This is an summary of the entire Social Influence unit in AQA A-Level Psychology, including key words, researchers, theories, and evaluations.
Everything you should need to pass the A-Level (I'm predicted an A) is on here.
Compliance - This involves ‘going along with others’ in public, but privately not changing personal beliefs/or
behaviour. It also means that a particular behaviour or belief stops as soon as group pressure stops.
Identification - Sometimes we conform to the beliefs/behaviours of a group because there is something about
the group we value. We identify with the group, so we want to be part of it. The change of belief/behaviour is
often temporary as once the individual leaves the group they no longer need to conform.
Internalisation - This occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group’s norms. This results in a private as
well as public change of beliefs/behaviours. This change is likely to be permanent because attitudes have
been internalised, e.g. become part of the way the person thinks.
nAffiliators - People who have a need for being in a relationship and social approval.
Explanations for Conformity (Deutsch and Gerard 1955) -
Informational Social Influence (ISI) - This is when you consider who has the better information, you or the
group. If most of the class agrees on one answer, you accept the answer because you feel they are likely to be
right. Cognitive process because it is to do with what you think. Tends to lead to internalisation.
Normative Social Influence (NSI) - This is about norms, e.g. what is ‘normal’ behaviour for a social group or
situation. People do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected. So
NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process. This tends to lead to compliance.
Evaluation - Strength -> Jenness Jelly Beans; Weakness ->Jenness Low Ecological; Strength -> Lucas
Maths; Strength -> Energy Consumption
Asch’s Research Into Conformity -
Aim: Investigate the degree to which individuals conform to a majority who gave a wrong answer. Procedure:
123 American male students told study was visual perception, groups of 6-8 confederates, thought not
confederates, match lines to a standard line, on first few trials cfds gave right, but then gave wrong, cfds gave
the same wrong answer, each pp did 18 trials and 12 where wrong said, control tested. Findings: control - few
incorrect, experiment - higher conformity rate to wrong answers, post-experiment interviews - most said they
conformed to avoid rejection, pps conformed due to NSI.
Variations: Group size - not increase conformity, 3 cfd rose to 32%; Unanimity - decrease conformity, dissenter
abled pps to behave more independently; Task difficulty - conformity increase, ISI greater role as more
ambiguous; Temporal validity - can you generalise across time periods?
P: Weakness -> lacks ecological validity; Ev: Artificial task of judging line lengths; Ex: Not reflective of a real-
life situation of conformity, as it was a trivial task without the consequences that decisions in real-life might
involve
P: Weakness -> lacks generalisability; Ev: Only used men from the US; Ex: Findings only apply to men from
the US, conformity rates might differ for women from different places
P: Strength -> high in reliability; Ev: Highly controlled, e.g. number of trials, the judgement task and number of
confederates; Ex: Easy to replicate - standardised procedure
P: Weakness -> ethics; Ev: Deception about cfds and protection from harm for stress/embarrassment; Ex:
Deception necessary to avoid demand characteristics thus valid results
Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment 1973 -
Aim: Investigate the extent to which pps conform to the roles of guard and prison in a simulated environment.
Procedure: Mock prison in basement of Stanford University, advertised for pps, 24 “emotionally stable” pps
selected, paid $15 per day, randomly assigned prisoner and guard, prisoners - blindfolded, stripsearched,
fingerprints, issued nightdress and number, guards - khaki uniform, wooden club, whistles, handcuffs, mirror
shades, told complete power over prisoners, only restricted capital punishment. Findings: Stopped after 6 days
instead of 14, guard behaviour threatened psychological and physical health of prisoners, 2 days prisoners
, rebelled, guards then harassed prisoners (e.g. headcounts in night), prisoners became subdued and anxious,
1 released on the 1st day due to emotional breakdown, guards became more and more brutal and aggressive.
P: Weakness -> ecological validity; Ev: Simulated prison environment, volunteering to play different roles, e.g.
play acting; Ex: Unlikely to reflect real prison life
P: Strength -> internal validity; Ev: Control over emotional stability, randomly assigning pps to the role of
prisoners and guards; Ex: This means that differences in behaviours had to be due to the pressures of the
situation and not to individual differences in their personalities, high internal validity
P: Weakness -> ethical issues; Ev: Not given the right to withdraw, or it was made incredibly hard; Ex:
Zimbardo not acting like a researcher with responsibility for his pps, but like a superintendent in a prison
P: Weakness -> Fromm argued the study exaggerated the power of the situation to influence behaviour; Ev:
Only a minority (30%) of guards behaved in a brutal manner with another third applying the rules fairly; Ex:
Suggests there are dispositional influences in conformity to social roles which reduces the validity of the
research
Milgram’s Shock Experiment 1963 -
Aim: Investigate the extent of people’s willingness to obey orders from an authority figure. Procedure: Pps told
by experimenter (at Yale) to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to an individual (if they got an
answer wrong in a word list memory recall test); pps didn’t know shocks were fake and the person being
shocked was an actor. Findings: All - up to 300 volts, 65% - up to 450 volts
P: Weakness -> lacks generalisability; Ev: Only used American male students; Ex: Not representative of target
population, obedience rates might differ for women/other cultures
P: Strength -> high in internal validity; Ev: Highly controlled EVs, standardised procedure; Ex: Replicate study,
sure IV affects DV
P: Weakness -> low ecological validity; Ev: Lab experiment, task electric shock; Ex: Not reflective of real life
situation, unlikely to explain obedience in real life, e.g. military context
P: Strength -> supporting research by Hofling et al; Ev: Found 21/22 nurses obeyed a Dr’s order to give a
potentially fatal injection to a patient; Ex: Demonstrates that Milgram’s findings can be generalised to some
‘real-life’ settings
Variations: Proximity to victim - teacher and learner in same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40%;
Proximity to victim - teacher and learner in same room, teacher forced learned’s hand onto electroshock plate,
obedience dropped to 30%; Proximity to authority figure - experimenter left the room and gave instructions by
phone, obedience 20.5%, pps often pretended to give shocks; Location - variation at a ‘run-down’ building,
obedience fell to 47.5% which is lower than the original 65%; Uniform - experimenter called away, ordinary
member of public (cfds) in everyday clothes took over, obedience 20%.
P: Strength -> supporting research by Bickman; Ev: Pps obeyed more with the person in security guard
uniform rather than normal clothes; Ex: Uniform implies authority
P: Weakness -> variation easy to figure out fake; Ev/Ex: Change behaviour demand characteristics changed
validity of results
Milgram’s Agentic State Theory 1974 and Legitimacy of Authority Theory -
Agentic State Theory: Socialised from young age to know obedience is necessary; individual has to give up
free will; autonomous state - personally responsible for actions; agentic state - are an agent for an authority
figure giving the order, authority is responsible for actions; deindividuation; moral strain; binding factors -
aspects that allow person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour (reduces moral strain);
binding factors help explain why people remain in the agentic state, despite suffering from moral strain
Legitimacy of Authority Theory: Society structured in a hierarchical way; legitimate authority because agreed
by society; give up some independence; obedience to legitimate authority is due to being socialised during
childhood; issues when authority is destructive, e.g. Milgram’s study
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller alexcaldon. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.04. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
