What you'll learn
This revision guide covers the complete WJEC GCSE Psychology specification content on social influence. You'll understand why people conform to group pressure, the different types of conformity, and what factors affect obedience to authority. The guide includes detailed coverage of Asch's conformity research and Milgram's obedience studies, with exam-style questions and mark schemes to prepare you for assessment.
Key terms and definitions
Conformity — A change in behaviour or opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.
Compliance — A superficial type of conformity where a person publicly agrees with the group but privately maintains their own opinion.
Internalisation — A deep type of conformity where a person genuinely accepts the group's beliefs and attitudes, both publicly and privately.
Identification — A moderate type of conformity where a person adopts the behaviours or views of a group because membership of that group is desirable.
Normative social influence (NSI) — Conforming to be liked, accepted or to avoid rejection by a group, even when you don't agree with them.
Informational social influence (ISI) — Conforming because you believe others have more accurate information than you, particularly in ambiguous situations.
Obedience — Following a direct order from an authority figure who has power or status over you.
Agency theory — Milgram's explanation that people obey orders because they see themselves as agents carrying out another person's wishes, rather than acting autonomously.
Core concepts
Types of conformity
There are three main types of conformity that differ in their depth and permanence:
Compliance is the most superficial form. You publicly go along with the group to fit in or avoid disapproval, but privately disagree. For example, a student might laugh at a joke they don't find funny because their friends are laughing. This change is temporary and only lasts while the group is present.
Identification occurs when you adopt the views or behaviours of a group because you value membership in that group. You act like the group while you're part of it. A student joining a sports team might start using the same training methods as teammates. This conformity is stronger than compliance but may not be permanent if you leave the group.
Internalisation is the deepest form. You genuinely accept the group's beliefs as correct and adopt them into your own value system. The change is permanent and continues even without group pressure. For instance, a teenager whose friends recycle might come to genuinely believe in environmental protection and continue recycling throughout their life.
Explanations for conformity
Two main explanations account for why people conform:
Normative Social Influence (NSI) is driven by the desire to be liked and accepted. People conform to fit in with the group and avoid rejection or disapproval. This explanation works best for compliance. NSI is stronger when:
- The group is important to you
- You're with strangers and want to make a good impression
- The group is unanimous in its opinion
- You must respond publicly rather than privately
Informational Social Influence (ISI) occurs when you're uncertain and look to others for guidance, believing they have more accurate knowledge. This explanation typically leads to internalisation. ISI is stronger when:
- The situation is ambiguous or unclear
- The task is difficult
- Other people are perceived as experts
- There's a crisis requiring quick decisions
Asch's research on conformity
Solomon Asch (1951, 1955) conducted landmark studies investigating conformity to group pressure in an unambiguous situation.
Procedure: Asch tested 123 American male students in groups of 7-9. Only one participant was genuine; the others were confederates (actors working with the researcher). Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line. The answer was obvious. Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers on 12 of 18 trials. The real participant answered last or second-to-last, hearing confederates' incorrect responses first.
Results:
- On critical trials with confederates giving wrong answers, participants conformed 36.8% of the time
- 75% of participants conformed at least once
- 25% never conformed
- In control trials with no confederates, error rate was less than 1%
Conclusions: Even in unambiguous situations with clearly correct answers, people conform to group pressure. This demonstrates the powerful influence of majority opinion on individual judgement.
Variations: Asch tested factors affecting conformity:
- Group size: Conformity increased with 2-3 confederates but plateaued after that; little difference between 3 and 15 confederates
- Unanimity: With one confederate giving correct answers, conformity dropped to 5.5%, showing breaking unanimity dramatically reduces conformity
- Task difficulty: Making lines more similar increased conformity, supporting ISI
Milgram's research on obedience
Stanley Milgram (1963) investigated how far people would obey authority figures, even when orders conflicted with their conscience.
Procedure: 40 American men aged 20-50 volunteered for a "memory study" at Yale University. Each participant was the "teacher" (actually always assigned this role). A confederate was the "learner." An experimenter in a lab coat gave instructions. Teachers administered electric shocks (actually fake) to the learner for wrong answers, increasing by 15 volts each time from 15V to 450V. The shock generator was labelled from "slight shock" to "XXX." At 300V, the learner pounded the wall and went silent. If teachers hesitated, the experimenter used standardised prods like "the experiment requires that you continue."
