You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Edexcel closes each topic with two applied requirements that show psychology doing work in the world: a key question of contemporary societal relevance, analysed using the topic's concepts, and a practical investigation — a study students design and (where possible) carry out themselves, applying the research methods the specification teaches. This lesson models both. Part (a) takes a genuine key question — how can psychology help reduce the dangers of blind obedience to authority? — and answers it with the concepts built across this topic (the agentic state, situational variables, social impact theory, resistance and the individual–situational debate). Part (b) then walks through the design of an ethical practical investigation into obedience/conformity, specifying the hypothesis, IV and DV, experimental design, sampling, procedure, ethics and — crucially — how the resulting data would be analysed. Together these teach the applied and methods link that Edexcel examines directly, and they consolidate the whole topic by putting its theory and its methods to use on a real problem.
Key Definition: A key question is a question of contemporary societal relevance to which psychological theory and evidence can be applied. A practical investigation is a small-scale study, designed and conducted by the student, that applies research-methods principles (hypotheses, variables, design, sampling, ethics, analysis) to a testable question drawn from the topic.
By the end of this lesson you should be able to:
Edexcel 9PS0 — Paper 1, Topic 1: Social Psychology. This lesson maps to the specification's requirement to consider a key question of societal relevance for the Social topic, analysed through the topic's concepts and research, and to design and carry out a practical investigation applying the research methods the specification prescribes (hypotheses, experimental designs, sampling, ethics, descriptive and inferential analysis).
Assessment Objectives exercised:
Connects to…
Destructive obedience is not a laboratory curiosity but a recurring feature of real institutional harm: soldiers and police carrying out atrocities on orders (My Lai; the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib), corporate employees implementing unethical or unsafe instructions, and healthcare or aviation staff deferring to a senior's error at a patient's or passenger's cost. Because so much serious harm is done by ordinary people following orders rather than by exceptional wrongdoers, a question of clear societal importance is whether psychology can identify why people obey destructive authority and, more usefully, how the risk can be reduced by design. This is a live concern for the military, medicine, aviation, policing and any hierarchical organisation, which makes it a genuine key question rather than an academic one.
The Social topic supplies a powerful analytic toolkit for this question. Each concept both explains the danger and points to a remedy.
| Concept (source lesson) | What it explains about blind obedience | The remedy it implies |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic state (agency theory, lesson 3) | People shift responsibility onto the authority and feel they are merely its instrument | Train staff that "following orders" does not remove personal responsibility, keeping them in the autonomous state |
| Situational variables — proximity, location, uniform (lessons 2, 4) | Legitimacy cues (uniforms, prestigious settings) and distance from the victim raise obedience | Reduce unwarranted authority cues; shorten the distance between an order and its human consequences |
| Social impact theory (lesson 3) | A high-strength, immediate, singular authority exerts maximal force on the individual | Add number on the side of resistance (dissenting voices) and reduce the authority's immediacy |
| Social support / disobedient models (lesson 5) | People obey partly because no one else is dissenting | Build in dissent channels — a colleague empowered to challenge breaks the authority's unanimity (Milgram's disobedient-models variation cut obedience to 10%) |
| Locus of control (lesson 5) | External-locus individuals defer more readily | Foster internal locus and personal responsibility through training and culture |
The decisive move — and the one that answers the key question rather than merely restating the theory — is that because destructive obedience is largely situational, it can be designed against. Several high-risk professions have done exactly this, and each safeguard maps onto a concept above:
Analysing blind obedience is socially sensitive, and a strong treatment of the key question acknowledges this rather than presenting the psychology as neutral. There is a genuine tension: emphasising that destructive obedience is situational can, if mishandled, appear to excuse perpetrators — "the situation made them do it", "they were only following orders" — which is precisely the defence that atrocity tribunals have rejected. Yet the opposite framing, treating obedient perpetrators as uniquely evil "bad apples", is also dangerous, because it lets the rest of us feel falsely insulated and diverts attention from the institutional arrangements that make atrocity possible. The responsible psychological position, and the one this key question should reach, is that a situational explanation is not a moral excuse: understanding how situations produce obedience is what allows us to redesign those situations, while the persistent minority who resist in every study proves that resistance remains possible and that individuals retain responsibility. Handling this tension explicitly — noting that the science must inform prevention without becoming an alibi — is exactly the ethical awareness the specification prizes, and it directly connects the key question to the individual–situational debate of the previous lesson.
