Doesn't explain individual differences in obedience
Cannot explain disobedience to legitimate authority
Culturally biased - based on Western views of authority
🔬 Key Studies
Asch's Line Study (1951) - Conformity
Aim: To investigate conformity to majority influence in an unambiguous situation
Procedure: 123 male US students. Groups of 7-9 (1 real participant, rest confederates). Line-matching task. Confederates gave wrong answers on 12/18 trials.
Findings: 36.8% conformity rate. 75% conformed at least once. 25% never conformed.
Conclusion: People conform to majority even in unambiguous situations due to NSI (normative social influence)
✓ Strengths
High internal validity - controlled laboratory setting
Easy to replicate - standardized procedure
Demonstrated clear conformity effect in unambiguous situation
Temporal validity - 1950s conformist era, may not apply today
Milgram's Obedience Study (1963)
Aim: To investigate how far people would go in obeying authority, even if it meant harming another person
Procedure: 40 male volunteers. "Teacher" (participant) gave electric shocks to "learner" (confederate) for wrong answers. Shocks increased from 15V to 450V. Experimenter encouraged continuation.
Findings: 65% went to 450V. 100% went to 300V. Participants showed signs of stress (sweating, trembling).
Conclusion: Ordinary people will obey authority even when it means harming others (situational factors)
✓ Strengths
High internal validity - controlled environment
Replicated in other cultures with similar results
Important real-world application - understanding genocide
Participants debriefed - 84% said they were glad to have participated
✗ Limitations
Ethical issues - deception, psychological harm, right to withdraw compromised
Low ecological validity - artificial task
Gender bias - only male participants initially
Demand characteristics - Orne & Holland argued participants didn't believe shocks were real
Individual differences - 35% still resisted
Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Aim: To investigate whether brutality among prison guards was due to sadistic personalities or the prison environment
Procedure: 24 emotionally stable male students randomly assigned to guard/prisoner roles in mock prison. Planned for 2 weeks.
Findings: Guards became increasingly aggressive. Prisoners became submissive and depressed. Study stopped after 6 days. Prisoners showed signs of psychological disturbance.
Conclusion: Situational factors (social roles) strongly influence behavior, not just dispositional factors
✓ Strengths
High control - random allocation, emotionally stable participants
Group Size: Conformity increased with group size up to 3 confederates (31.8%), then plateaued
Unanimity: One dissenting confederate reduced conformity to 5.5%
Task Difficulty: More difficult tasks increased conformity (ISI)
🌍 Social Change
Minority Influence & Social Change
Consistency: Minorities must be consistent over time (diachronic) and between members (synchronic)
Commitment: Personal sacrifice/risks show commitment (augmentation principle)
Flexibility: Must be willing to compromise, not dogmatic
Snowball Effect: Minority becomes majority over time
Procedure: Groups of 6 (4 participants, 2 confederates) viewed blue slides. Consistent condition: confederates called all slides "green". Inconsistent: said green 24/36 times.
Findings: Consistent minority: 8.42% agreement. Inconsistent: 1.25%. Participants more likely to see slides as blue-green in private.
Conclusion: Consistency is key to minority influence
✓ Strengths
Controlled laboratory experiment - high internal validity