their job
- This suggests that ‘everyday’ individuals are still susceptible to obeying destructive
figures
- Therefore, this provides external validity to support Milgram’s study as although it
lacked ecological validity we can also infer that people in real-life may be more likely
to obey destructive authority figures
3 Additionally Milgram’s study had severe ethical issues.
- There was deception so informed consent couldn’t be obtained. There was also
psychological harm inflicted upon P’s; they showed signs pf psychological and
physiological distress such as stuttering, nervous laughter, stuttering, biting lips and
digging finger nails into palms of hand. Full blown seizures were observed for 3 p’s,
one of them were so intense that they had to stop with the experiment.
4 However, the deception was justified by the aim of revealing demand
characteristics. Furthermore, Milgram argued that the psychological and
physiological effects were only short term and once P’s were debriefed their stress
levels their stress levels decreased. Milgram also interviewed P’s one year later and
found that 84% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment” only 1.3% said
that they wish they had not been involved. All P’s also received psychological
evaluation and therapy and it was found that there was no permanent psychological
harm.
- Therefore, although there was a lot of ethical issues present in the experiment there
was no permanent harm done to the P’s and since a lot of them found it as an
eyeopener we can infer that this allowed the P’s and everyone to understand the
intense effect that destructive authority figures has on obedience which shows that
Milgram was able to meet his aim and
5 Another strength of Milgram’s study is that it has real life application
- This research has opened our eyes to problems of obedience so it may reduce future
obedience in response to destructive authority figures.
- E.g. The Nazi’s obeyed orders and as a result, Hitler managed to get what he wanted
and it was not what the majority of people wanted. The study gives an insight into
why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews simply when told to. This highlights
how we can all possibly be victims to such pressure.
- Therefore, A general awareness of the power of such influences is useful in
establishing social order and moral behaviour
Outline and evaluate research in to situational variables affecting obedience
AO1
Proximity
- Refers to the distance between people, objects or situations. In this situation it
refers to how close the experimenter was to the P
- In Milgram’s original study obedience was 65% when the experimenter was in the
same room as the P. Milgram conducted multiple variations that showed the
importance of proximity as a factor in levels of obedience. When learner was in the
same as P obedience was 40% This is because the teacher could experience learners
anguish more directly. When the teacher had to hold learners hand down on the
electrode obedience was 30% as teacher felt more responsibility for their actions.
When the experimenter left the room and issued instructions by phone obedience
was 21% because legitimacy of authority of the experimenter decreased as proximity
decreased
- This suggests that people are more likely to obey an authority figure when they’re
less able to see the negative consequences of their actions and are in closer
proximity
Location
- The location or setting of a situation or environment can affect the ways a request os
viewed and therefore the likelihood of obedience
- Milgram’s original shock study was conducted at the prestigious Yale university in
America. The high status of the university gave the study credibility and respect to
the eyes of P’s thus making them more likely to obey
- In Milgram’s variation he moved the experiment to a rundown office block and
obedience dropped to 48%
- This suggests that obedience rates are often highest in institutionalised settings
where obedience to authority figures is instilled into members. Therefore the status
of location affects obedience rates
Uniform
- An individual is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform that has high status
as it allows for a greater sense of credibility from the authorative figure
- In Milgram’s original study the experimenter was wearing a lab coat. This allowed for
p’s to feel like the authority figure was legitimate
- However, in Milgram’s variation, the experimenter was wearing everyday clothes
obedience dropped from 65% to 20%. This decrease suggests that obedience levels
decrease due to the reduction of legitimacy of authority
- Therefore, uniform is an important factor in increasing levels of obedience as it
increases the legitimacy of authority
AO3
Proximity
1 A limitation of proximity as an explanation of obedience of that it is contradicted by
research
- E.g. Hofling et al observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses in a natural
experiment. They had a doctor (who was a conf) give 22 nurses an order via phone
call to administer medication to a patient that was over the recommended dosage
shown on the bottle
- They found that 95% of the nurses obeyed although it was illegal to do so and they
could have lost their job
- This suggests that in real life situations, authority can still have a very powerful
influence on behaviour even from a distance
- It would therefore appear that Milgram overestimated the extent to which placing
the authority figure at a distance influences obedience.
