Social Influence

In Asch's (1951) line-judgement studies, conformity to the obviously incorrect majority is best explained as which type of conformity?

• ACompliance, driven by normative social influence to avoid rejection✓
• BInternalisation, because participants genuinely changed their private beliefs
• CIdentification, because participants admired the confederates
• DInformational social influence, because the task was highly ambiguous

Answer: The line task was unambiguous, so participants knew the majority was wrong but went along publicly to fit in and avoid disapproval. This is compliance driven by normative social influence; their private view was unchanged, ruling out internalisation.

Asch found that conformity DROPPED markedly under which of the following variations?

• AIncreasing group size from three confederates to fifteen
• BMaking the comparison lines more similar in length (greater task difficulty)
• CIntroducing a single dissenting confederate who broke the unanimity✓
• DAsking participants to answer out loud rather than in writing

Answer: When one confederate dissented (whether giving the right answer or a different wrong one), unanimity was broken and conformity fell from about 33% to around 5%. Greater difficulty and larger groups tend to raise conformity, not lower it.

Which finding from Zimbardo's (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment best supports conformity to social roles?

• AParticipants resisted their assigned roles and frequently rebelled against the experimenters
• BGuards became increasingly cruel and prisoners became passive, despite random allocation to roles✓
• CPrisoners and guards behaved identically because personality, not the situation, drove behaviour
• DThe study ran for its full planned 14 days with no adverse psychological effects

Answer: Roles were assigned at random, yet participants rapidly conformed to them: guards grew abusive and prisoners became submissive and distressed, leading Zimbardo to end the study after six days. This illustrates the power of social roles and situational forces.

In Milgram's (1963) baseline obedience study, what percentage of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock?

• A35%
• B50%
• C100%
• D65%✓

Answer: In the original study, 65% (26 of 40 male participants) continued to the maximum 450 volts. 100% continued to at least 300 volts, but the headline full-obedience figure is 65%.

Across Milgram's situational variations, obedience was LOWEST in which condition?

• AWhen the experiment was moved to a run-down office block in Bridgeport
• BWhen the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate (touch proximity)
• CWhen the experimenter gave instructions by telephone from another room✓
• DWhen the teacher only had to instruct an assistant who delivered the shock

Answer: When the experimenter left the room and gave orders by phone, obedience dropped to around 20.5% as the authority figure's proximity fell. Touch proximity reduced it to about 30%, and the run-down location to roughly 47.5%; the autonomy of remote authority produced the lowest figure of these.

According to agentic state theory, a person obeys a destructive order because they:

• ASee themselves as an agent carrying out another's wishes, shifting responsibility to the authority✓
• BHave an internal locus of control and feel personally responsible
• CHave internalised the moral values of the authority figure
• DAre dispositionally submissive due to an authoritarian personality

Answer: In the agentic state, individuals no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions; they act as an agent for an authority figure, displacing moral responsibility upward. This contrasts with the autonomous state.

Adorno et al. (1950) linked obedience and prejudice to the authoritarian personality. Which scale and key characteristic are correctly paired?

• AThe F-scale, measuring a tendency toward rigid thinking and submission to authority✓
• BThe L-scale, measuring an external locus of control
• CThe MMPI, measuring internalisation of minority views
• DThe F-scale, measuring high tolerance of ambiguity and flexible attitudes

Answer: Adorno developed the F-scale (potentiality for fascism). High scorers showed rigid, black-and-white thinking, submissiveness to those above them, hostility to those below, and intolerance of ambiguity. Option D inverts these traits.

Research suggests that people with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist obedience. This is because they:

• ABelieve outcomes are determined by luck and external forces beyond their control
• BTake personal responsibility for their actions and rely less on others' approval✓
• CAre more susceptible to normative social influence
• DAlways have an authoritarian personality

Answer: Internals attribute outcomes to their own behaviour, take responsibility for their actions, and are less reliant on others' approval, making them more able to resist pressure to obey or conform. Externals attribute outcomes to luck or fate.

Moscovici et al.'s (1969) blue-green slide study demonstrated minority influence. The key behavioural variable that made the minority more influential was:

• AThe flexibility of the minority in compromising its position
• BThe size of the minority relative to the majority
• CThe consistency with which the minority called the blue slides 'green'✓
• DThe minority's higher status and expertise

Answer: A consistent minority (always saying 'green') produced significantly more agreement (8.42%) than an inconsistent minority (1.25%). Consistency is the central factor in Moscovici's study; flexibility and commitment are additional factors emphasised in later work.

In explanations of social change through minority influence, the process by which a minority view gradually becomes the majority view, often without people recalling its source, is termed:

• AThe snowball effect
• BThe augmentation principle
• CDeindividuation
• DSocial cryptomnesia✓

Answer: Social cryptomnesia describes when people accept a once-minority idea but have no memory of how the change happened. The snowball effect is the spread of the view, and augmentation refers to greater influence when a minority takes personal risk; deindividuation is unrelated.