Results:
- 100% of participants gave shocks up to 300V
- 65% continued to the maximum 450V
- Participants showed signs of stress: sweating, trembling, nervous laughter
- Before the study, experts predicted only 1-2% would give maximum shocks
Conclusions: Ordinary people will obey authority figures even when ordered to harm others. Milgram demonstrated that situational factors, not personality, primarily determine obedience levels.
Variations affecting obedience levels:
- Location: In a run-down office building, obedience dropped to 47.5% (from 65% at Yale), showing prestigious settings increase obedience
- Proximity of learner: When in the same room, obedience fell to 40%; when teachers had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate, it dropped to 30%
- Proximity of experimenter: When the experimenter gave instructions by phone, obedience fell to 20.5%
- Presence of allies: With two confederate teachers who refused to continue, only 10% of real participants gave maximum shocks
Factors affecting obedience
Several situational factors increase obedience to authority:
Legitimate authority: People obey those they perceive as having legitimate power. Milgram's experimenter wore a lab coat, symbolising scientific authority. In everyday life, people obey police officers, teachers, and doctors because their authority is recognised.
Proximity: Physical and psychological distance from consequences affects obedience. When Milgram's teachers couldn't see or hear the learner's suffering, obedience was higher. Modern examples include drone operators being more willing to attack targets they can't see directly.
Buffers: Anything creating distance between the person obeying and the consequences of their actions increases obedience. In Milgram's study, the experimenter took responsibility, buffering participants from feeling personally accountable.
Gradual commitment: Starting with small requests makes people more likely to comply with larger ones later (the "foot-in-the-door" technique). Milgram's participants started with 15V shocks; having committed to small shocks, they found it harder to refuse larger ones.
Agency theory
Milgram developed agency theory to explain obedience findings. The theory proposes two states:
Autonomous state: People see themselves as responsible for their own actions and behave according to their own principles. They have free will and accept consequences of their behaviour.
Agentic state: People see themselves as agents carrying out another person's wishes. They transfer responsibility to the authority figure giving orders, allowing them to obey even destructive commands without feeling personally responsible.
Agentic shift: The transition from autonomous to agentic state occurs when someone perceives another person as a legitimate authority figure. In Milgram's study, participants underwent an agentic shift when entering the prestigious university setting and meeting the experimenter.
Moral strain: Even in the agentic state, people may experience distress when following orders that conflict with their conscience. Milgram's participants showed signs of extreme tension, demonstrating that obeying harmful orders creates psychological discomfort.
Ethical issues in conformity and obedience research
Both Asch and Milgram's studies raise significant ethical concerns:
Deception: Participants weren't told the true nature of the studies. Asch's participants didn't know confederates were actors. Milgram's participants believed they were genuinely shocking someone. This violates informed consent principles.
Protection from harm: Milgram's participants experienced significant stress, including sweating, trembling, and nervous laughter. Three participants had seizures. This psychological harm violated the principle of protecting participants from distress.
Right to withdraw: Though Milgram told participants they could leave, the experimenter's prods ("you must continue") pressured them to stay, undermining this right.
Debriefing: Both researchers debriefed participants afterwards. Milgram reunited participants with the unharmed learner and sent follow-up questionnaires. 84% reported being glad they participated. However, critics argue this doesn't justify the initial distress.
Modern ethics committees would likely reject both studies in their original form, requiring modifications to reduce deception and protect participants from psychological harm.
Worked examples
Question 1: Describe what is meant by 'normative social influence'. [2 marks]
Model answer: Normative social influence is conforming to be liked or accepted by a group [1 mark]. People go along with the majority to avoid rejection or disapproval, even if they privately disagree [1 mark].
Mark scheme notes: First mark for basic definition relating to acceptance/being liked. Second mark for elaboration about avoiding rejection OR maintaining that private opinion differs.
