Results of

Variations
Kelman
Normative proposed
Moscovici:
on
social
Asch’sinfluence
three
study:
Woodtypeshappens
People
etof
al conformity:
did
whowhen
a meta-analysis
werea person Internalisation
Moscovici’s
Asch’s
Informational
studystudy
on social
ismajority
more
oninfluence
minority
likely
influence:
if is
influence:
is when
fromthisan
individuals
was
aingroup
laba lab go
interviewed
-Compliance:
acts
of 97inminority
the same after
going
studies
way
the
along
as
study
andthewith
found
said
majority
others
they
thatwithout
conformed
consistent
to gain their experiment
along
minority, withalthough
the
with majority
32Martin
123 groups
malebecause
showed
American
of 6 women,
they
that
undergraduate
genuinely
both
eachinwith and2
because a)
approval
accepting
minorities or
their
were
they
avoidPOV,
genuinely
most
their
also
influential,
disapproval.
known
thought as
majority
the
compliance.
Theremajority
group
is littlewas
We confederates.
volunteers.
believe
outgroup them
minorities
They
to
They
bewere
right
were
canasked
have
and
shownalso
to
antake
36
equal
that
slides
part
they
effect.
in
ofhave
ablue
‘vision
correct
change
have
membersa string
b)
to didn’t
they
private
desire
felt
align
attitude
doubt
tothemselves
be accepted.
about their withGarandeau
judgement
the deviant and
or c) colouring
test’.
more
However Only
knowledge
people
and
onehad person
may
ortoinformation
describe
not
in each
wantthem.
group
toonalign
aIn
was
particular
one
themselves
actually issue.
a
the majority
-Internalisation:
Cillessen
minority so
showed
not
continued
to
going
how
be seen
along
children
to trust
aswith
deviant
with
their
others
aown
themselves
lowbecause
ideas
level ofbutyou
and condition,
volunteer
This
with isa an
deviant
example
and
the confederates
always
minority.
of internalisation.
answered
Nemeth werelastsaid
consistent
or
Itthat
is
second
most
minorities:
(8.42%
to
likely
complied
have
friendships
majority
accepted
group
tocan
thetheir
members
be
majority.
manipulated
pointwereVariations
of view.
more
by This
a of
powerful
likely
can
the to tasks
lead
admit
bully
to wentthe
last,
when
need to
along
thebe
others
situation
consistent
withweretheisminority)
confederates
ambiguous,
in their viewpoint,
andthe in
whothe
situation
had
other,
oftenbeenis
dothey
anot
included
both
so
being
that
public
influenced
thetask
group
anddifficulty
private
by
hasthe
a(where
common
acceptance
minority conformity
goal
in private.
ofin views
victimising
levels
The weretoand
told
crisis
prevail not
say
as (1.25%
we
the
thatbelieve
person
the
conformity).
wrong
others
holding line
are
the
32%
(of
experts.
minority
the
went three)
along
Fein
viewpoint
was
etwith
althe
wentchild.
-Identification-going
the
conversion
up), This
thetheory
size
therefore
of
says
along
thethat
puts
majority
with
when
pressure
others
(although
anotheron
because
the
viewpoint
this
other
you
only the
same
showed
is often
minority
length
not
thatliked
as
at
judgements
least
a standard
andonce,
is rejected
ofline.
describing
UC presidential
Inbythe
thea12majority
blue
trials,
slide36.8%
and
as
raises
have
members
is offered,
accepted
conformity
of
the the
individual
their
group
uppoint
totoahas
point)
also
of to
view
victimise
internalise
andbutthe only
the
ambiguity
this
because
child.
which of green.
of
candidate
exposure
the responses
Buttoperformance
when
a minority
they
werewerethe
means
could
participants
allowed
be
theaffected
majority
to write
conforming
byhave
down
the to to
thea task.
of
causesdesire
conflict
Buttoisbebetween
this
liked
a child
bytheir
them.
of its
POVHere,
timeand (Perrin
thetheindividual
other
and one theirmajority,
the
supposed
search answers,
for view
information
even
conformity
of the
though
majority.
on either
with
they thewere
sideminority
wrong.
