AQA Psychology A-level Social Influence Full Notes

Types of Conformity and Explanations

• Conformity Definition: Defined as ‘yielding to group pressures’ or ‘a change in a person’s behaviour or opinion as a result of a real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people’.     * Real Pressure: Occurs when there are tangible consequences for not conforming.     * Imagined Pressure: Occurs when there are no actual consequences for choosing not to conform.
• Kelman’s Three Types of Conformity:     * Internalisation: This is the strongest type of conformity. It involves making the beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviours of the group your own. The change in view is permanent and usually results from informational social influence (e.g., being raised in a religious household and remaining religious).     * Identification: This represents a middle level of conformity. It involves a temporary or short-term change of behavior and beliefs only while in the presence of a specific group (e.g., acting professionally in an office but discarding that behavior elsewhere).     * Compliance: This is the lowest/weakest level. It involves following others' ideas to gain approval or avoid disapproval. The individual publicly agrees but privately disagrees. The change is temporary and typically results from normative social influence (e.g., drinking alcohol due to peer pressure despite not wanting to).
• Informational Social Influence (ISI):     * Mechanism: Driven by the desire to be ‘right’. Individuals look to others for information when they are uncertain or lack expertise.     * Outcome: Usually leads to internalisation.     * Example: Following a crowd in an emergency under the assumption they know the correct direction.     * Evidence: Fein et al. as participants saw others voting for a US presidential candidate and changed their own votes to be ‘correct.’
• Normative Social Influence (NSI):     * Mechanism: Driven by the desire to be ‘liked’ and accepted by a group. It is motivated by the need for approval and the avoidance of embarrassing disagreements.     * Outcome: Usually leads to compliance.     * Example: Taking up smoking because those around you smoke.
• Evidence for NSI and ISI:     * Garandeau and Cillissen: Found a link between NSI and bullying; a boy may victimise another child to align with a bully's goal and avoid friend-group disapproval.     * Lucas et al.: Found conformity to incorrect math answers was higher when questions were difficult and participants rated their own ability unfavourably, supporting ISI in ambiguous situations.     * Deutsch and Gerrard’s ‘Two Process Model’: Suggests NSI and ISI are not mutually exclusive. A dissenting confederate provides social support (reducing NSI) and an alternative source of information (reducing ISI), indicating they are complementary mechanisms.

Variables Affecting Conformity: Asch’s Study

• Participants: $123$ male American undergraduates in groups of $6$ (1 real participant, 5 confederates).
• Aim: To investigate conformity and majority influence.
• Procedure:     * Participants were shown $4$ lines: $1$ standard line and $3$ comparison lines.     * Real participants answered last or second to last.     * Confederates gave the same incorrect answer in $12$ out of $18$ trials.
• Findings:     * Average conformity rate: $36.8\%$.     * Never conformed: $25\%$.     * Conformed at least once: $75\%$.     * Control trial error rate: $1\%$ (eliminates eyesight/perception as an extraneous variable).
• Factors Affecting Conformity:     * Group Size: Conformity was low with fewer than $3$ confederates. With $3$ or more, it rose by $30\%$. Optimal group size is considered to be $4$; larger groups do not significantly increase conformity.     * Unanimity: A unanimous majority increases the participant's confidence in the group. If a dissenter gives the correct answer, conformity drops from $32\%$ to $5.5\%$. If a dissenter gives a different incorrect answer, it falls from $32\%$ to $9\%$.     * Task Difficulty: When comparison lines were made more similar in length, conformity increased because the situation became ambiguous, triggering ISI.
• Evaluation of Asch:     * Strengths: High internal validity due to strict control of variables; high replicability as a lab experiment; supports NSI as participants reported conforming to ‘fit in.’     * Weaknesses: Lacks ecological validity (artificial task); lacks population validity (only American males, leading to beta bias); ethical issues (deception regarding the study's aim and potential psychological harm/embarrassment).     * Temporal Validity: Perrin and Spencer (1980) argued the $1950s$ was an era of McCarthyism (anti-Communist fear), making people more likely to conform; thus, results may not generalize across time.

Conformity to Social Roles: Zimbardo

• Study: The Stanford Prison Experiment.
• Participants: $24$ American male undergraduate students.
• Aim: To investigate readiness to conform to social roles and why ‘good people do bad things’ in simulated environments.
• Procedure:     * Simulated prison in the basement of Stanford University.     * Random allocation to roles of ‘guard’ or ‘prisoner.’     * Uniforms: Prisoners wore identifying numbers; guards had handcuffs and sunglasses (to prevent eye contact and reinforce hierarchy).     * Regime: Guards worked $8$-hour shifts; prisoners essentially incarcerated. No physical violence was permitted.
• Findings:     * Rapid identification: Participants adopted roles within a very short time.     * Guards grew aggressive and enjoyed their power; prisoners became submissive and snitched on peers.     * Prisoners believed the situation was real, discussing only prison issues.     * Roles became internalised over time.
• Evaluation of Zimbardo:     * Strengths: Real-life applications (reform of US prisons regarding young/adult prisoner separation; abandonment of beehive-style surveillance layouts); participants were fully debriefed.     * Weaknesses: Low ecological validity due to demand characteristics and participant reactivity; qualitative evidence suggests a guard based his behavior on the film Cool Hand Luke; lacks population validity (culture-bound to individualist societies); extreme psychological harm (screaming, crying, emotional distress).

