AQA A-Level Psychology: Social Influence & Psychopathology

1. Types of Conformity

Key Features:

• Compliance: Superficial agreement with a group to fit in (temporary).
  
  

• Identification: Adopting group behavior because of a desire to belong (semi-permanent).
  
  

• Internalisation: Deep conformity, where beliefs are genuinely accepted (permanent).
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Kelman (1958): Identified the three types of conformity, explaining different levels of social influence.

  • Sherif (1935): Autokinetic effect study – supports informational social influence (ISI) leading to internalisation.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Hard to distinguish between identification and internalisation.

  • Studies lack ecological validity (lab-based).

2. Explanations for Conformity

Key Features:

• Normative Social Influence (NSI): Conformity due to a desire to fit in and avoid rejection.
  
  

• Informational Social Influence (ISI): Conformity due to a desire to be right, especially in ambiguous situations.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Asch (1951): Participants conformed to avoid standing out (supports NSI).

  • Lucas et al. (2006): More conformity in difficult maths problems (supports ISI).

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Individual differences – some people are less likely to conform (locus of control).

  • NSI & ISI can occur together, making them hard to separate.

3. Asch’s Research on Conformity (1951, 1955)

Procedure:

• 123 male students asked to compare lines in a vision test.

• Confederates gave incorrect answers.

Findings:

• 75% conformed at least once.
  
  

• Conformity rate was 36.8% when confederates were unanimous.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Replicated and found consistent results – suggests reliability.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Artificial task – lacks ecological validity.

  • Culture & era-dependent – Perrin & Spencer (1980) found lower conformity in later UK study.

  • Ethical issues – deception.

4. Variables Affecting Conformity (Asch, 1955)

Key Features:

• Group size: Conformity increased up to 3 confederates, then leveled off.
  
  

• Unanimity: A single dissenter reduced conformity to 25%.
  
  

• Task difficulty: Harder tasks increased conformity (ISI).
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Lucas et al. (2006): More conformity when answers were harder (supports ISI).

  • Bond & Smith (1996): Meta-analysis confirmed group size impact.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Findings not generalisable – only American males tested.

5. Conformity to Social Roles (Zimbardo, 1971 – Stanford Prison Experiment)

Procedure:

• 24 male students randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison.

• Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive.

Findings:

• Study stopped after 6 days due to extreme behavior.
  
  

• Participants conformed strongly to their social roles.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Abu Ghraib prison abuses (2003) show real-world conformity to social roles.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Ethical issues – distress caused to participants.

  • Demand characteristics – participants may have acted how they thought they should.

  • Reicher & Haslam (2006 – BBC Prison Study): Found prisoners resisted authority – challenges Zimbardo’s conclusions.

6. Obedience – Milgram’s Study (1963)

Procedure:

• Participants instructed to give electric shocks to a learner for wrong answers.

• Authority figure encouraged them to continue.

Findings:

• 65% obeyed up to 450V (highest level).
  
  

• Many showed distress but still obeyed.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Sheridan & King (1972): Similar findings when real puppies were used – supports Milgram’s study.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Ethical issues – deception, psychological harm.

  • Orne & Holland (1968): Argued participants didn’t believe shocks were real (lacks internal validity).

7. Situational Variables Affecting Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

Key Features:

• Proximity: Closer proximity to victim decreased obedience (40%).
  
  

• Location: Obedience dropped in less prestigious settings (47.5%).
  
  

• Uniform: Authority figures in uniform led to more obedience (Bickman, 1974).
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Hofling et al. (1966): 21/22 nurses obeyed unethical doctor instructions – supports real-world obedience.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Culture-bound findings – higher obedience in some cultures.

8. Agentic State & Legitimacy of Authority

Key Features:

• Agentic State: Obedience occurs because individuals see themselves as an agent of authority.
  
  

• Legitimacy of Authority: People obey because they recognize authority figures as justified.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Blass & Schmitt (2001): Students blamed experimenter (supports agentic state).

  • Kilham & Mann (1974): Australians showed lower obedience – suggests cultural differences.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Doesn’t explain individual differences in obedience.

9. Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, 1950)

Key Features:

• Some people have a personality type that makes them more obedient.
  
  

• Measured using the F-scale.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Elms & Milgram (1966): Obedient participants in Milgram’s study scored higher on F-scale.

  • Altemeyer (1981): High RWA (Right-Wing Authoritarianism) linked to higher obedience.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Correlational – doesn’t show causation.

  • Political bias – ignores left-wing authoritarianism.

10. Resistance to Social Influence

Key Features:

• Social Support: Presence of allies reduces conformity/obedience.
  
  

• Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966):
  
  

  • Internal LOC: More independent.

  • External LOC: More likely to conform/obey.

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Asch (1955): Social support reduced conformity.

  • Holland (1967): Internals resisted Milgram’s shocks more.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • LOC only matters in certain situations (Twenge et al., 2004).

11. Minority Influence (Moscovici, 1969)

Key Features:

• Consistency, commitment, flexibility help minorities influence the majority.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Moscovici (1969): Consistent minority had more influence than inconsistent minority.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Artificial tasks – lack ecological validity.

12. Social Change

Key Features:

• Minority influence leads to social change through snowball effect and cryptomnesia.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Nolan et al. (2008): Normative influence helped reduce energy consumption.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Change takes a long time and may not always occur.

1. Definitions of Abnormality

Key Features:

• Statistical Infrequency: Behavior is rare/uncommon in the population.

• Deviation from Social Norms: Behavior goes against societal expectations.

• Failure to Function Adequately: Struggles with daily life (Rosenhan & Seligman criteria).

