AQA A-Level Psychology Paper 1 Essays: Social Influence Essay Questions and Answer Hints
AQA A-Level Psychology Paper 1 Social Influence essays
16 mark essay questions do not simply test how many studies you can remember. Strong answers stay tightly focused on the exact wording of the question, use psychological terminology accurately and, where discussion is required, develop evaluation that actually addresses the explanation or research being discussed.
Discuss Asch’s research into variables affecting conformity.
How to answer this question
This is a research-focused discussion, so organise your answer around the variables Asch investigated:
group size
unanimity
task difficulty
For each variable, explain what Asch changed and what happened to conformity. You can then use those findings to draw conclusions about when people are most likely to conform.
Because the command word is discuss, description alone is not enough. Include research support, limitations, alternative explanations and questions about how far Asch's findings generalise beyond his experimental situation.
Indicative points
You could include:
Asch used a line judgement task in which a naïve participant answered alongside confederates.
In the original procedure, confederates deliberately gave incorrect answers on critical trials.
Group size: conformity increased as the majority became larger, but the effect levelled off once the majority reached a certain size.
This suggests that a very large majority is not necessary to create conformity pressure.
Unanimity: conformity fell substantially when one confederate broke the group's unanimous position.
The dissenter did not necessarily have to give the correct answer to reduce conformity, suggesting that breaking unanimity itself is important.
Task difficulty: increasing the difficulty of the line judgement task increased conformity.
This can be explained using informational social influence, because people are more likely to look to others for guidance when they are uncertain.
For evaluation, you might discuss:
the controlled procedure and ability to establish the effect of specific variables
the artificial nature of the line judgement task
whether findings generalise to meaningful real-life conformity
cultural or historical variation in conformity
research supporting the role of task difficulty and ISI
Keep evaluation focused on what the research tells us about conformity rather than simply listing generic laboratory experiment criticisms.
Discuss the agentic state and legitimacy of authority as explanations for obedience.
How to answer this question
There are two named explanations, so both need substantial coverage.
Start by explaining the agentic state, then explain legitimacy of authority. It is useful to show how the explanations can work together. Someone may recognise an authority figure as legitimate, enter an agentic state and then see the authority figure as responsible for their actions.
For the discussion, assess whether these explanations successfully account for obedience. Relevant research should be used as evidence for or against the explanations, rather than simply described.
Indicative points
For the agentic state, you could include:
In the autonomous state, people perceive themselves as responsible for their own actions.
An agentic shift occurs when a person moves into the agentic state.
In the agentic state, the individual sees themselves as an agent carrying out the wishes of an authority figure.
Responsibility is displaced onto the person giving the orders.
This may explain why someone continues obeying despite experiencing moral conflict.
For legitimacy of authority, you could include:
Society is organised into social hierarchies.
Some individuals are granted legitimate authority because of their role or position.
People are socialised to accept that certain authority figures have the right to give orders.
Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive authority.
Discussion could consider:
evidence from Milgram's obedience research
variations in Milgram's research that altered the apparent legitimacy of the authority figure
whether people really surrender responsibility in an agentic state
alternative explanations such as situational variables or the Authoritarian Personality
individual differences in obedience
One particularly useful exam technique is to connect evidence explicitly to the explanation. For example, do not simply describe a Milgram variation, explain why its findings strengthen or weaken legitimacy of authority.
Examiner reports have repeatedly warned against providing large amounts of methodological detail about Milgram without linking it to the explanation being discussed.
Discuss situational variables affecting obedience.
How to answer this question
The three key situational variables are:
proximity
location
uniform
A strong answer explains how each variable changes the pressure to obey, using findings from obedience research as evidence.
The crucial word is discuss. Do not spend the whole essay recounting Milgram's procedures. Use the research to answer the broader psychological question: what do these variables tell us about why people obey?
This distinction has mattered in previous examiner commentary. Students could often describe Milgram's variations accurately, but weaker answers evaluated Milgram's study rather than discussing what situational variables reveal about obedience.
Indicative points
You could include:
Proximity: obedience tends to decrease as the authority figure becomes more physically distant.
Obedience also decreases when the person experiencing the consequences of the order becomes more immediate or visible.
Location: obedience may be greater in prestigious or institutionally legitimate settings.
Moving Milgram's research from Yale University to a less prestigious setting reduced obedience.
Uniform: clothing can act as a visible symbol of legitimate authority.
People may therefore be more likely to follow instructions given by someone whose uniform signals an authorised social role.
Bickman's field research can be used as supporting evidence for the influence of uniform.
Discussion could include:
controlled variations provide evidence that situations can cause changes in obedience
field evidence may support the importance of visible authority
situational explanations may underestimate dispositional differences between individuals
obedience never becomes completely predictable simply from changing one variable
cultural differences may affect the extent to which particular forms of authority are considered legitimate
Discuss the Authoritarian Personality as an explanation for obedience.
How to answer this question
This essay is about a dispositional explanation of obedience. That means your focus should remain on how characteristics within the individual could make obedience more likely.
Make the link to obedience explicit throughout. Simply describing an authoritarian person as prejudiced, conventional or hostile is not enough unless you explain why those characteristics may make them more obedient to authority.