Question 2: Outline one way that Asch investigated conformity. [3 marks]
Model answer: Asch used a line judgement task where participants had to identify which of three comparison lines matched a standard line [1 mark]. The participant was placed in a group with confederates who deliberately gave wrong answers on some trials [1 mark]. Asch measured how often the real participant conformed by giving the same wrong answer as the confederates [1 mark].
Mark scheme notes: One mark each for: the task used, the use of confederates giving wrong answers, and how conformity was measured. Accept alternative valid aspects of procedure.
Question 3: Evaluate Milgram's research into obedience. [6 marks]
Model answer:
One strength is that Milgram's research has good reliability because he used standardised procedures, including exactly the same verbal prods when participants hesitated [1 mark]. This means the study can be replicated to check whether similar results are obtained [1 mark].
However, a weakness is that the study lacked ecological validity because administering electric shocks in a laboratory is not something people do in everyday life [1 mark]. This means the findings might not generalise to real-life obedience situations like following orders in the workplace [1 mark].
Another weakness concerns ethics, specifically that participants were deceived about the true purpose and didn't give informed consent [1 mark]. They also experienced psychological harm through extreme stress, which violates the principle of protecting participants from distress [1 mark].
Mark scheme notes: Award marks in pairs: one for identifying a strength/weakness, one for elaboration/justification. Accept other valid evaluation points including sample bias (all male), historical validity, or supporting evidence from variations.
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
Confusing types of conformity: Students often mix up compliance and internalisation. Remember: compliance is public agreement only (temporary), internalisation is genuine belief change (permanent), and identification sits between them.
Muddling NSI and ISI: NSI is about being liked/avoiding rejection (emotional). ISI is about being right/having accurate information (cognitive). Link NSI to compliance and ISI to internalisation to keep them separate.
Describing Asch/Milgram without linking to the question: Simply retelling the studies wastes time and gains few marks. Always explicitly connect research findings to the specific question asked about conformity or obedience.
Vague evaluation: Writing "Milgram's study was unethical" without specifying which ethical principle was violated or how gains minimal credit. Always name the specific issue (deception, protection from harm, informed consent) and explain why it's problematic.
Confusing autonomous and agentic states: Remember the autonomous state is when you feel responsible for your own actions; agentic state is when you feel you're acting for someone else. The agentic shift happens when an authority figure appears.
Not using research evidence in evaluation: Evaluation answers score higher when they reference specific findings. For example, when evaluating factors affecting conformity, cite Asch's finding that conformity dropped to 5.5% when unanimity was broken.
Exam technique for "Social Influence: Conformity and Obedience"
Command word awareness: "Describe" requires factual detail about procedures or findings (no evaluation). "Explain" needs reasons why something occurs. "Evaluate" demands strengths, weaknesses, supporting/contradicting evidence. "Outline" means brief description without excessive detail.
AO1 vs AO3 balance: Description questions (AO1) require accurate factual content about theories or studies. Evaluation questions (AO3) require analysis using terms like "however," "on the other hand," and "this suggests." Check the mark allocation: 2-3 marks typically need one developed point; 6 marks need three developed points or two very detailed ones.
Use psychological terminology precisely: Replace everyday language with technical terms. Instead of "copying others," write "conformity." Instead of "doing what you're told," write "obedience to authority." This demonstrates knowledge and gains higher marks.
Structure extended answers clearly: For 6-mark questions, use the three-paragraph structure shown in the worked example: point-evidence-explain for each paragraph. Start each paragraph with a clear statement (strength/weakness) then justify it with research evidence or logical reasoning.
Quick revision summary
Social influence involves conformity (changing behaviour due to group pressure) and obedience (following authority). Conformity types range from compliance (public agreement only) through identification (adopting group behaviours) to internalisation (genuine belief change). NSI explains conforming to be liked; ISI explains conforming to be right. Asch demonstrated conformity even in unambiguous situations, with unanimity and task difficulty affecting rates. Milgram showed 65% of ordinary people would obey destructive orders, influenced by legitimate authority, proximity, and gradual commitment. Agency theory explains obedience through the agentic shift, where people transfer responsibility to authority figures.