You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson consolidates the key concepts from the Social Influence topic for AQA GCSE Psychology, providing a comprehensive revision resource.
| Study | Key Finding | Key Statistic |
|---|---|---|
| Asch (1951) | People conform to a group even on unambiguous tasks | 75% conformed at least once; 37% average conformity |
| Milgram (1963) | Ordinary people obey authority to a dangerous degree | 65% gave maximum 450V shock |
| Darley & Latané (1968) | More bystanders = less helping (bystander effect) | 85% alone vs 31% with 4 others |
| Piliavin et al. (1969) | People help more when victim appears deserving | 95% helped ill person; 50% helped drunk |
| Zimbardo (1969) | Anonymity increases aggression (deindividuation) | Deindividuated = twice as long shocks |
| Bickman (1974) | Uniform increases obedience | More compliance with guard uniform |
| Feature | Conformity | Obedience |
|---|---|---|
| Source of influence | Peers / group | Authority figure |
| Direction | Horizontal (equals) | Vertical (superior → subordinate) |
| Request? | Usually implicit (unspoken) | Explicit (direct order) |
| Key study | Asch (1951) | Milgram (1963) |
| Key explanation | NSI (fit in) / ISI (be correct) | Agentic state, legitimate authority |
flowchart TB
SI["SOCIAL INFLUENCE<br/>topic overview"]
SI --> CON["Conformity<br/>Asch 1951<br/>75% / 37%"]
SI --> OB["Obedience<br/>Milgram 1963<br/>65% to 450V"]
SI --> PRO["Prosocial<br/>Piliavin 1969<br/>95% vs 50%"]
SI --> CR["Crowd behaviour<br/>Zimbardo 1969<br/>deindividuation"]
CON --> NSI[NSI: fit in]
CON --> ISI[ISI: be correct]
OB --> AG["Agentic state<br/>legitimate authority"]
PRO --> BY["Bystander effect<br/>diffusion of responsibility"]
CR --> AN["Anonymity<br/>reduced accountability"]
| Type | Public Change? | Private Change? | Duration | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance | Yes | No | Temporary | Laughing at an unfunny joke |
| Identification | Yes | Yes (while in group) | While in group | Adopting a team's culture at work |
| Internalisation | Yes | Yes | Permanent | Genuinely changing your beliefs |
| Concept | Definition |
|---|---|
| Normative Social Influence | Conforming to be liked/accepted (need to belong) |
| Informational Social Influence | Conforming because others seem to know better (need to be right) |
| Agentic state | Seeing yourself as an agent of authority — not feeling responsible |
| Autonomous state | Making your own decisions — feeling responsible |
| Diffusion of responsibility | Feeling less responsible when others are present |
| Deindividuation | Loss of individual identity in a crowd — increased impulsive behaviour |
| Social loafing | Exerting less effort in a group than alone |
| Authoritarian personality | Personality type characterised by extreme obedience and rigidity |
| Locus of control | Internal (I control my fate) vs external (fate controls me) |
Asch (1951) tested conformity by asking participants to judge which comparison line matched a standard line in length. Participants were placed in a group with 6–8 confederates who had been told to give the same wrong answer on 12 out of 18 trials. Despite the correct answer being obvious, 75% of participants conformed to the group's wrong answer at least once, with an average conformity rate of 37%. Most participants later said they conformed to avoid standing out (normative social influence).
One factor is the proximity of the authority figure. In Milgram's original study, when the experimenter was in the same room, 65% of participants obeyed to 450V. However, when the experimenter gave orders by telephone, obedience dropped to only 20.5%. This suggests that the physical presence of an authority figure increases obedience because the person feels more pressure and is more closely monitored.
Strength: The study revealed the powerful effect of situational factors on obedience, showing that ordinary people can be led to cause harm by authority figures. The variations identified specific factors (proximity, location, support) that affect obedience levels, giving the findings practical value.
Weakness: The study raises serious ethical concerns. Participants were deceived about the true nature of the study, could not easily exercise their right to withdraw (due to the verbal prods), and many experienced significant psychological distress. These ethical issues led to stricter ethical guidelines for psychological research.
Final Exam Tip: Social influence questions often require you to use specific statistics. Memorise: Asch = 75%/37%, Milgram = 65% to 450V, Darley and Latané = 85% alone/31% with 4 others. Always support points with named studies and specific findings.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most widely cited studies in social influence and is a good integrative revision example because it links conformity, obedience, deindividuation and situational explanations.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.