of the issue 25% to of
Spencerthem
accepts
making the
couldn’t
viewpoint
consider
get theto
theirs.
same
be right
Mackie
results),
and argues
true,
the but
majority
thatthey
the increasedtheir
participants
evaluate showing
never
perspective
conformed.
that they didn’t Aschwantalso conducted
to be a
didn’tadopt
only
false consensus
actually
it because
conform
effect they
isand
important
want
Smith toand
and
be accepted
Bond’s
also it hasmeta- aligned trial
control withto a deviant
check that minority
it wasinnot public.
the ambiguity of
analysis
been suggested
showedthat cultural
it lacks
differences.
validity outside a lab. the task which was affecting the results of the test
Milgram:
Variations
Social
For social
impactWhy
change
on theory
Milgram’s
do to people
come
explains
obedience
obey?
about,
whyGradual
there
people
experiment:
must
commitment
conform
first bein Evaluatingpressures
Evaluation
Milgram’s
Resisting study
Milgram’s
of authority
of obedience:
toreasons
conform:
research: for
Lab
The
obedience:
Orne
experiment
roleand of Holland
allies:
Mandel
with
moved
asome
(foot
minority
in
situations
from
thewithdoor)
university
abutnew
with notviewpoint.
only
toothers.
run-down
15v increments
Number-the
Theyoffice-48%
will have
itmore
is gave
to be saidmale
40
Asch
says Milgram’s
itshowed
is volunteers
oversimplified
that
studywith
drawing
wasanother
andnotsays
rigged
very
person
that
realistic
lotsit cannot
who
to bewith
went
the
be
maximum
people
consistent
harder to
present,
say
shock.
in their
nothe as
Proximity
word
they’d
moreand influence
already
ofmay
victim:
have
accepted
they
teacher
towill
elevate
the
have
and last
on doubts about
teacher
against
monocausal the
andmajority,
the
and
internal
confederate
therethe validity.
areconformity
multiple
the
Generalisability
learner.
factors.
ratesShocks
dropped,
Agentic
is also
learner
the
their
increase.
minority,
status-for
seated
Agentic
but
in
example
the
only
shift:same
upwhere
bytoroom-40%
becoming
a certain
someone point.
doctors
obedience-
is anStrength-
agent
or a problem
administered
as
shift:
it made
cannot from
them be
to applied
the
the
more lab
learner
confident
to
to the
real
started
real
life
inworld,
because
their
at 15V decision.
although
and
the went
when
the
lawyers
carrying
moretouch
so
out
important
they
proximity
orders
are forrespected.
theitsomeone
members
dropped Like
else,
to
ofwith
30%.
the
otherwise
the
majority
Proximity they
are Hofling
up
Moral
volunteers
to 450V
consideration:
et alin
indid
Milgram’s
15Va hospital
increments.
people
study
studyare
only
Allon
likely
participants
experienced
nurses.
to conform
95%went
itdid
for
to
of the
to
suffragettes,
are to blame
authority
individualsome
andfigure:
the
inpeople
an
moreautonomous
instead
may
influence,
of
seethe
their
state.
Perrin
experimenter
viewpoint
Buffers:
and give
to
the
half
300V
majority
an
thehour
and
unknown
and
only
evenHolocaust
12.5%
though
drug as stopped
they
ordered
perpetrators
know
thenover
itwith
isthe
knew
wrong.
65%
phone.
theyThe
beingagree
Spencer
and
when sat
there
showed
awith
few
were it
feet
that
but
buffers
away,
not
when in
thewhen
Milgram’s
the
way majority
they
theygave
study,
portray
were
ordersit, so But Rank
continuing
non-conformist
were harming
and
to Jacobsen’s
450V
people
personality:
showing
butstudy
thehigh
isvolunteers
the
showed
obedience.
extent that
were
to which
with
But
told a
overuse
probation
will
obedience
thesociocryptoamnesia
phone,
officers
increasedobedience
andbecause
the minority
was
tothey
forget
21%didn’t
was
maximum
thea have
root
person of
to the
on knownwould
participants
people’s
there drug
personality
were
and
be no the
deceived
longability
affects
term to
and
their
damage.
discuss,
could
susceptibility
not
89%
Consequences
have
refused
to
shock.
patrol,
idea
witness
and Presence
the
the
repackage
conformity
afterofeffects.
allies:
it (black
ratesJustifying
twowere
isconfederates
beautiful).
rather
obedience:
high.