The analysis is strong but must be handled critically. Its principal strength is that it rests on controlled evidence: Milgram's variations demonstrate (not merely suggest) that altering situational levers changes obedience, so the safeguards have a genuine causal rationale, and the real-world adoption of CRM and surgical checklists shows the analysis works in practice. However, three cautions apply. First, the individual–situational debate warns that safeguards targeting the situation will not reach the dispositional component — the minority disposed to obey (or to abuse authority) may persist despite good design, so screening and culture matter too. Second, Reicher and Haslam's engaged-followership reinterpretation suggests the most dangerous obedience comes not from people who feel they have no choice but from those persuaded the cause is just — which implies safeguards must also address how authorities frame orders, not only the pressure they exert. Third, the evidence base remains partly ecologically limited (much of it laboratory-based), so the transfer from study to institution requires ongoing evaluation. The honest conclusion is that psychology offers a genuinely useful, evidence-based toolkit for reducing blind obedience — one already saving lives in aviation and medicine — but that a purely situational fix is incomplete, and the interactionist and identity dimensions must be built in.
For the practical investigation, this lesson models the design of a small-scale, ethical study of conformity — chosen because conformity can be studied with far less ethical risk than full obedience, making it feasible and safe for a student practical while still exercising every research-methods principle Edexcel examines. The worked design tests a classic situational variable — task difficulty — on conformity.
Does task difficulty affect the level of conformity to a majority? The rationale draws on Asch's (1956) task-difficulty variation and the two-process model (lesson 1): if a task is more ambiguous, informational social influence (ISI) should increase, so conformity to a majority's answers should rise. Testing this in a controlled, ethical way both replicates a key finding and exercises the full methods toolkit.
Key Definition: To operationalise a variable is to define it in precise, measurable terms so it can be manipulated or recorded.
A repeated measures design is chosen: every participant completes both the easy and the difficult trials, and their conformity is compared across the two conditions.
| Design | Advantage here | Disadvantage & control |
|---|---|---|
| Repeated measures (chosen) | Controls for participant variables (the same people do both conditions), and needs fewer participants | Risk of order effects (practice/fatigue) — controlled by counterbalancing the order of easy and difficult blocks across participants; risk of demand characteristics — reduced by a cover story |
An independent-groups design was rejected because individual differences in baseline conformity (e.g. locus of control, lesson 5) would add noise; repeated measures removes that by using each participant as their own control.
Studying conformity carries lighter ethical risk than obedience, but the guidelines still bind the design:
| Guideline | How the design addresses it |
|---|---|
| Informed consent | A consent form is used; the mild cover story ("visual perception") is disclosed and justified at debrief |
| Deception | Kept minimal and necessary (only the confederates' role and the precise aim are withheld) and fully explained afterwards |
| Protection from harm | The task is trivial and low-stress; there is no shock, no distress-inducing pressure, and participants can stop at any time |
| Right to withdraw | Stated at the outset and extended to withdrawal of data at debrief |
| Confidentiality | Data are anonymised (participants identified only by a code) and stored securely |
| Debriefing | Thorough, immediate, and includes the true aim and the reason for the cover story |
Because the design keeps deception minimal, the task stress negligible, and withdrawal and debrief robust, it is realistically approvable for a student practical — the deliberate contrast with the ethically fraught obedience paradigm is itself a teaching point.
This is the part Edexcel most often finds under-developed, so it is worth setting out carefully.
Descriptive statistics. First summarise the data:
Inferential statistics. Then test whether the difference is statistically significant rather than due to chance:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.