AQA Psychology A-level: Social Influence

Part 1: Types of Conformity and Explanations for Conformity

  • Conformity Definition

    • Conformity is defined as 'yielding to group pressures.'

    • It is 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 involves consequences for non-conforming behavior; imagined pressure involves no such consequences.

  • Kelman's Types of Conformity

    • Internalisation

    • Definition: Making the beliefs, values, attitude, and behaviour of the group your own.

    • Characteristics: Strongest type of conformity; often results from informational social influence; permanent change.

    • Example: Becoming religious after being raised in a religious household.

    • Identification

    • Definition: Temporary/short-term change of behaviour and beliefs only in the presence of a group.

    • Characteristics: Mid-level conformity; change is not permanent.

    • Example: Acting professionally when arriving at the office.

    • Compliance

    • Definition: Going along with others' ideas to gain approval or avoid disapproval.

    • Characteristics: Lowest/weakest level; public agreement but private disagreement; temporary change.

    • Example: Drinking alcohol to fit in with friends while privately disapproving.

  • Informational Social Influence (ISI)

    • Definition: Conforming to be right; individuals look to others for the correct answer when uncertain.

    • Characteristics: Leads to internalisation; occurs in situations where knowledge or expertise is lacking.

    • Example: Following a crowd in an emergency without knowing the right direction.

    • Evidence:

    • Study by Fein et al. showed that participants changed their presidential candidate choice based on others’ votes, demonstrating ISI.

  • Normative Social Influence (NSI)

    • Definition: Conforming to be liked or accepted by a group.

    • Characteristics: Driven by the desire to avoid embarrassment and gain approval from the majority.

    • Example: Starting to smoke due to peer pressure.

    • Evidence: Study by Garandeau and Cillissen suggested NSI influences group bullying dynamics.

  • Complementarity of NSI and ISI

    • NSI and ISI may not be exclusive; they can interact.

    • Example: A dissenting confederate can provide social support, reducing NSI influence while also supplying alternative information against ISI.

Part 2: Variables Affecting Conformity

  • Asch’s Study

    • Participants: 123 male American undergraduates, in groups of 6 (1 true participant, 5 confederates).

    • Aim: To investigate conformity and majority influence.

    • Procedure:

    • Participants viewed 4 lines (3 comparison lines and 1 standard line) and stated which compared in length.

    • The true participant answered last or second to last after confederates gave the same incorrect answer for 12 out of 18 trials.

    • Findings:

    • 36.8% conformed, 25% never conformed, 75% conformed at least once.

    • Control trial showed only 1% incorrect answers, suggesting the original errors were not due to eyesight.

  • Factors Affecting Conformity

    • Group Size

    • Increase in conformity with larger groups (optimal size at least 3; conformity rises by 30% with groups larger than 3).

    • Explanation: Confidence in correctness increases when all group members agree.

    • Unanimity of Majority

    • Conformity is higher when the group is unanimous.

    • Evidence: Conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5% when dissenting confederates provided correct answers.

    • Task Difficulty

    • Increased task difficulty leads to increased conformity.

    • Evidence: Asch’s alteration of lines showed conformity rose when stark differences in line lengths were reduced.

    • Explanation: Individuals look to others when they are unsure, thus leading to higher ISI effect.

Part 3: Evaluation of Asch’s Study

  • Strengths

    • High internal validity due to control of extraneous variables and previous knowledge assessments.

    • Lab setting facilitates replication, enhancing reliability.

  • Weaknesses

    • Ethical issues regarding deception and informed consent.

    • Low ecological validity due to artificial tasks not represented in real life.

    • Population validity issues due to all-male American undergraduate participants.

Part 4: Conformity to Social Roles - Zimbardo’s Study

  • Participants: 24 American male undergraduate students.

  • Aim: Investigate conformity to social roles and understand why 'good people do bad things.'

  • Procedure:

    • Simulated prison environment; participants assigned roles of guard or prisoner.

    • Study enforced strict roles, i.e., prisoners referred by numbers only and guards given props.

    • No one allowed to leave; the guards had significant control over the prisoners.

  • Findings:

    • Rapid identification with roles; guards showed aggression while prisoners became submissive.

    • Evidence of internalised roles despite the study's simulated nature.

Part 5: Evaluation of Zimbardo’s Study

  • Strengths

    • Resulted in changes in prison operation and the formal recognition of ethical treatment guidelines.

    • Comprehensive debriefing for participants.

  • Weaknesses

    • Ethical concerns over psychological harm, deception, and lack of informed consent.

Part 6: Explanations for Obedience

  • Agentic State

    • Defined as a state where individuals believe others are responsible for their actions.

    • Transitioning to the agentic state is called an Agentic Shift.

  • Legitimacy of Authority

    • Refers to individuals obeying figures perceived as credible or morally justified.

    • Example: Milgram’s experiment illustrated how an authoritative figure increases obedience rates.

Part 7: Factors Affecting Obedience (Based on Milgram's Research)

  • Procedure Overview:

    • Participants acted as 'teachers,' delivering shocks to 'learners' for wrong answers.

    • Shocks ranged from 300V to 450V, with no real shocks given.

  • Findings:

    • 65% of participants administered the maximum shock. Proximity, location, and uniform significantly influenced obedience rates.

Part 8: Dispositional Explanations for Obedience: The Authoritarian Personality

  • Definition: A personality trait associated with higher rates of obedience, characterized by submission to authority.

  • Measurement: Explored through the F-scale developed by Adorno, assessing agreement with authority perspectives.

Part 9: Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence

  • Locus of Control

    • Differentiates between internal control (self-responsibility) and external control (luck/fate).

    • Evidence shows high internal locus leads to lower obedience rates.

Part 10: Minority Influence

  • Role of Consistency, Commitment, and Flexibility

    • Major factors in successful minority influence as shown in Moscovici's study, where consistent minority views gained acceptance.

  • Flexible Approach: Combining consistency with flexibility appears more appealing to the majority for influence.

Part 11: Social Influence Processes in Social Change

  • Mechanisms: Minority influence, internal locus of control, and disobedience to authority facilitate societal shifts in behavior and beliefs.

  • Example: Shifts in societal perspective regarding race and sexuality, showing minority influences inevitably altering majority norms.