Indicative points
You could include:
The Authoritarian Personality was proposed as a personality type associated with greater obedience to authority.
Adorno and colleagues investigated authoritarianism using the F-scale.
Authoritarian personalities may develop following strict, harsh or rigid parenting.
The child may be unable to express hostility towards the parent and instead displace it onto weaker targets.
Authoritarian individuals tend to be submissive towards people of higher status.
They may also show authoritarian aggression towards those perceived as lower status.
They tend to value conventional social norms and clear hierarchies.
Useful discussion points include:
research finding relationships between authoritarianism and obedience
correlational evidence cannot establish that authoritarian personality traits cause obedience
the explanation may have a right-wing political bias
dispositional explanations struggle to explain extremely high levels of obedience across whole groups or societies
situational variables may offer a stronger explanation of changes in obedience
A very useful exam warning comes from the 2025 examiner report. Generic criticisms of the F-scale or Adorno's sample were often ineffective because students did not explain what those criticisms meant for the Authoritarian Personality explanation of obedience. Stronger answers discussed issues such as political bias or its difficulty explaining obedience across entire societies.
Discuss social support and locus of control as explanations of resistance to social influence.
How to answer this question
This question requires both explanations of resistance:
social support
locus of control
Remember that resistance to social influence includes resistance to both conformity and obedience.
A good essay therefore explains how social support can help someone resist group pressure or authority and how an internal locus of control may make resistance more likely.
Indicative points
For social support, you could include:
People may be more likely to resist conformity when someone else refuses to conform.
The presence of a dissenter breaks the unanimity of the majority.
This may give an individual greater confidence to behave independently.
Resistance to obedience can also increase when another person provides a disobedient role model.
Evidence can be drawn from variations of both Asch's and Milgram's research.
For locus of control, you could include:
The concept distinguishes between internal and external locus of control.
People with an internal locus of control believe that their own behaviour has an important influence on outcomes.
People with an external locus of control are more likely to attribute outcomes to luck, fate or powerful others.
Internals may be better able to resist social influence because they are more independent and take greater responsibility for their actions.
They may also have less need for approval from other people.
Discussion could consider:
experimental evidence supporting the importance of social support
evidence connecting an internal locus of control with greater resistance
inconsistent findings concerning locus of control
whether situational influences can overwhelm personality differences
the interaction between individual and situational explanations
AQA's specimen material has previously treated locus of control and social support as the central explanations of resistance, with effective answers expected to explain the mechanisms rather than simply name them.
Discuss consistency, commitment and flexibility as explanations of how minorities influence majorities.
How to answer this question
Build the answer around the three processes named in the question:
consistency
commitment
flexibility
Do not devote most of the essay to just one process. Explain what each means and, importantly, why it makes a minority more influential.
Then evaluate the explanations using relevant research.
Indicative points
For consistency, you could include:
A minority is more influential when it maintains a consistent position.
Synchronic consistency occurs when members of the minority agree with each other.
Diachronic consistency occurs when the minority maintains its position over time.
Consistency makes the majority take the minority's position more seriously and reconsider its own view.
For commitment, you could include:
A minority may increase its influence by demonstrating dedication to its position.
Making sacrifices or taking risks can draw attention to the minority's message.
The augmentation principle suggests that these sacrifices make the minority appear particularly committed.
This can encourage members of the majority to examine the minority's arguments more carefully.
For flexibility, you could include:
A minority that appears completely rigid may be dismissed as unreasonable.
Effective minorities therefore need to demonstrate consistency while also showing a willingness to compromise.
Acknowledging counterarguments can make the minority appear more reasonable and persuasive.
You could also connect these processes to:
deeper processing of the minority position
conversion
internalisation
gradual movement from minority to majority support
the snowball effect
For discussion, relevant research could include:
Moscovici's research supporting consistency
research examining the importance of flexibility
evidence concerning commitment
the artificial nature of some laboratory minority influence research
whether findings apply to real-life social movements
The 2023 examiner report noted that Moscovici was used effectively for consistency and research by Nemeth and colleagues was useful for flexibility. Stronger answers connected research limitations directly to minority influence, rather than offering generic comments about artificiality or ethics.
Final tips for AQA A-Level Psychology Social Influence essays
Across all of these Paper 1 essay questions, a few habits make a big difference:
Answer the precise question asked. Do not reproduce a memorised essay if the focus is slightly different.
Use specialist terminology accurately. Terms such as informational social influence, agentic shift, legitimacy of authority, locus of control and synchronic consistency should be used where relevant.
Develop research evidence. Naming a study is not evaluation. Explain what its findings show about the theory or explanation.
Avoid generic evaluation. Saying that a study is artificial, unethical or culturally biased only becomes useful when you explain why that matters for the conclusion being discussed.
Keep AO1 focused. Lengthy descriptions of study procedures can waste time and leave too little room for discussion.
Use alternative explanations strategically. Comparing situational and dispositional explanations, for example, can produce effective evaluation when the comparison is directly relevant.
The recurring message from examiner reports is remarkably consistent: students often know plenty of psychology, but lose marks because that knowledge is not shaped closely enough to the wording and assessment demand of the question.
Comments