Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Psychology

PSY.ISS10 Applying Issues and Debates to Conformity and Obedience Research

AQA 7182 · Calculators not allowed · about 80 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

At least six answers must be written in full sentences. Total time suggested 80 minutes. The final 16-mark question must be answered in full sentences and structured paragraphs.

State one ethical concern raised by Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment in relation to participant welfare, naming the context of simulated prisons.

State one ethical concern and its relevance to participant welfare in Zimbardo's simulated prison study.

(Total for Question 1 is 2 marks)

Explain one way Zimbardo's dual role as researcher and prison superintendent could be seen as an ethical problem in the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

(Total for Question 2 is 2 marks)

In Asch-type conformity research participants were deceived about the purpose of the line-judgement task. Analyse one ethical implication of that deception in terms of social sensitivity and potential public reaction to the research.

(Total for Question 3 is 3 marks)

A university plans to repeat a Zimbardo-style study to investigate obedience to role demands. Identify one practical safeguard the ethics committee should require, and explain how it reduces risk in the simulated prison context.

(Total for Question 4 is 3 marks)

Priya works in a team where everyone overestimates customer demand. She privately believes the figure is lower but reports the higher estimate aloud to fit in. Using the free will versus determinism debate, explain one deterministic explanation and one free will explanation for Priya's behaviour in this conformity context.

(Total for Question 5 is 4 marks)

A newspaper links real-world abuse at a prison to findings from Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, claiming 'ordinary people became monsters because of the situation'. Evaluate briefly one strength and one limitation of using Zimbardo's findings to explain such real-world events, referring to the issue of determinism versus individual responsibility.

(Total for Question 6 is 4 marks)

Explain how research into obedience, such as Milgram-style studies, raises issues of social sensitivity when findings are used to attribute blame in historical events. Refer to the context of obedience research being applied to events like wartime abuses.

(Total for Question 7 is 3 marks)

A manager uses an obedience-style argument to defend staff who followed orders that led to harm. Using the determinism debate, analyse one ethical implication of accepting a deterministic, authority-based explanation in this workplace context.

(Total for Question 8 is 6 marks)

Identify two ways that researchers can reduce social sensitivity when publishing findings about conformity and obedience, giving a brief reason for each in the research publication context.

(Total for Question 9 is 4 marks)

A policy maker quotes conformity research as showing 'people always obey authority'. Evaluate briefly whether this claim supports a deterministic view, using one psychological argument for and one against strong determinism in the context of conformity research.

(Total for Question 10 is 4 marks)

Explain how findings from conformity and obedience research can be applied ethically to reduce harm in real institutions, giving one concrete example in a prison or military context.

(Total for Question 11 is 3 marks)

An investigator argues that publishing dramatic examples of obedience research risks social harm by normalising abuse. Analyse two ways researchers might present results to reduce this risk while still informing policy, referring to the publication context.

(Total for Question 12 is 6 marks)

Discuss the extent to which research into conformity and obedience can be explained in terms of determinism. In your answer, consider both situational and dispositional explanations, the implications for individual responsibility, and how ethical concerns about applying such explanations impact research communication. Use relevant research evidence where appropriate.

(Total for Question 13 is 16 marks)

Mark scheme · PSY.ISS10 Applying Issues and Debates to Conformity and Obedience Research

Question 1

B1 identifies a relevant ethical concern, e.g. psychological harm or insufficient protection of participants in the simulated prison context
B1 briefly links it to welfare, e.g. participants experienced severe stress so they were not adequately protected
Answer: Psychological harm: several prisoners experienced severe stress in the simulated prison and were not adequately protected from harm.

Question 2

M1 states the problem: conflict of interest or loss of objectivity when the researcher also acts as superintendent
A1 explains consequence, e.g. delayed intervention to stop harm because the researcher became absorbed in the role rather than protecting participants
Answer: Zimbardo's dual role created a conflict of interest, reducing his objectivity and delaying intervention to stop harmful behaviour because he acted as superintendent rather than safeguarding participants.

Question 3

M1 identifies the deception used in Asch-type studies in the conformity context
M1 explains an implication for social sensitivity, e.g. the research could be criticised for manipulating trust or for portraying people as gullible
A1 analyses likely public reaction or policy consequence, e.g. negative public reaction might reduce willingness to participate in future research or influence guidelines on informed consent
Answer: Deception about the true purpose of the line-judgement task means participants were misled; this raises social sensitivity because it can portray people as gullible and may provoke public criticism, reducing trust in psychologists and making ethical guidelines on informed consent stricter.

