Conformity and obedience: social influence, Asch, Milgram and situational factors (QCE Psychology Unit 4)
“Describe group social influence, with reference to compliance, identification and internalisation; Explain how obedience, conformity and social norms (as described by Cialdini et al. 2006) lead to behaviour change; Describe the findings of historical social psychological research, with reference to Asch's (1955) research on conformity and Milgram's (1963) research on obedience”
Conformity is changing behaviour to match a group, driven by normative influence (the desire to be liked) and informational influence (the desire to be right), shown by Asch's line study. Obedience is following the direct orders of an authority figure, shown by Milgram. Both are powerfully shaped by situational factors such as group size, unanimity, proximity and the legitimacy of authority.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
QCAA wants you to explain two key forms of social influence, conformity and obedience, and to describe what makes people more or less likely to yield to them. You must distinguish the two concepts, explain why they happen, and support your answer with named classic studies and the situational variables they revealed.
The answer
Conformity versus obedience
Conformity is a change in behaviour or belief to match those of a group, usually in response to implied or imagined group pressure rather than a direct order. Obedience is complying with a direct instruction from an authority figure. The key differences are that obedience involves an explicit order and a status difference, whereas conformity involves implicit pressure from peers of equal status.
Why people conform
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) identified two reasons.
- Normative social influence. Conforming to gain acceptance and avoid rejection. This typically produces compliance (public agreement without private belief).
- Informational social influence. Conforming because we believe the group has accurate information, especially in ambiguous situations. This typically produces internalisation (genuine private acceptance).
Asch (1951), the line study
Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, an easy task, while seated among confederates who gave obviously wrong answers on certain trials. About 75 percent of participants conformed to the wrong answer at least once, and the overall conformity rate was around 37 percent. Asch then varied the situation and found:
- Group size. Conformity rose as the majority grew to about three or four, then levelled off.
- Unanimity. A single dissenting confederate sharply reduced conformity.
- Task difficulty. Harder, more ambiguous tasks increased conformity (informational influence).
Milgram (1963), obedience to authority
Participants were ordered by an experimenter to deliver what they believed were increasingly severe electric shocks to a learner (a confederate) for wrong answers. Despite the learner's apparent distress, 65 percent of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts. Milgram's variations showed obedience depended on situational factors:
- Proximity. Obedience dropped when the learner was in the same room or when the experimenter gave orders by telephone.
- Location. Moving from prestigious Yale to a run-down office reduced obedience.
- Legitimacy and presence of authority. Obedience fell when the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary person.
Milgram explained obedience through the agentic state, in which people see themselves as agents carrying out another's wishes and feel reduced personal responsibility.
Zimbardo (1971), the Stanford prison study
Student volunteers were randomly assigned as guards or prisoners in a mock prison. The guards quickly became abusive and the prisoners passive and distressed, and the study was stopped early. Zimbardo argued that the situation and assigned social roles, more than personality, drove the behaviour. The study is also a major ethics case study because of the harm to participants.
In Milgram's baseline study, 65 percent of participants administered the full 450-volt shock, and 100 percent continued to at least 300 volts. The results stunned psychiatrists who had predicted that fewer than 1 percent would go all the way, showing the power of situation over disposition.
Putting it together for an exam
Define the form of influence, explain why it occurs (normative versus informational for conformity; the agentic state for obedience), then cite the named study and the situational variable that changes the outcome. Linking the concept to a specific manipulation is what earns marks.
- Confusing conformity and obedience
- Obedience follows a direct order from an authority; conformity follows implicit group pressure from peers.
- Mixing up normative and informational influence
- Normative is about being liked (compliance); informational is about being right (internalisation).
- Saying personality explains Milgram and Zimbardo
- Both studies stress the power of the situation over individual disposition.
- Forgetting the variations
- The marks are often in the situational factors (proximity, unanimity, group size) rather than the headline result.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of QCAA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Practice2 marksThis question refers to the experiment conducted by Asch (1951). Describe the type of group social influence displayed. Provide an example from the experiment to support your response.Show worked answer →
Type of influence (1 mark): normative social influence, conforming to match the majority in order to gain approval and avoid standing out or being rejected, producing public compliance rather than genuine private belief.
Example from the experiment (1 mark): on the critical trials, participants gave the same obviously incorrect line judgement as the unanimous confederates (overall about a third of responses conformed), even though the correct answer was clear, because they did not want to be the odd one out in front of the group.
Practice2 marksResearchers replicated Asch's methodology. However, half the participants were instructed to state their responses publicly and the other half privately. Predict the behaviour of participants in the public group. Give a reason for your response.
Show worked answer →
Prediction (1 mark): participants in the public group will conform to the majority's incorrect answer more often than those responding privately.
Reason (1 mark): stating answers publicly exposes participants to normative social influence, the pressure to be accepted and avoid the discomfort of openly disagreeing with the group, so they conform to fit in. Private responding removes that social pressure and the audience, so participants are freer to give their own correct judgement and conformity falls.
Practice1 markThis question refers to the experiment conducted by Asch (1951). Identify the significance of Asch's experiment for social psychological research.Show worked answer →
1 mark for identifying its significance: Asch's experiment provided clear experimental evidence that people will conform to a unanimous majority even when it is plainly wrong, demonstrating the power of group pressure (normative social influence) over individual judgement and establishing conformity as a measurable phenomenon for laboratory study.