Questions: Social Influence Mechanisms: Obedience, Compliance, and Conformity

Question 1

In Milgram's obedience experiments, the majority of participants administered what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to another person. What does this most directly demonstrate?

• A. Most people are unusually cruel when given the opportunity to harm others without consequences
• B. Participants had authoritarian personalities that made them prone to following orders
• C. Situational factors — legitimate authority, incremental escalation, institutional context — are more powerful determinants of harmful behavior than individual character
• D. Obedience to authority is an adaptive trait that outweighs moral reasoning in all circumstances

Answer: (C)

This is the central sociological lesson from Milgram's research: ordinary people — with no unusual propensity for cruelty — behaved in potentially dangerous ways because of the structure of the situation. The authority wore institutional symbols (lab coat), the setting was a legitimate university, commands escalated gradually, and diffusion of responsibility made each small step feel manageable. Milgram himself was disturbed by the results precisely because the participants were unremarkable. Options A and B represent the dispositional attribution error — the tendency to explain behavior with reference to character rather than situation.

Question 2

A charity solicitor hands you a small gift before asking for a donation. Which compliance technique is being used?

• A. Foot-in-the-door, because the gift establishes a relationship before the real request
• B. Door-in-the-face, because the gift represents a prior concession the solicitor has made
• C. Reciprocity, because receiving a gift triggers an obligation norm that increases compliance
• D. Social proof, because others who received gifts also donated

Answer: (C)

The reciprocity technique works by giving something first, triggering the deeply ingrained social norm of returning favors. This is distinct from foot-in-the-door (which starts with a small *request* to establish consistency, then escalates) and door-in-the-face (which starts with an extreme *request*, then retreats to the real one). The gift is not a request — it is a gift designed to create felt obligation. This technique exploits a genuine social heuristic that is usually adaptive: reciprocating gifts maintains cooperative relationships. The compliance technique hijacks that heuristic in an asymmetric context.

Question 3

Milgram's research suggests that situational factors such as authority structure and incremental escalation are more predictive of obedience to harmful commands than individual character or personality.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This is the core claim, well-supported by experimental results: Milgram found that obedience rates varied dramatically with situational changes (physical proximity to the authority, distance from the victim, institutional setting) while remaining disturbingly high across diverse populations with varying personalities. This finding has profound implications for institutional design — it suggests that preventing harmful obedience requires changing situations (accountability structures, dissent channels, role design), not just selecting 'better' people.

Question 4

Normative conformity occurs when individuals genuinely believe the group has better information than they do and update their beliefs accordingly.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

That describes *informational* conformity — conforming because you believe the group knows something you don't, and you genuinely update your belief. Normative conformity is different: you know what you privately believe but publicly align with the group anyway to avoid rejection, maintain membership, or meet social expectations. Asch's line experiments revealed normative conformity because the correct answer was objectively clear — participants were not confused about the lines, they were conforming to avoid standing out. The key distinction is whether the conformity produces genuine private belief change (informational) or only public behavioral change (normative).

Question 5

Distinguish informational from normative conformity, and explain when each type of conformity is most powerful.

Model answer: Informational conformity occurs when someone genuinely believes the group has better information and updates their private beliefs accordingly — they conform because they are uncertain and treat consensus as evidence. Normative conformity occurs when someone knows what they believe privately but publicly aligns with the group to avoid social rejection or maintain belonging — private belief and public behavior diverge. Informational conformity is most powerful in ambiguous situations where the 'correct' answer is unclear and the group plausibly has more relevant knowledge. Normative conformity is most powerful when group membership is highly valued, when deviants are visibly punished, and when the nonconformist's position is publicly observable.

The practical significance is that these two types require different interventions. To reduce inappropriate informational conformity (e.g., groupthink), you need to increase access to independent information or devil's advocates. To reduce normative conformity, you need to reduce the social costs of dissent — anonymous voting, dissent protection, or evidence that others privately disagree. Conflating the two leads to ineffective interventions: changing information won't address someone who already knows the correct answer but is afraid to say it.