• Deviation from Ideal Mental Health: Absence of positive traits (Jahoda’s criteria).

Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:

Statistical Infrequency

✅ Supporting Evidence:

• Gottesman (1991): Found that schizophrenia occurs in only 1% of the population, supporting the idea that rare conditions are statistically infrequent.

❌ Criticism:

• Does not differentiate between desirable and undesirable traits (e.g., high IQ is rare but not abnormal).

• Cultural bias: What is statistically rare in one culture may not be in another.

Deviation from Social Norms

✅ Supporting Evidence:

• Rosenhan (1973): "Sane" participants admitted to psychiatric hospitals despite behaving normally, showing that social norms influence diagnosis.

❌ Criticism:

• Cultural bias: Norms vary (e.g., hearing voices may be seen as religious insight in some cultures but psychosis in Western medicine).

• Social norms change over time (e.g., homosexuality was considered a disorder in the DSM until 1973).

• Human rights issues: Can be used to control people (e.g., political dissidents labeled as mentally ill).

Failure to Function Adequately

✅ Supporting Evidence:

• Rosenhan & Seligman (1989): Proposed criteria for dysfunction (e.g., distress, unpredictability, irrationality).

• Jahoda (1958): Suggested this overlaps with deviation from ideal mental health.

❌ Criticism:

• Subjectivity: What defines "adequate" functioning? Some people may be content despite appearing dysfunctional.

• Cultural differences: Expectations of functioning vary (e.g., independence in Western societies vs. reliance on family in collectivist cultures).

Deviation from Ideal Mental Health

✅ Supporting Evidence:

• Jahoda (1958): Identified six criteria for ideal mental health, including self-actualization, autonomy, resistance to stress.

❌ Criticism:

• Unrealistic: Few people meet all criteria, meaning most could be seen as abnormal.

• Cultural bias: Focuses on Western ideals (e.g., self-actualization is less relevant in collectivist societies).

General Criticism & Counterarguments:

• Cultural bias: Definitions of abnormality differ across societies.

• Subjectivity: Some criteria (e.g., social norms, functioning) are context-dependent and open to interpretation.

• Overlap between definitions: Failure to function and deviation from ideal mental health are similar in judging well-being.

2. The Behavioural Approach to Explaining Phobias

Key Features:

• Two-Process Model (Mowrer, 1960):
  
  

  • Acquisition by Classical Conditioning (associating fear with a stimulus).

  • Maintenance by Operant Conditioning (negative reinforcement through avoidance).

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Watson & Rayner (1920) – Little Albert: Showed how fears can be learned through classical conditioning.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Ignore biological factors – some phobias (e.g., spiders) may be evolutionary (Seligman, 1971).

  • Not all phobias result from trauma – some people develop phobias without a clear conditioning event.

3. The Behavioural Approach to Treating Phobias

Key Features:

• Systematic Desensitisation (SD): Gradual exposure combined with relaxation techniques.
  
  

• Flooding: Immediate and intense exposure to the feared stimulus.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Gilroy et al. (2003): Found SD effective for spider phobia.

  • Wolpe (1958): Flooding successfully treated a girl with a car phobia.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Ethical issues – flooding can cause extreme distress.

  • Doesn’t address cognitive aspects – only targets behavior, not irrational thoughts.

4. The Cognitive Approach to Explaining Depression

Key Features:

• Beck’s Negative Triad: Negative thoughts about self, world, and future.
  
  

• Ellis’ ABC Model: Depression arises from irrational beliefs (Activating event → Beliefs → Consequence).
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Grazioli & Terry (2000): Found cognitive vulnerability predicted post-natal depression.

  • Clark & Beck (1999): Found strong support for cognitive distortions in depression patients.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Cause or effect? – negative thoughts may be a symptom, not a cause.

  • Ignores biological factors – depression linked to neurotransmitters (e.g., serotonin).

5. The Cognitive Approach to Treating Depression

Key Features:

• Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Identifies and challenges irrational beliefs.
  
  

• REBT (Ellis): Restructures beliefs through disputing irrational thoughts.
  
  

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • March et al. (2007): CBT as effective as antidepressants in treating depression.

  • Hollon et al. (2006): CBT more effective at preventing relapse than medication.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Not effective for severe cases – some patients require medication first.

  • Patient motivation needed – therapy requires active participation.

6. The Biological Approach to Explaining OCD

Key Features:

• Genetic Explanations: OCD may be inherited (COMT & SERT genes linked to neurotransmitter imbalances).
  
  

• Neural Explanations:
  
  

  • Low serotonin linked to OCD.

  • Overactive basal ganglia may cause compulsions.

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Nestadt et al. (2010): Found higher OCD concordance in identical twins than fraternal twins.

  • Hu (2006): OCD patients had lower serotonin levels than non-OCD patients.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Reductionist – ignores environmental factors (e.g., trauma).

  • Twin studies don’t show 100% concordance – suggests other influences.

7. The Biological Approach to Treating OCD

Key Features:

• SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors): Increase serotonin availability (e.g., fluoxetine).
  
  

• Alternatives:
  
  

  • Tricyclics (older antidepressants, more side effects).

  • Benzodiazepines (anti-anxiety drugs).

• Supporting Evidence & Evaluation:
  
  

  • Soomro et al. (2008): SSRIs significantly more effective than placebo for OCD treatment.

  • Pigott & Seay (1999): SSRIs reduce OCD symptoms in most patients.

• Criticism & Counterarguments:
  
  

  • Side effects – SSRIs can cause nausea, headaches, and insomnia.

Not a cure – drugs manage symptoms but don’t address the underlying cause.