Social Influence

    OCR
    GCSE

    Examine the mechanisms by which individual behavior, attitudes, and beliefs are modified by the presence or actions of others. This study area encompasses the distinct processes of conformity (majority influence), obedience to authority, and minority influence. Analysis must interrogate the interaction between situational variables and dispositional factors, alongside the processes driving social change. Critical evaluation of classical research paradigms (Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo) regarding ecological validity and ethical conduct is mandatory.

    10
    Objectives
    8
    Exam Tips
    8
    Pitfalls
    6
    Key Terms
    8
    Mark Points

    Subtopics in this area

    Social Influence
    Social Influence

    Learning Objectives

    What you need to know and understand

    • Asch (1955): 75% of participants conformed at least once.
    • Milgram (1963): 100% of participants administered 300V shocks.
    • Piliavin et al. (1969): Cane victim received help 95% of the time (ill victim 50%).
    • Deindividuation: Loss of self-awareness and personal responsibility in crowds (Zimbardo).
    • Social Loafing: Reduced individual effort when working in a group (Latane).
    • Asch (1955): 75% of participants conformed at least once; 36.8% conformity rate on critical trials.
    • Milgram (1963): 100% went to 300V; 65% went to the full 450V.
    • Piliavin et al. (1969): 'Cane' victim received help 95% of the time (62/65 trials) without prompting.
    • Situational factors affecting obedience: Proximity, Location, Uniform (Bickman is often cited as support).
    • Crowd behaviour concepts: Deindividuation (loss of self-awareness) and Social Loafing (reduced effort in groups).

    Example Examiner Feedback

    Real feedback patterns examiners use when marking

    • "You have described the study well (AO1), but you must explicitly link the findings to the scenario provided (AO2)."
    • "Avoid generic criticisms like 'small sample'; specify why the sample composition (e.g., all male) limits generalisability."
    • "Differentiate clearly between 'situational factors' (environment) and 'dispositional factors' (personality)."
    • "In your evaluation, ensure you conclude on the overall utility of the theory—does it explain real-world behaviour effectively?"
    • "You have described the study well, but your evaluation lacks depth—explain *why* the low ecological validity matters for the results."
    • "Ensure you explicitly name the type of conformity (e.g., Internalisation) before describing the behaviour."
    • "Your application to the scenario is weak; quote specific details from the text to support your psychological explanation."
    • "Differentiate clearly between the 'aim' of the study and the 'hypothesis'—they are not interchangeable terms."

    Marking Points

    Key points examiners look for in your answers

    • Credit accurate citation of key statistics: Asch's 36.8% critical trial conformity or Milgram's 65% obedience rate to 450V.
    • Award marks for distinguishing between normative social influence (desire to be liked) and informational social influence (desire to be right).
    • In 13-mark responses, credit the logical chain of reasoning: Theory/Study Description (AO1) linked immediately to Evaluation (AO3) using GRAVE (Generalisability, Reliability, Application, Validity, Ethics).
    • For application questions (AO2), candidates must explicitly reference the scenario characters and specific behaviours, not just generic theory.
    • Award marks for precise citation of key study statistics: Asch's 36.8% critical trial conformity or Milgram's 65% obedience rate to 450V.
    • Credit responses that distinguish clearly between types of conformity (Compliance, Identification, Internalisation) versus explanations (Normative, Informational).
    • Evaluation must go beyond generic statements; award top band marks only when critiques (e.g., ecological validity) are directly linked to the specific procedure of the study in question.
    • In scenario questions, candidates must explicitly link psychological theory (e.g., diffusion of responsibility) to the specific details of the stimulus material.

    Examiner Tips

    Expert advice for maximising your marks

    • 💡When evaluating studies, do not just list weaknesses; explain the implication (e.g., 'Low ecological validity means results cannot be generalised to real-life settings').
    • 💡Memorise the specific aim, procedure, results, and conclusion for Asch, Milgram, and Piliavin separately to avoid cross-contamination.
    • 💡Allocate approximately 15-20 minutes for the final 13-mark extended response question.
    • 💡Use the 'Identify, Describe, Explain' hierarchy: Identify the concept, Describe the theory, Explain why it applies to the prompt.
    • 💡For 13-mark extended writing, structure the response as: Detailed Description (AO1) followed by three distinct Evaluation points (AO3) using the PEEL structure.
    • 💡Memorise the specific percentages for Asch, Milgram, and Piliavin; vague quantifiers like 'most people' limit marks in data-focused questions.
    • 💡When evaluating validity, distinguish between ecological validity (real-world setting) and construct validity (measuring what is intended).
    • 💡Allocate 15-18 minutes for the 13-mark question at the end of the section to ensure a sustained line of reasoning.

    Common Mistakes

    Pitfalls to avoid in your exam answers

    • Confusing 'conformity' with 'obedience' in scenario-based questions.
    • Describing the procedure of a study when the question asks for the results or conclusion.
    • Stating 'it was unethical' without specifying the ethical guideline breached (e.g., deception, right to withdraw) or its impact on the study's integrity.
    • Conflating bystander apathy (Latane & Darley) with the specific findings of Piliavin's subway study.
    • Confusing 'Compliance' (public agreement, private disagreement) with 'Internalisation' (deep, permanent change).
    • Conflating the 'Bystander Effect' (presence of others inhibits help) with 'Diffusion of Responsibility' (psychological mechanism reducing personal obligation).
    • Describing Milgram's procedure when asked for the results, or vice versa; these are distinct assessment criteria.
    • Using generic ethical criticisms (e.g., 'it was unethical') without specifying the breach (e.g., lack of informed consent, deception, protection from harm).

    Study Guide Available

    Comprehensive revision notes & examples

    Read Study Guide

    Key Terminology

    Essential terms to know

    Likely Command Words

    How questions on this topic are typically asked

    Identify
    Define
    Describe
    Explain
    Calculate
    Discuss
    Evaluate

    Ready to test yourself?

    Practice questions tailored to this topic