Question 4

M1 identifies a practical safeguard, e.g. independent observer with power to stop the study, clear stop signals, regular welfare checks, or full informed consent with withdrawal procedure
A1 explains how it reduces risk, e.g. an independent observer can intervene when harmful behaviour appears, preventing prolonged distress
A1 links to the simulated prison context, e.g. guards acting abusively would be checked and stopped promptly
Answer: Require an independent observer with the authority to stop the study; this reduces risk by allowing prompt intervention if guards become abusive, preventing prolonged psychological harm to prisoners.

Question 5

M1 deterministic explanation: situational determinism example, e.g. social pressure from the unanimous group leads Priya to conform irrespective of her private view
A1 explains why this is deterministic, e.g. behaviour seen as caused by external social forces not her choice
M1 free will explanation: Priya chooses to present the higher figure to avoid conflict or to gain approval, exercising agency
A1 explains implication, e.g. this preserves individual responsibility and suggests interventions could target decision making
Answer: Deterministic: situational determinism - the unanimous social pressure in the team causes Priya to conform, implying external forces drive her behaviour. Free will: Priya actively chooses to give the higher estimate to avoid conflict or be accepted, so her agency and responsibility explain her action.

Question 6

M1 strength: situational explanation is supported, e.g. Zimbardo shows situational factors can strongly influence behaviour so it helps explain how normal people may act abusively under certain roles
A1 explains why this matters for understanding events, e.g. highlights systemic rather than only individual causes and informs institutional remedies
M1 limitation: overgeneralisation or ecological validity problem, e.g. the simulated prison and real prisons differ in scale, context and oversight
A1 explains consequence for responsibility, e.g. relying solely on situational determinism risks excusing individuals and neglecting dispositional differences and accountability
Answer: Strength: Zimbardo supports situational determinism, showing how roles and environment can push ordinary people to abusive behaviour, which helps identify systemic solutions. Limitation: the simulated prison differs from real prisons, so applying the findings directly risks overgeneralisation and might underplay individual responsibility and dispositional differences.

Question 7

M1 states the sensitivity: findings may be used to argue perpetrators were compelled by authority rather than morally responsible
M1 explains social consequences, e.g. victims or the public may see responsibility shifted away from individuals to circumstances or leaders
A1 links to policy or ethical concern, e.g. this can influence legal judgments, collective memory and survivors' sense of justice
Answer: Obedience research can be socially sensitive because it may be used to argue that perpetrators of wartime abuses were compelled by authority rather than fully responsible; this shifts blame from individuals to situations and can affect legal judgments and survivors' perceptions of justice.

Question 8

M1 identifies the ethical implication, e.g. reduced accountability or risk of moral disengagement if determinism is accepted
M1 explains immediate consequence, e.g. managers and staff might avoid responsibility by blaming situational pressures or orders
A1 develops analysis with an example, e.g. acceptance of deterministic explanations could lead to fewer sanctions and weaker deterrence, potentially allowing harmful practices to continue
M1 considers counterpoint, e.g. recognising situational causes can improve systems and reduce harm by changing policies or training
A1 explains how this matters ethically, e.g. balancing institutional reform with individual accountability protects victims while preventing future harm
A1 evaluates overall implication, e.g. an uncritical acceptance of determinism risks injustice, whereas a nuanced approach can inform fair blame and constructive change
Answer: Accepting a deterministic, authority-based explanation risks reducing individual accountability and enabling moral disengagement, as staff and managers may blame situational pressures for harmful actions. This could lead to fewer sanctions and weaker deterrence, allowing harmful practices to continue. However, recognising situational causes can prompt systemic reforms, such as policy change and training, which reduce future harm. Ethically, therefore, a nuanced stance is required that balances institutional reform with appropriate individual responsibility to protect victims and uphold justice.

Question 9

M1 identifies first way, e.g. careful anonymisation of participant details
A1 explains reason, e.g. protects individuals and reduces risk of stigma or identification
M1 identifies second way, e.g. emphasising limitations and cautious language when generalising to whole groups or cultures
A1 explains reason, e.g. prevents overgeneralisation that could stigmatise populations or be misused in public discourse
Answer: Anonymise participant details to prevent identification and stigma, and use cautious language emphasising limitations when generalising findings to whole groups, to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or misuse of the research.

