Edexcel GCSE Psychology: Social Influence
Topic 5: Social Influence — How do others affect you?
Paper 1 | Compulsory | 16 marks
This topic explores why people conform to groups, obey authority figures, fail to help others in emergencies, and change their behaviour in crowds. It also examines how culture and society shape these patterns of behaviour. Social influence is one of the most fascinating and ethically significant areas of psychology.
Key definitions
Conformity is the process of changing our behaviour or beliefs to match those of a group.
Obedience is following the orders or instructions of an authority figure.
Deindividuation is the loss of personal identity and sense of individual responsibility that can occur when a person becomes part of a crowd or group.
The bystander effect refers to the tendency for individuals to be less likely to offer help in an emergency when other people are present.
The bystander effect and factors affecting bystander intervention
When people witness an emergency, they do not always help. This is partly explained by diffusion of responsibility — when others are present, each individual feels less personally responsible, assuming someone else will step in.
Pluralistic ignorance also plays a role. When a situation is ambiguous, people look to others for cues. If no one else appears to be reacting, individuals may conclude there is no emergency, even if there is.
Latané and Darley's decision model proposes that before intervening a bystander must pass through several steps: noticing the event, interpreting it as an emergency, accepting personal responsibility, deciding how to help and then acting. Failing at any step means help is not given.
Personal factors include empathy, social responsibility, an internal locus of control and low egocentrism. Research by Bierhoff et al. (1991) found these five characteristics in bystanders who helped in real emergencies.
Situational factors include the number of bystanders present, whether the situation clearly looks like an emergency, the similarity between bystander and victim, and the perceived cost of helping.
Conformity to majority influence
Conformity happens when we change our behaviour or beliefs to match those around us. There are two main types.
Normative social influence occurs when we conform to fit in and be accepted, even if we privately disagree. It is driven by the desire to be liked and to avoid rejection.
Informational social influence occurs when we genuinely believe the group knows better than us, particularly in uncertain or unfamiliar situations.
Factors affecting conformity
Personality factors include locus of control. People with an internal locus of control believe their behaviour is driven by their own decisions and tend to be more resistant to conformity. Those with an external locus of control tend to be more susceptible to social pressure. Adolescents are more likely to conform than adults (Steinberg and Monahan, 2007).
Situational factors include the size of the majority, whether the task is ambiguous, and whether unanimity is broken. Asch found that when even one other person gave the correct answer, conformity rates dropped dramatically — having an ally significantly reduces social pressure.
Obedience to authority
Obedience refers to following instructions from an authority figure. Milgram's research demonstrated that ordinary people are capable of carrying out harmful acts when instructed by someone they perceive as an authority.
Agency theory, proposed by Milgram, suggests people enter an agentic state when they see themselves as acting on behalf of an authority figure rather than as free individuals. In this state they pass moral responsibility upwards, experiencing moral strain (discomfort at what they are doing) but continuing to obey.
Factors affecting obedience
Situational factors include the proximity of the authority figure (obedience is higher when they are physically present), the legitimacy of the authority (uniforms and prestigious settings increase obedience), the proximity of the victim (obedience decreases when participants can see or hear the harm being caused), and the presence of dissenting peers (when others refuse to obey, obedience rates fall sharply).
Personality factors include having an authoritarian personality, which involves rigid beliefs and a tendency to be submissive to authority. An external locus of control is also associated with higher obedience.
How to prevent blind obedience
Research suggests several approaches: having social support from others who also refuse to comply; being familiar with the situation so you can act confidently rather than defaulting to obedience; increasing distance from the authority figure; and education about the risks and consequences of blind obedience.
Crowd behaviour and deindividuation
When people become part of a crowd they can lose their sense of individual identity through deindividuation. Anonymity increases, personal accountability feels reduced, and group norms begin to dominate individual judgement.
Deindividuation can lead to both pro-social behaviour (warmth at community events) and anti-social behaviour (aggression and rioting). When group norms are anti-social, deindividuation amplifies harmful behaviour.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (Haney, Banks and Zimbardo, 1973) is the key example, showing how assigned roles and loss of personal identity can rapidly transform behaviour in ordinary people.
Key studies
Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin (1969) — Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?
Aim: to investigate the effect of situational and personal factors on bystander intervention in a real-life emergency.