Explanations for Obedience

• Agentic State: When a person believes someone else is responsible for their actions. The shift from autonomous state (taking personal responsibility) to agentic state is called the ‘Agentic Shift.’
• Legitimacy of Authority: Credibility of the authority figure based on moral rightness or legal status. In Milgram’s study, researchers had ‘expert authority.’
• Situational Factors:     * Uniform: Standard lab coats denote higher status/legitimacy compared to normal clothes.     * Location: Prestigious settings (e.g., Yale University) increase trust and obedience compared to run-down offices.     * Proximity: Proximity to the authority figure increases pressure; proximity to the victim (seeing consequences) decreases obedience.
• Evidence and Application:     * My Lai Massacre: Kilham and Mann used agentic state and legitimacy of authority to explain why soldiers murdered Vietnamese civilians under orders from Generals.     * Sheridan and King: Found $100\%$ of females administered real electric shocks to puppies, supporting the plausibility of Milgram’s high obedience findings.

Milgram’s Research on Obedience

• Participants: $40$ male volunteers.
• Procedure:     * Participant assigned as ‘teacher’; confederate as ‘learner’ (via rigged random allocation).     * Teacher gave electric shocks for wrong answers in $15V$ increments, from $300V$ to $450V$. At $330V$, shocks were marked ‘lethal.’     * Experimenter used $4$ standard prods to demand obedience.
• Findings:     * $100\%$ went to $300V$.     * $65\%$ went to the maximum $450V$.
• Variables Investigated:     * Proximity: Obedience was $62.5\%$ in the same room, $40\%$ in separate rooms, and $30\%$ in the ‘touch proximity’ condition. Remote instruction (phone) dropped obedience to $20.5\%$.     * Location: Obedience was significantly higher at Yale than in a run-down office ($20.5\%$).     * Uniform: Obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat.
• Evaluation of Milgram:     * Strengths: High internal validity (Milgram claimed $70\%$ believed shocks were real); highly replicable (Le Jeu de la Mort French TV study found $85\%$ obedience); external validity supported by Hofling et al. ($95\%$ of nurses obeyed a doctor’s dangerous phone order).     * Weaknesses: Ethical breaches (deception, no informed consent, psychological/physiological distress like trembling/sweating); lacks mundane realism (flicking switches vs. real harm); social sensitivity (suggests perpetrators can be excused by their situation).

The Authoritarian Personality

• Definition: A dispositional explanation suggesting certain personality traits increase obedience. These individuals strictly submit to authority and expect the same from those ‘below’ them. They have a ‘black and white’ cognitive style and use stereotypes to avoid uncertainty.
• Measurement: The F-scale (created by Adorno) measures agreement with statements like ‘Respect for authority and parents are… important values.’
• Psychodynamic Theory (Adorno): Claims the trait stems from childhood with harsh, disciplinarian parents. The child feels unconscious anger/fear but idolizes parents on the surface. Anger is displaced onto ‘inferior’ groups (scapegoating/reaction formation).
• Evaluation:     * Methodology: Greenstein noted the F-scale is susceptible to acquiescence bias (responding the same way regardless of content).     * Political Bias: Christie and Jahoda argue it only measures far-right authoritarianism, ignoring left-wing authoritarianism (e.g., Bolshevism).     * Ecological Validity: Fails to explain mass obedience cases (e.g., Nazi Germany) where situational factors and shared social struggles were more likely than a whole population having a specific personality trait.

Resistance to Social Influence

• Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966):     * Internal LOC: Belief that life events are caused by personal decisions and effort. These individuals are more likely to be leaders, take responsibility, and follow their own moral code. They resist conformity and obedience more effectively.     * External LOC: Belief that life events are caused by luck, fate, or external powers. These individuals are more likely to act as agents and are highly susceptible to obedience.     * Evidence: Atgis meta-analysis found those with high external LOC are more easily persuaded. Oliner and Oliner found Holocaust rescuers had higher internal LOC and social responsibility scores.     * Limitation: Rutter suggested LOC is only valid for novel (new) situations; past experience is usually more influential.
• Social Support:     * Mechanism: A dissenter provides an alternative source of information and confirmation of the participant’s own view (supported by ISI and NSI).     * Evidence: In Asch’s study, a non-conforming confederate reduced conformity to $25\%$ of original levels. In Milgram’s study, two dissenting confederates dropped obedience to $10\%$. Gamson et al. found $88\%$ resistance in groups against a smear campaign.

Minority Influence and Social Change

• Moscovici’s Study:     * Procedure: Groups of $4$ participants and $2$ confederates viewed $36$ blue slides and named the color. Consistent minority said ‘green’ on $2/3$ of trials.     * Findings: Consistent minority influenced participants to say ‘green’ in $8\%$ of trials. Inconsistent minority dropped this to $1\%$.
• Keys to Minority Influence:     * Consistency: Includes Diachronic (consistent over time) and Synchronic (agreement between all members). Forces the majority to rethink views.     * Commitment: Shown through passion and confidence; can involve the ‘augmentation principle’ (taking risks shows validity).     * Flexibility: Nemeth argued being too consistent appears dogmatic/irrational. Being cooperative and rational makes the argument more appealing.
• Social Change Process:     * Minority uses consistency/commitment/flexibility -> Snowball effect (idea spreads, rate of conversion increases) -> New idea becomes majority opinion -> New majority opinion becomes law (e.g., shifts in attitudes toward race and sexuality).
• Evaluation of Social Change:     * Nemeth (1986): Argued social change is slow and effects are fragile. The majority avoids the core issue if it seems too drastic.     * Stereotypes (Bashir): People resist change to avoid labels (e.g., not recycling to avoid being called a ‘tree-hugger’).     * Mackie: Suggested majority influence is more powerful for deep processing because we are unsettled when our views differ from the majority.

Questions & Discussion

• N.B. (Note on PEEL): The Point-Evidence-Explanation-Link (PEEL) structure is explicitly noted as vital for describing studies in AQA Psychology A-level essays to demonstrate deeper understanding and achieve the top assessment band.