Topic A: Social psychology AS

Obedience is a change in behaviour in response to a direct order from someone perceived to have authority. Agency theory explains a change in responsibility; social power theory explains why the authority can influence the target.

Milgram used a standardised laboratory task in which a volunteer 'teacher' believed they were increasing electric shocks to a learner after errors. In the original study, 65% reached the 450 V maximum, showing that ordinary adults could obey a legitimate experimenter despite visible conflict.

The variations isolate situational influences: reduced prestige, proximity or legitimate authority increased dissent. Their standardisation supports comparison, but an artificial shock task, a male US sample and serious deception and distress limit generalisation and ethics.

Obedience and dissent reflect an interaction between the person, the immediate situation and the culture. A factor is supported when changing or comparing it produces a reliable difference, not merely because it sounds plausible.

Dissent becomes easier when responsibility is salient, the authority's legitimacy is weakened or another person models resistance. These routes can work together rather than competing as single explanations.

Conformity is changing behaviour or belief because of real or imagined group pressure. Its depth depends on whether the change is public only, tied to group membership, or genuinely accepted.

Normative social influence produces acceptance or avoidance of rejection, so it often supports compliance. Informational social influence occurs when others are treated as evidence about reality, especially in ambiguous or difficult situations, so it can produce internalisation.

Asch tested whether a unanimous majority could make a person publicly give an obviously wrong line judgement. A real male student answered after confederates who had been instructed to choose the same incorrect comparison line on critical trials.

About three quarters conformed at least once, although many responses still resisted the majority. Later variations showed that conformity rose as a small majority formed, fell sharply when one partner broke unanimity, and changed with task difficulty and whether answers were public.

The controlled line task isolates majority size, unanimity and response conditions, supporting a situational explanation and replication. However, the artificial task, awareness of being studied and restricted US male student sample limit everyday and population validity; historical norms may also change conformity.

Minority influence occurs when a smaller group changes majority judgement. Moscovici's account proposes a conversion process: an unexpected, coherent minority creates conflict, makes the majority examine the issue more deeply and may produce private internalisation.

The same three levels of explanation organise conformity and minority influence: individual differences alter susceptibility, the situation changes pressure and credibility, and culture shapes the norms against which agreement is judged.

A good questionnaire or interview turns a construct into questions that respondents can understand and answer without being steered. The wording, order and researcher behaviour must serve the aim and produce analysable data.

1. Define the target construct and population. 2. Write one clear idea per question, avoiding leading wording, jargon, double negatives and double-barrelled items. 3. Choose open or closed responses to match the evidence needed. 4. Pilot the instrument and revise ambiguous wording or an exhausting length. 5. Standardise instructions, consent, privacy and recording.

An interviewer's tone, appearance, prompts or reactions can change responses; social desirability and acquiescence can do the same. Neutral wording, consistent prompts, anonymity where possible and reflexive recording of researcher decisions reduce these effects.

Primary data are gathered first-hand for the current research aim. Secondary data already exist because another researcher or organisation collected or compiled them for an earlier purpose.

Judge fitness rather than assuming one source is superior: check operational definitions, population, date, missing data, collection method and ethical permission. A new analysis of an existing dataset remains secondary data for the new researcher.

Interview structure controls how far the researcher can adapt the conversation; question format controls the kind of response produced. These are separate design decisions.

An alternative hypothesis states the predicted relationship or difference between operationalised variables. It must be testable with the planned data and population; it may be directional when prior evidence justifies a direction, or non-directional when only a difference or association is predicted.

Directional: 'Students shown a unanimous group response will give more conforming answers than students shown a mixed response.' Non-directional: 'There will be a difference in conforming answers between the two conditions.' Both define what is measured and compared.

The target population is everyone to whom the claim is intended to apply; the sampling frame is the accessible list or source; the sample is the people actually studied. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria before recruitment, choose a sampling technique, record non-response and compare sample characteristics with the target population.

A sampling technique is the rule used to move from a target population or sampling frame to the people studied. The rule determines which selection biases are likely.

Quantitative analysis should reveal the pattern without hiding the scale of measurement or the spread. First identify whether values are categories, discrete counts or continuous measurements; then choose compatible summaries and displays.

Fractions, ratios and percentages express the same part-whole information in different forms. Keep the denominator explicit: 12 conforming responses out of 30 is $12/30$, a conforming-to-nonconforming ratio of $12:18$, and 40%.

A distribution describes how scores are spread. Its shape affects which measure represents a typical score and how extreme values should be interpreted.