Question 10

M1 argument for determinism: situational findings, e.g. Asch and obedience studies show strong situational pressures that heavily influence behaviour
A1 explains how this supports deterministic claim, e.g. behaviour appears caused by external factors rather than free choice
M1 argument against strong determinism: evidence of individual differences and agency, e.g. some participants resist and do not conform or obey
A1 explains why this challenges the claim, e.g. shows behaviour is not always determined and individuals can exercise moral choice
Answer: For determinism: situational research demonstrates that external pressures can strongly shape behaviour, supporting the idea that people are driven by situations. Against: individual differences and documented resistance show people do not always obey or conform, undermining the absolute claim that people always obey and supporting a role for agency.

Question 11

M1 identifies an application, e.g. staff training, clear chains of accountability, rotating roles, or supervising authority in prisons or the military
A1 explains how this reduces harm, e.g. training reduces blind obedience and rotating roles prevents role depersonalisation
A1 gives a concrete example, e.g. in prisons require independent welfare officers and mandatory empathy training to reduce abusive role enactment
Answer: Apply findings by introducing staff training on ethical decision making, clear accountability structures and rotating roles. For example, prisons could mandate independent welfare officers and ethics training so staff are less likely to follow harmful orders and more likely to intervene to protect inmates.

Question 12

M1 first way identified, e.g. contextualising findings with clear limitations about sample and setting
A1 analysis of effect, e.g. prevents overgeneralisation and reduces risk of normalising extreme behaviours as inevitable
M1 second way identified, e.g. emphasising actionable recommendations for policy and safeguards rather than deterministic headlines
A1 analysis of effect, e.g. focuses attention on prevention and responsibility, guiding policy to reduce harm
M1 development, e.g. use careful language, avoid sensationalist framing, and include voices of affected groups
A1 analysis of overall benefit, e.g. this maintains informative value for policymakers while reducing social sensitivity and potential misuse
Answer: Researchers can contextualise findings with clear limits on sample and setting to avoid implying inevitability, and emphasise practical safeguards and policy recommendations rather than sensationalist conclusions. Using careful, non-sensational language and including stakeholder perspectives helps inform policy while reducing the risk of normalising abuse.

Question 13

Level 4 (13-16): Knowledge of research into conformity and obedience is accurate and detailed. Discussion of determinism is thorough and well balanced, integrating situational and dispositional explanations and evaluating implications for responsibility. Ethical implications for communicating research are considered and linked to the argument. Evidence is used effectively and the answer is coherent and well structured.
Level 3 (9-12): Knowledge is generally accurate with some detail. Discussion addresses situational and dispositional views and includes consideration of individual responsibility and ethical communication, but may be less developed or slightly one-sided. Some relevant evidence and evaluation are present and the answer is mostly well organised.
Level 2 (5-8): Knowledge is present but limited or partially inaccurate. Discussion of determinism is basic and may miss links to responsibility or ethics. Little evidence is used. The answer may be fragmented and show limited critical evaluation.
Level 1 (1-4): Very limited knowledge and understanding. Discussion is minimal, largely descriptive or irrelevant. No effective evaluation or consideration of ethical implications. The answer lacks structure.
Level 0 (0): No creditable content.
Indicative content:
- AO1: Situational determinism perspective: classic research (e.g. conformity and obedience paradigms) shows environmental and social pressures such as unanimous majorities, assigned social roles or authority figures can strongly influence behaviour, suggesting external causes determine actions.
- AO1: Dispositional perspective: individual differences, personality, moral reasoning and prior values can explain why some resist conformity or refuse to obey, indicating non-deterministic elements and preserving individual agency.
- AO1: Interactionist accounts: behaviour arises from interplay between person and situation, so neither pure determinism nor absolute free will fully explains social influence.
- AO3: Implications for individual responsibility: a deterministic reading may reduce perceived blame and affect justice systems and organisational accountability, whereas emphasising dispositional agency supports individual moral responsibility and sanctions.
- AO3: Evidence-based nuance: cite that many participants in conformity studies did not conform on all trials and some in obedience studies refused to continue, which challenges strong determinism; yet robust situational effects point to powerful constraints on choice in certain contexts.
- AO3: Ethical and communication implications: researchers must avoid deterministic headlines that normalise harmful acts; careful reporting, discussion of limitations and policy-relevant recommendations are ethically important to prevent misuse of findings.
- AO3: Practical consequences: accepting some determinism can drive institutional reforms (training, checks, accountability) to reduce situational pressures that lead to harm, showing a constructive role for situational explanations without absolving individuals.
- AO3: Evaluation: consider methodological limits of lab studies for generalisation, cultural and temporal variations that qualify deterministic claims, and the possibility that emphasising agency supports moral development interventions.

Applying Issues and Debates to Conformity and Obedience Research - Worksheets, Questions and Revision