Why do people change their behaviour to match a group or obey an authority figure?
Explain conformity and obedience using key studies (Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo) and the factors that increase or reduce them.
How conformity and obedience work, the classic studies by Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo, and the situational factors that increase or reduce social influence.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
You need to define conformity and obedience, describe the key studies, and explain the factors that increase or reduce them. This is a core external-exam topic.
Conformity
Conformity is a change in behaviour or belief to match a group, in response to real or imagined group pressure. Two main reasons drive it:
- Normative social influence - conforming to be accepted and avoid rejection (public agreement).
- Informational social influence - conforming because we believe the group has correct information, especially when a situation is ambiguous.
Asch's line studies
Solomon Asch (1951) asked participants to judge which of three lines matched a standard line. Confederates gave the same wrong answer aloud. About one third of responses conformed to the obviously wrong majority, and most participants conformed at least once, mainly through normative pressure.
Conformity in Asch's studies increased with larger majorities (up to a point) and unanimity, and decreased sharply when even one other person dissented (an ally), or when answers were given privately.
Obedience
Obedience is following the direct commands of a person in authority.
Milgram's obedience studies
Stanley Milgram (1963) told participants to give what they believed were increasing electric shocks to a "learner" who answered questions wrongly. Although the learner was a confederate and no real shocks were given, 65 percent of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts when prompted by the experimenter.
Obedience decreased when the authority figure was less legitimate or absent, when the participant was closer to the victim, and when others refused to obey. It increased when the authority appeared legitimate and took responsibility.
Zimbardo's Stanford prison study
Philip Zimbardo (1971) assigned student volunteers to be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison. Many guards became abusive and prisoners distressed, and the study was stopped early. It illustrated how powerful situations and assigned roles can shape behaviour, though it has been criticised for its methods and for guards being encouraged towards harsh behaviour.
Factors and ethics
Across these studies, situational factors (proximity, legitimacy of authority, presence of allies, group size and unanimity) strongly affect social influence. The studies also raised major ethical concerns about deception, lack of informed consent, psychological harm and the right to withdraw, which shaped modern ethical guidelines.
Minority influence and culture
Conformity is not only about majorities. A consistent, confident minority can shift a majority over time (Moscovici's research), which is how social change often begins. Influence is also shaped by culture: studies generally find higher conformity in collectivist cultures, where group harmony is valued, than in individualist cultures, where independence is prized. This is a reminder that the classic studies were conducted largely in one cultural and historical setting, so their exact rates may not generalise even though the underlying processes do.
Conformity and obedience also have a positive side worth noting for balance: agreed norms, deference to legitimate expertise (for example following a paramedic's instructions) and cooperation all depend on the same processes. The psychological interest is in explaining when these processes lead to helpful coordination and when they lead to harm.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SACE 20226 marksIn a replication of Asch's line-judgement study, a researcher varies the conditions. In condition A the participant faces a unanimous majority of seven confederates. In condition B one of the confederates gives the correct answer. The mean conformity rate is in condition A and in condition B. (a) Identify the type of social influence operating in condition A and justify your choice. (b) Explain why conformity falls so sharply in condition B.Show worked answer →
This is a research/data item marked on knowledge and application.
(a) Type of influence (3 marks). Because the line task is clear and unambiguous, participants can see the correct answer, so they are not conforming because they think the group knows better. They conform mainly through normative social influence: the desire to be accepted and to avoid the discomfort of standing out against a unanimous majority. The high rate despite an obvious answer is the signature of normative influence.
(b) Effect of an ally (3 marks). In condition B the majority is no longer unanimous: one confederate gives the correct answer. This breaks the unanimity that drives normative pressure and provides social support, showing the participant that dissent is possible and that they are not alone. The cost of disagreeing drops sharply, so conformity falls from to . The size of the drop shows unanimity, not just majority size, is the key factor.
SACE 20218 marksMilgram's obedience research is often used to argue that the situation, rather than personality, explains harmful obedience. Discuss this claim, referring to evidence from the studies and to the ethical issues they raised.Show worked answer →
This is an extended-response item marked on knowledge and evaluation.
- The situational claim
- Milgram (1963) found of ordinary participants continued to the maximum 450 volts under instruction from the experimenter. Because participants were a broad cross-section rather than unusually cruel people, the result suggests the situation, not disposition, produced the obedience.
- Situational evidence
- Obedience dropped when the experimenter gave orders by phone or was absent (reduced legitimacy and presence), when the participant had to physically place the learner's hand on a plate (increased proximity to the victim), and when a confederate refused (a disobedient model). These variations changed behaviour while personality stayed constant, supporting the situational account.
- Qualification
- Personality and individual differences still play some role, and later analyses note participants varied in how readily they obeyed, so the honest claim is that the situation is the dominant but not the only factor.
- Ethics
- The studies involved deception, lack of fully informed consent, evident psychological distress and a compromised right to withdraw (the experimenter used prods to continue). These concerns helped drive modern ethical guidelines requiring informed consent, protection from harm and a genuine right to withdraw. A top answer weighs the scientific value against the ethical cost.