Social influence operates through several distinct mechanisms: obedience (compliance with explicit commands from authority), conformity (alignment with group norms), and compliance (yielding to direct requests). These mechanisms are essential for coordinating behavior and transmitting cultural values, but can also produce harmful outcomes when individuals blindly follow authority or abandon personal judgment.
From your study of group dynamics and conformity, you know that individuals in groups tend to align their behavior with group norms — and that this alignment can happen even when the group is demonstrably wrong, as Asch's line experiments showed. Social influence is the broader category that encompasses conformity along with two other mechanisms: obedience and compliance. Each mechanism involves a different social relationship and a different trigger for behavior change, though all three can operate simultaneously in complex social situations.
Conformity is the most diffuse of the three — it occurs in response to perceived group norms, often without anyone explicitly requesting anything. The pressure is implicit: you wear similar clothes, share similar opinions, or follow similar routines because deviating from what "everyone" does creates social discomfort. Conformity can be informational (you genuinely believe the group has better information than you) or normative (you know what you believe but publicly align anyway to avoid rejection). Your prerequisite on group dynamics covered this distinction. Informational conformity is most powerful in ambiguous situations; normative conformity is most powerful when group membership is valued and visible.
Compliance involves yielding to a direct request from another person, without the authority gradient that defines obedience. The requester has no formal power over you; they are simply asking. The psychology of compliance has been mapped extensively, revealing consistent techniques: foot-in-the-door (start with a small request to establish a pattern of agreement, then escalate), door-in-the-face (open with an extreme request, then retreat to the real request which now seems reasonable by contrast), reciprocity (give something first, triggering the obligation norm), and social proof (indicate that others have already complied). These techniques work because they exploit genuine cognitive shortcuts that are usually adaptive — we rely on social proof, reciprocity, and consistency because they usually lead us right.
Obedience is the most structurally distinct mechanism because it involves an explicit authority relationship. Milgram's experiments remain the canonical demonstration: ordinary people administered what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to strangers not because they wanted to harm anyone but because a figure in a white lab coat said "please continue." Your prerequisite on authority and domination helps explain the structural underpinning: when authority is perceived as legitimate — backed by institutional credentials, context-appropriate symbols, and a chain of command — the psychological distance between one's own moral judgment and one's actions can become very large. The most important sociological lesson from obedience research is not that people are unusually cruel but that situational factors — role, context, authority structure, incremental escalation — are far more predictive of harmful behavior than individual character. This reframing shifts responsibility from the dispositional ("bad people do bad things") to the structural ("certain situations reliably produce bad behavior from ordinary people"), which has profound implications for institutional design.
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.