Procedure: researchers staged emergencies on New York subway trains. A confederate collapsed in a carriage of approximately 45 passengers. In different conditions the victim appeared either drunk (holding a bottle) or ill (carrying a walking cane). The race of the victim was also varied. Researchers recorded whether and how quickly passengers helped.
Results: the victim with the cane was helped spontaneously on 95% of trials, usually within 70 seconds. The drunk victim was helped on around 50% of trials. Help was more likely to come from someone of the same race as the victim. Diffusion of responsibility was less evident than expected, possibly because the enclosed subway setting made it harder to ignore the emergency.
Conclusion: situational factors, particularly the perceived cause of the emergency and the cost of helping, significantly affect whether bystanders intervene.
Strengths: the real-life setting gives the study high ecological validity. Participants were unaware they were being observed, reducing demand characteristics.
Weaknesses: participants were exposed to a distressing situation without consent, raising ethical concerns. The sample of New York subway users limits generalisability.
Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) — A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison
Aim: to investigate how roles and situational factors affect behaviour, and whether ordinary people would adopt behaviours associated with prison guards and prisoners.
Procedure: 24 psychologically stable male participants were randomly assigned as prisoner or guard in a simulated prison at Stanford University. Prisoners were given uniforms and numbers; guards were given uniforms, mirrored sunglasses and told to maintain order without specific guidance. The study was planned to last two weeks.
Results: within days, guards became increasingly authoritarian and dehumanising. Prisoners became passive and distressed. Several prisoners showed severe psychological distress and had to be released early. The study was halted after six days.
Conclusion: situational factors and assigned roles can have a rapid and powerful effect on behaviour, overriding individual personality. Deindividuation contributed to both the guards' aggression and the prisoners' submission.
Strengths: the study provided influential evidence that situations, not just personality, drive harmful behaviour. It has been widely applied to understanding prison abuse and crowd violence.
Weaknesses: serious ethical concerns arose as participants were not adequately protected from psychological harm. The sample of 24 male American students limits generalisability. Some researchers have questioned whether guards were responding to researcher expectations rather than acting purely from role adoption.
Issues and debates: social and cultural issues in psychology
Society refers to a large community of people living under shared norms, laws and institutions. A social issue is a problem or conflict that affects large groups within society.
Culture refers to the beliefs, practices and traditions shared by a group. Psychologists often distinguish between individualistic cultures (typically Western, emphasising independence and personal achievement) and collectivistic cultures (typically Eastern, emphasising group harmony and cooperation).
Milgram's research helps explain how ordinary people can commit harmful acts under orders, relevant to understanding events such as the actions of soldiers during the Nazi regime. Conformity research helps explain crowd behaviour such as the 2011 London riots, where informational social influence (copying others when uncertain) and normative social influence (joining in to fit with the crowd) both played a role.
Research suggests obedience and conformity may vary across cultures. Shanab and Yahya (1977) replicated Milgram's study in Jordan and found 73% of participants gave the maximum shock, suggesting obedience can be high across cultures. However, Milgram himself argued that situational factors are more powerful than culture in determining obedience. Studies reviewed by Smith and Bond (1993) suggest conformity tends to be higher in collectivistic cultures, though individual differences within cultures are also significant.
Key terms
Conformity: changing behaviour or beliefs to match those of a group.
Obedience: following the orders or instructions of an authority figure.
Deindividuation: the loss of personal identity and individual responsibility that can occur in a crowd or group.
Bystander effect: the tendency for individuals to be less likely to help in an emergency when others are present.
Normative social influence: conforming to fit in and gain social acceptance.
Informational social influence: conforming because we believe the group has more knowledge than we do.
Locus of control: a person's belief about whether their behaviour is controlled by themselves (internal) or by outside forces (external).
Agentic state: Milgram's term for the state in which a person acts as an agent of authority rather than making their own choices.
Moral strain: the discomfort felt when a person in an agentic state recognises that their actions conflict with their personal values.
Agency theory: Milgram's explanation of obedience, proposing that people give up personal responsibility and act as agents of authority figures.
Diffusion of responsibility: the reduced feeling of personal responsibility when others are present, as each person assumes someone else will act.
Pluralistic ignorance: misinterpreting a situation as non-urgent because others also appear unconcerned.
Individualistic culture: a culture that emphasises independence, personal achievement and individual identity.
Collectivistic culture: a culture that emphasises group membership, interdependence and cooperation.
Looking for revision resources for this topic? The Social Influence Knowledge Organiser covers all of the above in a format designed for efficient revision.