Component 02: Social Influence - Theories/Explanations — OCR GCSE Psychology

Social Influence in Component 02 of the OCR GCSE Psychology syllabus explores the psychological mechanisms that drive individuals to alter their behaviour, attitudes, and values in response to real or imagined group pressure. This area focuses on distinguishing between situational variables (such as environmental cues, proximity, and social roles) and dispositional variables (such as individual personality characteristics and locus of control).

Understanding these theories is vital because they provide empirical frameworks to explain historical and modern human behaviours, ranging from compliance and bystander apathy to extreme obedience in destructive settings. Within the broader GCSE course, this unit connects deeply with research methods, demonstrating how controlled experiments and observational studies validate or challenge theoretical claims about human social interactions.

• →Normative vs. Informational Social Influence: The psychological drives to fit in (social approval) versus the drive to be accurate in uncertain contexts.
• →Agency Theory: The psychological shift between the autonomous state (independent choice and responsibility) and the agentic state (acting on behalf of an authority figure).
• →Authoritarian Personality: Adorno's dispositional theory suggesting that strict, disciplinary upbringing leads to high respect for authority and hostility towards outgroups.
• →Cost-Reward Model of Bystander Intervention: Piliavin's cognitive explanation balancing emotional arousal and the perceived costs/benefits of helping in emergencies.

• Explains majority influence as pressure from the larger group that leads an individual to conform
• Describes deindividuation as a state in crowds where personal identity and responsibility are reduced, affecting collective behaviour
• Explains that cultural norms shape whether behaviour is judged pro-social or anti-social
• Explains that authority figures influence obedience because people follow orders from those seen as legitimately in charge
• Evaluates situational explanations by noting that they underplay individual differences and by relating them to the free will/determinism debate
• Identifies that Bickman (1974) manipulated the clothing of a confederate as the independent variable.
• States that the guard uniform produced the highest obedience and plain clothes the lowest.
• Explains that the study is a field experiment carried out in a natural street setting.
• Recognises that the findings support a situational explanation of obedience through the power of a uniform.
• Notes that participants were unaware they were taking part, raising ethical concerns about consent.
• Links lower self-esteem to a greater tendency to conform.
• Distinguishes an internal locus of control from an external locus of control in crowd behaviour.
• Explains that the authoritarian personality is associated with higher obedience to authority.
• Identifies hippocampal volume as a brain factor linked to self-esteem.
• Identifies regions of the pre-frontal cortex as linked to morality.
• States that dispositional explanations are criticised for limited generalisability.
• Identifies NatCen (2011) as a study of the August 2011 riots in England, with Tottenham as the required example of events.
• States that the study examined dispositional factors such as attitudes, values and personality traits to explain participation in anti-social collective behaviour.
• Distinguishes dispositional factors, which lie within the individual, from situational factors such as crowd pressure or provocation.
• Explains that the study sought to understand why some individuals joined the riots while others in similar circumstances did not.
• Links the study to anti-social collective behaviour by describing how personal characteristics may predict riot participation.

• 💡Match each option to one named situational factor in the statement before deciding, so you do not mix up majority influence, deindividuation, culture and authority
• 💡When an option mentions the free will/determinism debate, check that it addresses whether behaviour is chosen or determined rather than describing a research method
• 💡Eliminate options that describe a dispositional explanation when the question asks specifically about situational factors
• 💡Link the independent variable (clothing) directly to the dependent variable (obedience rate) in your answer.
• 💡Use the term 'field experiment' and say why the natural setting raises validity.
• 💡When asked about ethics, name deception and lack of informed consent specifically.
• 💡Name the specific dispositional factor before explaining its effect on behaviour.
• 💡Pair each brain structure with the behaviour it is linked to rather than listing structures alone.
• 💡When criticising, explain why generalisability is limited, for example small or unrepresentative samples.
• 💡Learn four fixed points — aim, method, findings, conclusion — and rehearse them in one sentence each.
• 💡Anchor every example in the Tottenham events, since the specification limits required knowledge to these.
• 💡When a question asks about dispositional factors, name at least two personal characteristics and contrast them with one situational factor.
• 💡Check the command word: a multiple-choice stem may ask you to identify, so eliminate options that describe situational causes when dispositional ones are required.
• 💡When asked to 'evaluate', always balance your response by providing both strengths (e.g. supporting research or practical applications) and limitations (e.g. reductionism, lack of ecological validity, or alternative theories).
• 💡In scenario-based questions (AO2), directly link terms like 'agentic state' or 'normative influence' to the specific characters and actions mentioned in the stem.

• Treats deindividuation as simply 'being in a crowd'; explain that it involves a reduced sense of personal identity and responsibility
• Assumes one culture's norms define pro-social behaviour universally; recognise that judgements of pro-social and anti-social behaviour vary between cultures
• Presents situational factors as a complete explanation; note the criticism that individual differences and disposition also matter
• Confuses the free will/determinism debate with a factual finding; treat it as a debate about whether behaviour is chosen or caused by circumstances
• Confuses Bickman with Milgram; keep the street field experiment and the uniform variable separate from the laboratory shock study.
• Claims the uniform made no difference; the guard condition produced the highest compliance.
• Assumes participants gave informed consent; they were unwitting members of the public.
• Reverses locus of control; an internal locus means the person believes they control outcomes.
• Treats dispositional factors as the only cause; situational factors also shape behaviour.
• Ignores the brain evidence; hippocampal volume and pre-frontal cortex regions must be included.
• Confuses dispositional factors with situational factors; keep dispositional factors inside the person, such as values and attitudes.
• Names events outside Tottenham as required knowledge; restrict the required example to the Tottenham events.
• Treats the study as proving all rioters shared one personality; describe it as examining individual differences among participants.
• Omits the link to anti-social collective behaviour; state explicitly that the study addressed riot participation.
• Thinking compliance and internalisation are interchangeable: Compliance is merely changing public behaviour while keeping private beliefs unchanged, whereas internalisation involves a true, permanent change in both public behaviour and private belief.
• Believing that an agentic shift means someone completely forgets their morals: Individuals in an agentic state still experience moral strain (anxiety and distress), but feel bound to obedience by situational factors.

1. 1Step 1: Master key vocabulary by defining compliance, internalisation, identification, agentic state, and authoritarian personality.
2. 2Step 2: Create a comparison matrix contrasting situational explanations of obedience (uniform, proximity, location) with dispositional explanations (authoritarian personality).
3. 3Step 3: Practice drawing paired PEC (Point, Evidence, Counter-point) evaluation paragraphs for Agency Theory and the Cost-Reward Model.
4. 4Step 4: Complete OCR past-paper 4-mark and 6-mark questions under timed conditions to refine exam technique.

• 📋Multiple Choice and Short Definition Questions (1-2 marks): Tests rapid recall of terms like 'internalisation' or the definition of 'locus of control'.
• 📋Scenario Application Questions (AO2, 2-4 marks): Presents a real-life situation where you must identify and justify which explanation of social influence is being demonstrated.
• 📋Extended Evaluation Questions (AO1/AO3, 6 marks): Requires a structured explanation of a theory followed by balanced evaluation with research evidence.