- This means that Milgram’s variation does not apply to real-life settings and that
proximity factors for obedience levels in real life vary from an artificial experiment in
a laboratory setting
2 Real-life application
- Research shows explanations to why these factors effect the level of obedience
where location and uniform is due to legitimacy of authority and proximity is due to
the agentic state
- Therefore, a general awareness of the power of variables affecting obedience is
useful when establishing social order and moral behaviour in society as well as
preventing destructive authority figures from influencing society negatively
3 Bickman
- Investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment
- He asked by-passers in New York to complete tasks such as picking up rubbish or
lending money to a stranger for a parking meter
- Found that in the condition where experimenter was dressed as a security guard
obedience was 92% when the experimenter wore everyday clothes 58% obeyed the
request
- Suggests importance of uniform in increasing levels of obedience
- Therefore, this provides external validity of uniform as a factor affecting obedience
as it was a field experiment
4 Gender bias/lack of population validity
- Research into the variations affecting obedience lack population validity
- The experiment consisted of only males. Suggesting that gender-bias is present
- This suggests that it is unclear how these variables would affect females levels of
obedience
- Women are deemed to be more obedient than men
- Therefore, findings of the variation cannot be generalised to the female population
as research does not showcase how these factor affect levels of obedience in women
Outline and evaluate explanations of social resistance: social support and LOC
AO1
Social support
- Presence of dissident allows for levels of resistance to increase
- Seeing another person resist social influence gives confidence to individuals to also
resist social influence from majority
- Produces resistance as it breaks unanimity of group as it makes individual feel like
they have an ally therefore less likely to conform
- Also produces resistance as it challenges legitimacy of authority figure due to having
a disobedient role model which makes individual less likely to obey
Locus of control
- Questionnaire proposed by Rotter to measure locus of control
- Internal locus of control where people believe that they have the responsibility of
what happens to them
- External locus of control where people believe that fate controls what happens to
them
- People with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist
- People with an external locus of control are less likely to resist
AO3
LOC
1 Research supports that people with an internal locus of control are less likely to
conform.
- Eg) Spector used Rotters scale of LOC to determine whether LOC is associated with
conformity. He found that out of 157 students individual with a high internal LOC
were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control
- Suggests that internal locus of control does affect conformity
2 However, Spector also found that this was only affected in situations of normative
social influence – where individuals have the desire to fit in. He found no difference
in situations of information social influence – where individuals conform bc they
believe that the majority knows more than they do
- Suggests that normative social influence has more power than informational social
influence when considering locus of control
3 Oliner and Oliner found through interviews comparing rescuers of Jews from the
Nazis during the Holocaust with non-rescuers that the ‘rescuers’ had an internal
locus of control. This provides real life evidence that an internal LOC leads to lower
levels of obedience
- This increases the validity of LOC as an explanation for resistance to obedience

Social support
4 Research supports the idea that social support allows individual to be less likely to
conform
- Eg) Asch’s study investigating the unanimity of the majority. Asch found that when
participants were joined by a dissident conformity fell from 32% to 5.5%,
- Suggests that breaking up gives more confidence for participants to not conform
with the majority.
5 Supporting evidence shows unanimity that people are less likely to obey when social
support is present.
- E.g. Milgram conducted a variation from his shock study where he had 2 disobedient
conf who refused to continue shocking the learner and withdrew. He found only 10%
of p’s continued to the max 450V
- This supports the idea of social support as the defiance of conf had a liberating effect
on the p’s to disobey as they felt they had an ally so they were confident to resist
pressure to obey. Additionally seeing conf disobey challenges the legitimacy of
authority figure as they lose credibility to they eye of P’s when others are confident
enough to resist which empowers P’s to also resist.
- Therefore, this increases the validity of social support as an explanation of resistance
to obedience