The mean uses every value and is sensitive to extremes. For a strongly skewed distribution, the median usually gives a more representative centre; the range or interquartile pattern should be read alongside it. A histogram helps reveal the shape.

Thematic analysis is a systematic way to identify recurring patterns of meaning in qualitative data such as open questionnaire responses or interview transcripts.

1. Read the complete dataset repeatedly. 2. Code relevant segments with concise labels. 3. Group related codes into candidate themes. 4. Check each theme against its extracts and the whole dataset. 5. define and name distinct themes. 6. Report the pattern with brief anonymised evidence and explain how it addresses the aim.

A coding framework and a record of decisions make the analysis transparent. A second coder can test whether the definitions are applied consistently; disagreements should lead to clarification, not automatic majority voting. Reflexivity helps the researcher examine how expectations shaped coding.

The BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009) requires researchers to protect dignity, autonomy, privacy and wellbeing while producing trustworthy knowledge. Ethical planning begins before recruitment and continues through storage, reporting and debriefing.

A risk assessment identifies hazards, who may be affected, likelihood and severity, preventive controls, stopping rules and follow-up. Extra safeguards are required for vulnerable participants, sensitive topics or unequal power relationships.

Moscovici et al. tested whether a consistent minority could shift a majority's colour judgements. Groups of six women contained four naïve participants and two confederates; each group judged 36 blue slides aloud.

The difference supports consistency as a cause of minority influence under these controlled conditions. Standardised slides and responses make the conditions comparable and replicable. However, an artificial colour task, female US student sample, deception and the small public response shift limit generalisation and do not directly measure lasting private conversion.

Burger asked whether Milgram-like obedience would still occur while reducing ethical risk. Seventy adults aged 20-81 were selected through a two-stage screening process; participants with relevant psychological or medical risks were excluded and were reminded repeatedly that they could withdraw.

In the base condition, a participant acting as teacher used an apparent shock generator after a confederate learner's errors. The procedure stopped at 150 V, the point at which Milgram's learner first strongly protested. In a modelled-refusal condition, another apparent teacher refused after 90 V before the real participant continued.

In the base condition, 70% continued past 150 V. The modelled refusal did not produce a clear reduction. The result suggests substantial obedience remained at the comparable decision point, but stopping early means it cannot show how many would have reached 450 V.

Standardisation supports reliability and comparison, and screening, a clinical psychologist, withdrawal reminders and an early stopping point reduced risk. Yet volunteers who passed screening were selective, the laboratory shock task lacked everyday realism, deception and distress remained, and the safeguards limit a direct replication claim.

Yi Huang et al. tested whether other people's opinions leave a lasting change in private judgement. Seventeen Chinese university students rated the attractiveness of 280 neutral-expression photographs of young Chinese women on a computer.

After each initial rating, participants saw an alleged average rating from 200 peers; on most trials it was experimentally set above or below their own. The faces were rated again after delays without showing the peer rating, so later movement toward the earlier group value could be measured without immediate public pressure.

Judgements shifted toward the group opinion shortly after exposure, but the effect was no longer detectable after three days. This supports a short-lived internal influence rather than an indefinitely stable conversion.

Computer presentation and many stimuli standardised exposure and reduced the effect of any one face. However, a very small Chinese student sample, an artificial attractiveness task and fabricated peer ratings limit population and ecological validity; repeated faces may also create memory or demand effects.

Haun et al. compared whether children and other great apes would abandon a previously rewarded choice after seeing peers choose differently. The sample contained 18 children, 12 chimpanzees and 12 orangutans.

Participants learned which of three coloured sections of a box delivered a reward, reaching a preference criterion on 8 of 10 trials. They then watched three demonstrators choose a different section twice and receive rewards. On three further rewarded choices, researchers recorded whether participants kept their preference, followed the majority or chose elsewhere.

Children were more likely than the apes to switch to the peer-endorsed option, whereas chimpanzees and orangutans usually retained the choice that had worked for them. The comparison suggests that human children are especially responsive to majority information in this setting.

A common apparatus, criterion and video coding support comparison and reliability. But small, age- and species-specific samples limit generalisation; the task may not have equal meaning across species, and copying demonstrators can reflect social learning rather than conformity to group pressure.

The practical must use a questionnaire to collect both quantitative and qualitative data about a social-psychology difference, while linking every design, analysis and ethical decision to the stated aim.

Standardise instructions and conditions, record non-response and missing data, and keep raw data securely. Improvements must target a demonstrated limitation: for example, clearer piloted wording improves validity, while a more representative sample improves generalisability.