AQA A Level Psychology Topic Essays - Social Influence

This resource is your go-to guide for mastering social influence essays at A Level. You'll find model answers that show exactly how to structure responses and apply psychological knowledge effectively.

The essays demonstrate how to balance detailed psychological knowledge with critical evaluation. Each example includes examiner comments that highlight what makes a top-mark response, giving you clear targets to aim for in your own writing.

Top Tip: Notice how these essays always start by defining key terms clearly - this immediately shows the examiner you understand the basics before diving into complex analysis.

Explanations of Conformity - Model Answer

Conformity happens for two main reasons that you absolutely need to know. Normative Social Influence (NSI) occurs when people conform just to fit in and avoid being rejected by the group - basically, they want to be liked. Informational Social Influence (ISI) happens when people genuinely believe others know better than they do.

Asch's 1956 line judgement study perfectly demonstrates NSI in action. Participants gave obviously wrong answers just to match the group, and later admitted they did this to avoid disapproval. When Asch removed the public pressure by letting participants write answers privately, conformity dropped to just 12.5% - proving that fear of social rejection drives much of our conforming behaviour.

Jenness's jelly bean study shows ISI at work. Participants changed their private estimates after group discussion because they genuinely thought the group's collective judgement was more accurate than their own. This type of conforming leads to internalisation - where you actually change your beliefs, not just your public behaviour.

Exam Success: Always link research back to the two types of influence. Examiners love seeing you connect studies to the underlying psychological processes.

Research Methods in Conformity Studies

The essay demonstrates how effective evaluation requires examining both supporting and contradictory evidence. Whilst Asch's findings supported NSI, Perrin and Spencer's 1980 replication found conformity rates of just 0.25% - suggesting that conformity might be influenced by cultural and historical factors.

However, this contradictory finding might be explained by sample differences rather than changing times. Perrin and Spencer used engineering and maths students who were likely more confident in problem-solving tasks, whereas Asch used a more general population.

The key insight here is that context matters enormously in social influence research. What seems like a fundamental aspect of human nature in one study might not replicate in different circumstances, populations, or time periods.

Critical Thinking: Don't just accept research findings at face value - always consider alternative explanations for contradictory results.

Factors Affecting Conformity - Asch's Variations

Three crucial factors determine whether you'll conform: group size, unanimity, and task difficulty. Understanding these helps explain why conformity varies so much between situations.

Group size has a surprising pattern. Asch found that conformity jumps dramatically from one confederate (3% conformity) to three confederates (32% conformity), but plateaus after that. With 15 confederates, conformity actually decreased - probably because the situation seemed so bizarre that participants became suspicious.

Unanimity is absolutely critical. When just one confederate gave correct answers, conformity dropped to 5%. This shows how powerful it is to have even one ally - you no longer feel completely alone against the group. Task difficulty also matters hugely. When Asch made the lines harder to distinguish, conformity increased because people genuinely needed guidance (ISI rather than NSI).

Real-World Application: These findings explain why dissenting voices are so important in group decisions and why difficult decisions often lead to more conformity.

Research Evaluation and Ecological Validity

Strong evaluation requires considering methodological limitations alongside supporting evidence. Jenness's study, whilst providing clear evidence for ISI, suffers from poor ecological validity - estimating jelly beans isn't exactly a life-changing decision.

This limitation matters because we can't be sure people would show the same level of informational conformity in situations with real consequences. Would you conform to an 'expert' opinion in a courtroom the same way you'd conform about jelly bean estimates?

The gap between laboratory findings and real-world behaviour is a persistent challenge in social influence research. However, laboratory studies do allow researchers to control variables and establish cause-and-effect relationships that would be impossible to study ethically in real situations.

Evaluation Skills: Always consider whether laboratory findings can be generalised to real-world situations - this shows sophisticated critical thinking.

Social Roles - The Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo's 1973 Stanford Prison Experiment remains one of psychology's most shocking studies. University students were randomly assigned as prisoners or guards in a mock prison, and within days, both groups had completely adopted their roles - guards became increasingly abusive whilst prisoners became submissive.

The study was planned for two weeks but stopped after six days due to the extreme behaviour developing. Guards forced prisoners to clean toilets with bare hands and woke them during the night, whilst prisoners lost their individual identities and accepted their subordinate status.

However, Reicher and Haslam's 2006 replication found completely different results. Their guards refused to impose authority, and prisoners banded together to challenge the system. This contradiction suggests that conformity to social roles isn't automatic and depends heavily on individual differences and specific circumstances.

Ethical Awareness: The Stanford Prison Experiment violated numerous ethical guidelines, particularly protection from harm - five prisoners left early due to psychological distress.

Obedience Research - Milgram's Electric Shock Study

Milgram's obedience research asked whether ordinary people would follow orders to harm others. His 1963 study found that 65% of participants administered what they believed were potentially lethal 450-volt electric shocks to a learner, simply because an authority figure told them to continue.

All participants reached 300 volts (where the learner stopped responding), and many showed extreme distress - sweating, trembling, and stuttering. Yet they continued when given verbal prods like "the experiment requires that you continue." This demonstrated the terrifying power of legitimate authority to override personal moral judgements.

The study's ecological validity has been questioned since giving electric shocks isn't a typical real-world obedience scenario. However, Hofling's 1966 hospital study found that nurses readily obeyed unjustified instructions from doctors, suggesting Milgram's findings do translate to genuine authority relationships.

Ethical Concerns: Milgram's study involved extensive deception and psychological harm, raising serious questions about whether such research can ever be justified by its insights.