Gradually
were byalso to.an
informed
conforming.
of Eichmann’s
obedience
consent.
Those
obedience
alibi:
Baumrind
who thisrespond
is
alibi-just
unjustified
saidwithMilgram
carrying
independence
afterhad
out
an
teachers
Immediacy-as
more
offering and awith
good
more the
wereason
people
are
volunteer
more
to
willjustify
be
influenced
andforced
the
when behaviour
tothey
byevaluate
those
refused
they
more orders.
placed
tend
analysis
tothem
Gamsen’s
be
of less
the under
historical
concerned
oilextreme
spillrecords,
jury-had
with
psychological
social
saying
time norms,
to
this
discuss.
harmwhile
to carry
immediate
their
are carrying
viewpoint
on,to so
out
us.
did
and
(eg
Latene:
the
for
a snowball
person-only
science
consolidation,
effect
or because
10% will
gave
clustering,
take
Jews
max.
place,
were (although
some
exonerates
peopleMilgram
wararecriminals
anticonformist
did post-study
from their andinterviews).
crimes
alwaysand goOrne
correlation
atothreat)
ultimatelyit justifies
andchange
continuing
thetheunacceptable
zeitgeist.
diversity. behaviour. and Holland
against
justifies the
themajority.
death
said people
of thousands
don’t trust which experimenters
is upsetting for so
wouldaffected.
those know they AbuwereGhraib.
being watched & was not real
Resisting pressures to obey: Status: Milgram showed Locus of control: high internals believe their
that when the study was moved to a run-down office behaviour is caused by their own decisions. High
block, the participants felt more able to resist externals believe it is caused by fate and luck. High
showing that the status of the experimenter and the internals are less likely to rely on others, are more
volunteer are important. One person said that if it achievement orientated and are able to resist
had been in her workplace, she would have had no coercion from others. Anderson and Schneier found
trouble resisting. Proximity was also important when that group members who were high internal were
the victim could be seen or there were confederates. more likely to be leaders. Twenge et al found that
Kohlberg interviewed participants and assessed their young Americans are increasingly becoming more
moral reasoning, those who scored higher were external which has been correlated with depression
more likely to resist-vicar scored 6. Zimbardo said and poor school achievement. Linz and Semykina did
that social heroism also plays a part, with heroic a questionnaire on 2600 Russians and found for
imagination important in this women a link between internals and high earnings

Attributional style: personal (see themselves as the Implications of conformity research: Minorities
cause –dispositional-or because of external factors- influence majorities to evaluate their opinions and, if
situational), Permanent (they may see the situation they are consistent, to change their opinion so the
as either changeable or unchangeable) and Pervasive minority becomes the new majority. But this can
(the event either has an effect on their whole life or have both a positive and negative effect on the new
just one part). Positives don’t let negative things majority and minority. Peaceful minorities such and
affect the rest of their lives and are linked to Ghandi are able to bring about social change without
independent behaviour. Negatives blame themselves violence or retaliation and just consistency.
for negative effects and let them impact on the rest Kurglanski argues that terrorism is a tactic for social
of their lives. Anderson showed that negative change as their message is consistent and their
Attributional style was correlated with depression attacks draw attention to themselves so majorities
and loneliness have to evaluate their ideas and maybe change their
opinion

Implications of obedience research: Disobedient

models-in a variation of Milgram’s study, two
confederates were also teachers who defied the
experimenter and 36/40 participants did the same. A
drift to goodness: Zimbardo says that the small
increments of 15V in Milgram’s study reflect real life
but positively as it has been found that by asking
people to do small helpful things means they are
more likely to do bigger things later on. Obedience
itself is arguably a mechanism for social change itself
as in the Holocaust and Rwandan Genocide, many
killers claimed they were only obeying orders.