Key Social Influence Theories

Why This Matters

Social influence theories sit at the heart of what makes psychology fascinating—and what makes the AP exam challenging. You're being tested on your ability to explain why people abandon their own judgment, follow harmful orders, or freeze when someone needs help. These aren't just isolated studies to memorize; they reveal fundamental principles about conformity, obedience, group dynamics, and persuasion that appear across multiple units and show up repeatedly in both multiple-choice and free-response questions.

Understanding these theories means grasping the underlying mechanisms: arousal and performance, diffusion of responsibility, normative versus informational pressures, and the psychology of commitment. When you encounter an FRQ scenario about a workplace, jury room, or emergency situation, you'll need to identify which theory applies and explain the psychological principle at work. Don't just memorize that Milgram's participants shocked strangers—know why situational factors override personal morality and how that connects to real-world applications of obedience research.

---

Conformity and Its Mechanisms

People change their behavior to match others for two fundamentally different reasons: to be liked (normative influence) or to be right (informational influence). Recognizing which type of conformity is operating in a given scenario is essential for exam success.

Normative Social Influence

• Driven by the desire for social acceptance—people publicly agree with a group even when they privately disagree, making this a form of compliance rather than true belief change
• Strongest when being observed—the pressure to conform increases when individuals believe others are watching and judging their responses
• Explains Asch-type conformity—participants who gave wrong answers to fit in were responding to normative pressure, not genuine confusion about the correct line

Informational Social Influence

• Occurs when others seem to have better information—people genuinely adopt the group's view because they believe it's more accurate than their own
• Most powerful in ambiguous situations—when the correct answer is unclear, we look to others as a source of valid knowledge
• Leads to private acceptance—unlike normative influence, this creates true attitude change that persists even when the group is no longer present

Conformity (Asch's Line Experiment)

• One-third of participants conformed to obviously wrong answers—demonstrating that social pressure can override clear perceptual evidence
• Group size and unanimity matter—conformity increased with group size up to about 3-4 confederates, and a single dissenter dramatically reduced conformity rates
• Classic demonstration of normative influence—participants knew the right answer but yielded to avoid standing out from the group

---

Obedience and Authority

Obedience differs from conformity in a crucial way: it involves following direct commands from someone with perceived legitimate power. The psychological mechanisms here involve situational factors that reduce personal responsibility.

Obedience to Authority (Milgram Experiment)

• 65% of participants delivered maximum 450-volt shocks—when ordered by an authority figure in a lab coat, ordinary people administered what they believed were dangerous shocks to strangers
• Situational factors proved decisive—obedience dropped when the experimenter left the room, when the learner was in the same room, or when other "teachers" refused to continue
• Demonstrates the power of legitimate authority—participants weren't sadistic; they were responding to cues that transferred responsibility to the authority figure

---

Persuasion and Compliance Techniques

These strategies exploit specific psychological principles—commitment, consistency, and reciprocity—to gain agreement. Understanding the mechanism behind each technique is key to applying them correctly on the exam.

Foot-in-the-Door Technique

• Small request first, larger request second—agreeing to a minor commitment increases likelihood of agreeing to bigger requests later
• Exploits the consistency principle—once people see themselves as "the type who helps," they maintain that self-image by continuing to comply
• Example application—asking someone to sign a petition before asking for a donation leverages their initial commitment

Door-in-the-Face Technique

• Large request first, smaller request second—after refusing an extreme ask, people feel obligated to accept a more reasonable follow-up
• Exploits reciprocity norms—the requester appears to "give in" by making a concession, triggering the target's desire to reciprocate
• Works best with immediate follow-up—the contrast between requests must be clear, and the second request should come soon after the first refusal

Minority Influence

• Small groups can shift majority opinion—a consistent, confident minority can gradually change what the majority believes
• Consistency is the key factor—minorities who waver lose influence; those who maintain their position over time gain credibility
• Operates through informational influence—majorities begin to genuinely reconsider their views rather than just publicly comply

---

Group Performance Effects

The presence of others changes how well we perform, but the direction of that change depends on task complexity and whether individual contributions can be identified.

Social Facilitation

• Others' presence improves simple task performance—increased physiological arousal enhances dominant responses, which are correct for well-practiced tasks
• Impairs complex task performance—the same arousal disrupts performance when the dominant response is likely to be wrong
• Zajonc's drive theory explains the mechanism—arousal from being observed strengthens whatever response is most automatic

Social Loafing

• Individuals exert less effort in groups—when contributions are pooled and individual output isn't identifiable, people slack off
• Worse in larger groups—the more people involved, the less each person feels their effort matters
• Reduced by accountability measures—making individual contributions visible or increasing task importance counteracts loafing

---

Group Decision-Making and Helping Behavior

Groups don't always make better decisions than individuals, and crowds don't always help those in need. Diffusion of responsibility is the common thread connecting poor group choices and bystander inaction.

Groupthink

• Harmony-seeking overrides critical thinking—cohesive groups prioritize agreement over quality analysis, leading to flawed decisions
• Warning signs include self-censorship and illusion of unanimity—members suppress doubts and assume silence means agreement
• Historical examples include the Bay of Pigs and Challenger disaster—both involved groups that ignored warning signs to maintain consensus

Bystander Effect

• More witnesses means less individual helping—contrary to intuition, victims are less likely to receive help when more people are present
• Diffusion of responsibility is the mechanism—each bystander assumes someone else will act, reducing personal obligation
• Pluralistic ignorance compounds the effect—when no one reacts, each person interprets others' inaction as evidence that help isn't needed

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both normative and informational social influence produce conformity. What is the key difference in the type of conformity each produces, and how would you identify which is operating in an FRQ scenario?

2. Which two theories both involve diffusion of responsibility as their primary mechanism? How do the outcomes differ?

3. Compare the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face techniques: What psychological principle does each exploit, and why does the order of requests matter?

4. A student performs worse on a difficult math problem when others are watching but better on simple multiplication. Which theory explains this, and what is the underlying mechanism?

5. How do Asch's conformity findings and Milgram's obedience findings both support the idea that situational factors are more powerful than personality in determining behavior? What is the key structural difference between the two experimental setups?