top of page
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Do you need support with AQA A Level Psychology? Get tutored by an undergraduate student who was taught and is now mentored by Marie, and achieved an A* in A Level Psychology from just £45 per hour. Click here to find out more.
Social
Paper 1
Influence
Menu
Types & explanations of conformity
Asch's research into conformity
Asch's variables affecting conformity
Milgram's research into obedience
Situational variables affecting obedience
Situational explanations of obedience (Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority)
Dispositional explanation of obedience (Adorno's Agentic State)
Types & explanations of conformity
Types of conformity AO1
Conformity is a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined group pressure. It is a form of majority influence
Kelman (1958) identified levels (types) of conformity.
-
Compliance is the lowest level of conformity. It is when a person changes their public behaviour, but not their private beliefs. This is usually a short-term change and is often the result of normative social influence.
-
Internalisation is the deepest level of conformity. It is when a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs. This is usually a long-term change and often the result of informational social influence (ISI)
Explanations of conformity AO1
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) argued there are two reasons why people conform, known as the two process model.
-
Normative social influence: A person conforms because of a need to liked and accepted by the group. It normally leads to compliance and is short term. It happens mostly in unambiguous situations.
-
Informational social influence: A person conforms because of a need to right. It normally leads to internalisation and is long term. It happens mostly in ambiguous situations
AO3
+ Evidence NSI: Asch
+ Evidence ISI Lucas (maths)
- Individual diff - McGhee & Teevan naffiliators
- Incomplete explanation - Turner Referent Informational Influence
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
Back to menu
Asch's research into conformity
AO1
Asch (1951) Classic line study
Procedure
-
Lab experiment. Sample 50 male students, USA.
-
The ppts were given a false aim that they were taking part in a vision test.
-
There was only one real (naïve) participant in groups of 6-8 confederates. The group were shown two cards, one with a standard line and another with three comparison lines.
-
Ppts had to state which comparison line was the matching one. The naïve ppt always answered 2nd to last as a control.
-
In the first few trials the confederates always gave the right answer, but then they started making errors (with all confederates making the same mistakes).
-
The ppts took part in 18 trials and 12 were ‘critical trials’ where the confederates gave the wrong answer. Only the data from the critical trials were included in the analysis.
​
Findings
-
The naïve participants gave the wrong answer (conformed) 36.8% of the time in the critical trials, this known as the conformity rate.
-
75% of ppts conformed at least once. This is known as the Asch effect which is how people conform even when the task is unambiguous (obvious right / wrong answer).
-
In the control group only 1% gave the wrong answer. In post experimental interviews the ppts said they knew the correct answer but conformed to avoid social rejection.
-
People do conform even in unambiguous situations, in order to fit in and not be rejected by the group (due to the pressure of NSI).
​AO3
- Demand characteristics
- Perrin & Spencer "child of its time" - results lack temporal validity
- Individual differences: women & collectivist conform more
- Ignores that the most common behaviour was not to conform
​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
Variables affecting conformity
AO1​​
Group size
-
Asch increased the number of confederates in the group to 15 to see how it affected conformity.
-
As the group size increased so did the conformity rate. With only 1 confederate the average conformity rate was 3%, and with three confederates this rose to 32%.
-
After a group size of 3 conformity rate plateaued. This happens as the pressure of NSI increases as the group gets bigger.
​​
Unanimity
-
Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others, giving the correct answer. This is known as the dissenter variation.
-
The presence of the dissenter reduced conformity to 5% because the dissenting peer broke the unanimity of the group and therefore reduced the pressure of NSI.
​
Task difficulty
-
Asch made the task more difficult by making the standard line and comparison lines more similar in length.
-
As the task got more difficult as did conformity. This is because the situation was more ambiguous, so they looked to other people for guidance and increasing the pressure of ISI
​
​​​​ AO3
- Demand characteristics
- Perrin & Spencer "child of its time" - results lack temporal validity
- Individual differences: women & collectivist conform more
- Ignores that the most common behaviour was not to conform
​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
Situational variables affecting obedience
Location AO1​​
-
The original study was carried out at Yale University, which is a very prestigious institution.
-
This location gave ppts the confidence in the integrity of the research as the institution carried legitimate authority.
-
When Milgram replicated the study in a run-down office block it resulted in a drop to the obedience rate to 48%.​
​
Proximity AO1​​
​Teacher to learner
-
When the teacher and learner were seated in the same room obedience levels fell to 40% as the teacher could see the harm they were causing and had more moral strain.
-
In the ‘touch proximity’ variation when the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate, the obedience rate dropped to 30%.
​
Experimenter to teacher
-
In the ‘experimenter absent’ variation the researcher gave orders over the phone as he was ‘called out’ and this caused obedience to drop to 20%.
