Explain social influence on individual behaviour

Conformity, obedience, group behaviour and attribution, with Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo studies, for TCE Psychology social psychology.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.89 min answerUpdated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

What this dot point is asking

Conformity

Conformity is changing behaviour or beliefs to match a group. Solomon Asch (1951) showed participants lines and asked which matched a standard line. When confederates gave obviously wrong answers, about 37 percent of responses conformed, and 75 percent conformed at least once. Conformity rose with group size up to about three or four people and fell when one ally also disagreed.

Two explanations are normative influence (conforming to be liked or accepted) and informational influence (conforming because we believe others are right, especially in ambiguous situations).

Obedience

Obedience is following the direct orders of an authority figure. Stanley Milgram (1963) asked participants to give what they believed were increasing electric shocks to a "learner" when ordered by an experimenter. About 65 percent continued to the maximum 450 volts despite distress. Obedience increased with a legitimate authority and a prestigious setting, and decreased when the experimenter was distant or the victim was close.

The Stanford prison experiment (Zimbardo, 1971) assigned students to be guards or prisoners. Guards quickly became abusive and prisoners passive, and the study was stopped early. Zimbardo argued the situation and assigned social roles, not personality, drove the behaviour. The study is now strongly criticised on ethical and methodological grounds, including demand characteristics.

Group behaviour

Groups change individual behaviour in several ways:

Social facilitation: performance improves on easy tasks when others are present (Triplett, 1898, cyclists rode faster against others).
Social loafing: individuals exert less effort in a group because responsibility is shared.
Deindividuation: loss of personal identity in a crowd reduces self-restraint.
Groupthink: the desire for group harmony leads to poor decisions.
Bystander effect: people are less likely to help when others are present, due to diffusion of responsibility (linked to Darley and Latane, 1968).

Attribution

Attribution theory explains how we interpret the causes of behaviour. We make internal (dispositional) attributions, blaming the person, or external (situational) attributions, blaming the circumstances. The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to over-emphasise personality and under-emphasise the situation when judging others, while excusing our own behaviour with the situation (self-serving bias).

Attitudes and prejudice

Attitudes have three components: cognitive (beliefs), affective (feelings) and behavioural. Prejudice is a negative attitude toward a group, and discrimination is acting on it. Tajfel's social identity theory shows that simply dividing people into groups creates in-group favouritism and out-group bias.

Evaluating the social influence studies

These classic studies are powerful but contested. Asch's task was artificial and the conformity rates depend on the era and culture, so results may not generalise. Milgram's findings have been replicated in modified form, but the study used deception and caused distress. Zimbardo's prison study is now heavily criticised for demand characteristics and the experimenter's involvement, so it is better treated as a vivid demonstration than firm proof. A strong TASC answer cites the finding, then notes one methodological or ethical limitation rather than presenting the studies as beyond question.

Putting it together

When the exam describes social behaviour, first decide which process is at work: conformity (peer pressure), obedience (an order from authority), a group effect (facilitation, loafing, deindividuation, groupthink) or an attribution. Name the matching study, explain the mechanism, and where asked, evaluate it. These processes explain everyday behaviour from peer pressure to crowd violence and connect directly to wellbeing and developmental topics across the course.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of TASC exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

TCE 20226 marksDescribe Asch's (1951) conformity study and explain the difference between normative and informational social influence.

Show worked answer →

This is a knowledge item marked on Criterion 3. Describe the study, then distinguish the two influences.

Asch's study. Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, an easy perceptual task. Confederates gave the same obviously wrong answer on critical trials. About 37 percent of responses conformed to the wrong answer and around 75 percent of participants conformed at least once. Conformity rose with group size up to about three or four confederates and fell sharply when one ally also dissented.

Normative versus informational influence. Normative social influence is conforming to be liked or accepted and to avoid standing out, as in Asch's clearly visible task. Informational social influence is conforming because we believe others are right, which dominates in ambiguous situations where we are unsure of the correct answer.

Markers reward an accurate account of the procedure and findings, and a clear contrast between the two explanations.

TCE 20249 marksEvaluate the claim that the situation, rather than personality, drives harmful behaviour. Refer to Milgram (1963) and the Stanford prison experiment (Zimbardo, 1971), including their ethical and methodological criticisms.

Show worked answer →

This is an extended-response item marked on Criteria 3 and 7. Use both studies as evidence, then weigh the situational claim critically.

Evidence for the situation: Milgram found about 65 percent of participants obeyed to the maximum 450 volts when ordered by a legitimate authority in a prestigious setting; obedience fell when the authority was distant or the victim close, showing situational control. Zimbardo's guards became abusive and prisoners passive within days, which he attributed to assigned social roles rather than personality. Together they support the power of the situation.
Criticisms: Both studies raise serious ethics issues: Milgram used deception and caused distress; Zimbardo failed to protect participants and intervened too late. Methodologically, the prison study is criticised for demand characteristics and Zimbardo's dual role as superintendent, which may have shaped the guards' behaviour, weakening the purely situational reading. Individual differences also remained: not everyone obeyed or became cruel.
Judgement: The situation clearly has strong power, but a balanced answer concludes that situation and disposition interact, and that the methodological flaws mean the situational claim is supported but overstated if taken as the whole story.

Markers reward both studies as evidence, accurate ethical and methodological criticism, and a two-sided judgement.