-
Some of the ppts ‘cheated’ giving the lowest shock level rather than following the procedure
​
Uniform AO1​​
-
Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in New York City where confederates stood on the street and asked members of the public who were passing by to perform a small task such as picking up a piece of litter or providing a coin for the parking meter.
-
The outfit that the confederate was wearing varied from a smart suit jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit or a security guard’s uniform. It was found that ppts were twice as likely to obey the security guard (76%) compared to the ordinary clothes (30%).
-
This supports Milgram’s theory that a uniform adds to the legitimacy of the authority figure which increases obedience levels
​​
​​​​ AO3
- Bickman: confounding variables
- Is culture more important? 16% Australia, 85% Germany
- Milgram: lack of internal validity
- Real life application: uniforms
​​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
Milgram's research into obedience
AO1​​
Obedience is a type of social influence whereby one person follows the orders of another. The person giving the orders is an authority figure, meaning they are of a higher social status.
​
Milgram's classic (1963) Shock Study
​Procedure
-
They used volunteer sampling with 40 ppts from the USA aged between 20-50 years old. They were paid $4.50.
-
Milgram used rigged random allocation which meant a confederate (Mr Wallace) was always the learner and the real ppt was the learner.
-
There was also an experimenter who wore a grey lab coat who was the authority figure. The ppts were given a false aim that the study was on learning and memory.
-
The teacher (ppt) was given a small but real shock to increase the experimental realism of the task. Each time the learner, Mr Wallace, made a mistake with a word pairing task the ppt had to shock him and the voltage rose by 15 volts each time.
-
The reaction was a pre-recorded series of verbal responses that fell silent at 330 volts. Mr Wallace complained of a heart problem at 300 volts and refusing to answer any more questions.
-
If the ppt refused to continue, the experimenter gave standardised verbal prods:
-
1: Please continue.
-
2: The experiment requires you to continue.
-
3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
-
4: You have no other choice, you must continue.
-
-
Prior to the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the ppts behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the ppts would continue to 450 volts
​
Findings
-
65% of ppts administered shocks to 450 volts.
-
No ppts stopped below 300 volts Many ppts showed signs of distress such as twitching, sweating, giggling nervously, digging their nails into their flesh and verbally attacking the experimenter.
-
Three ppts had ‘full blown seizures’.
AO3
+ Hofling (nurses) 21/22 nurses obeyed in real life
- Low internal validity (Orne & Holland)
- Individual diff: 100% females & 50% males shocked a puppy
- Ethics: right to withdraw, harm​
​​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
Situational explanations of obedience
After Milgram’s study into obedience he developed two theories to explain the reason why people obey. If the exam asks why people obey you would primarily use the theories.
​
Agentic state
AO1​​
-
The theory of the agentic state suggests a person obeys as they act on behalf of an authority figure (as an ‘agent’) and as a result the individual feels no personal responsibility for their actions.
-
Milgram argues people normally operate in an autonomous state where they feel responsible for their actions but in an agentic state they no longer feel guilt.
-
To get from the autonomous to an agentic state the individual goes under an agentic shift, where to begin with they will feel moral strain. But by the time they are in the agentic state this will have disappeared.
-
Binding factors are the explanation for why people stay in their agentic state. These are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they are feeling e.g. ‘the ppt keeps getting the answers wrong’.
-
In Milgram’s study when participants were reminded that they had responsibility for their own actions, almost none of them were prepared to obey. In contrast, many participants who were refusing to go on did so if the experimenter said that he would take responsibility
​
​
Legitimacy of authority
AO1​​
-
Legitimacy of authority is the theory that suggests individuals are more likely to follow orders when they are given from a person who has genuine authority. Authority can be legally or morally accepted.
-
Legitimacy of authority figures can be increased by uniform and the fact they are able to punish others.
-
Societies are hierarchical and people accept others have more responsibilities e.g. parents, teachers, police etc. Children are socialised to accept this from a young age, and it generally allows society to function.
-
Legitimacy of authority can also refer to the setting (location) or system e.g. an institution.
-
Problems can arise when authority becomes destructive. Charismatic and powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes. Milgram represented this with the use of the prods.
​​​​
AO3 (for both topics)
+ Blass & Schmitt - ppts said it was the experimenters fault
- 35% did not obey - dispositional?
- Demand characteristics of study
+ Real life application: Mai Lai massacre
​​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
Authoritarian personality (Adorno)
AO1​​
Whilst Milgram investigated the situational factors that affected obedience, Adorno (1950) held the opposite view that people’s personality made the either obedient or not. From his research he concluded that high levels of obedience is a psychological disorder.
Dispositional explanation
Adorno (1950) F Scale
Procedure
-
The sample consisted of 2000 middle class, white Americans. Adorno wanted to measure their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
-
The ppts completed several scales, including the F-scale, which was used to measure the authoritarian personality.
-
The F stands for fascism which is a mass political movement that emphasises extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual.
​
Findings
-
They found people with authoritarian leanings (scored higher on the F-scale) and were more obedient.
-
They were very conscious of their own and others’ social status showing excessive respect and servility to those of higher status. They also showed contempt for the weak.
-
They also found they had a fixed cognitive style e.g. black and white thinking, leading to stereotypes about other groups. There was a strong positive correlation between an authoritarian personality and prejudice.
-
They view society as ‘going to the dogs’ and therefore believe that we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values.​
-
Adorno hypothesised that the authoritarian personality is formed in childhood as a result of harsh parenting. Therefore, this is a psychodynamic explanation. These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child that cannot be expressed and therefore these feelings are displaced onto others who are perceived as weaker (scapegoating). This explains a dislike for people considered inferior.
​
​​​​ AO3
+ Milgram & Elms (1966) - obedient ppts had high F-scale score
- Cannot explain whole populations
- Greenstein (1969) "comedy of methodological errors" due to acquiescence bias: Jackson's reverse F-scale -ve correlation
- Right wing political bias
​​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
Resistance to social influence
Locus of control (dispositional explanation)
AO1​​
-
Locus of control was proposed by Rotter (1966) and is a construct which is part of our personality. It is the perception of how much control people they have over their own behaviour.
-
It is measured on a continuum from high external to high internal.​
-
An internal locus of control is the belief that events in a person’s life are a result of controllable factors such as beliefs, attitudes, preparation and effort.
-
An external locus of control is the belief that events in a person’s life are a result of uncontrollable factors such as the environment, other people or a higher power. ​
-
People with a high internal locus of control are more resistant to social influence. This is because they
-
​are less likely to care about the opinions of others
-
are more intelligent and need less social approval
-
are more confident and are thought to have a strong personality
-
​
Social support (situational explanation)
AO1
Conformity
-
Having an ally can build confidence to stand up against the majority and allow individuals to remain independent.
-
This is because the dissenter breaks the unanimity of the group and raises the option that there are other ways of thinking.
-
Asch (1955) found that the presence of social support in the form of a dissenter enables an individual to resist conformity. The conformity rate went down from 32% to 5%. However, as soon as the dissenter conforms again, so does that naïve ppt suggesting that resistance only happens whilst the ally also does
​
Obedience
-
Disobedient figures act as role models, on which the individual can model their behaviour to become defiant Milgram’s variation with the two disobedient confederates resulted in only 10% continuing to 450 Volts, compared to 65% when on their own.
-
This shows that social support can help people become defiant.
​
​​​​ AO3
+ Gamson (1982) - social support
+ Allen & Levine (1971) - still increases even when poor eyesight
+ Holland (1967) 37% internal, 23% external in Milgram replication
- Twenge (2004) 1960-2002 people more resistant, more external
​​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
Minority influence
AO1​​
Minority influence is a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. It tends to lead to internalisation, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours. This is distinct from conformity which is a type of majority influence.
​
Consistency
-
Research shows that the minority is most effective when it is consistent, meaning the viewpoint of the minority stays the same.
-
This leads the majority group to question their own stance as the minority is so confident. There are two types of consistency:
-
Diachronic consistency: where a person maintains a consistent position over time.
-
Synchronic consistency: where there is agreement among members of the minority group
-
​​
Commitment
-
Minorities can exert influence by showing dedication such as being willing to make sacrifices.
-
Sometimes they may put themselves in danger and this is known as the augmentation principle.
-
This gives the minority’s message credibility because people are unlikely to be prepared to suffer for a cause which is not worthwhile
​
Flexibility
-
Majority opinions shifts more if the minority is flexible. Members of the minority need to be committed but prepared to adapt their point of view and compromise e.g. agree to recycle paper first and then introducing other recycling initiatives later.
-
If the minority adopt a too rigid position it can lead to the perception of the minority being dogmatic and narrow minded.
​
Moscovici (1969) Blue slides study
Procedure
-
Ppts were all females (he thought that they would enjoy the task!). They were put into groups of six, but two members of the group were confederates.
-
Ppts were shown 36 blue slides, with differences in brightness of the colour and they were asked if they were blue or green.
-
There were two conditions:
-
Consistent group: The two confederates always said green.
-
Inconsistent group: 2/3rd of the time the two confederates they said green and the remaining times they said blue.​
-
Findings
-
The consistent condition produced the most influence with 8.42% of the ppts answering green.
-
In the inconsistent condition, it was only 1.25% In the control condition, only 0.25%
-
The minority can influence the majority more when they are consistent.
​
​​​​ AO3
+ Moscovici: low mundane realism
+ Martin (2003) less willing to change views in minority group
+ Flexibility - Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987): ski accident
+ Xie et al (2011) discovered a tipping point of 10% for snowball effect
​​
You can purchase fully written out, A* quality AO3 paragraphs from the resources page.
​
Back to menu
bottom of page