Conformity (if this comes up it'll be a 20 marker)Define it; yielding to real or imagined group pressure. The main types of social influence are:
Informational social influence. In an ambiguous situation people are unsure of the answer so turn to others for guidance on how to respond. Results in internalisation (an enduring change of private beliefs). Research: Sherif (1935) - autokinetic effect.
Normative social influence. People feel pressured (real or imagined) to adopt the group norm. Results in compliance (change in public behaviour/beliefs but maintaining own private beliefs). Research: Asch (1955) - lines experiment.
Ingrational social influence. People want to please others and so conform to the ways they think others want them to be. Results in identification (conforming to the expectations of a particular role). Research: Zimbardo (1973) - the Stanford Prison Experiment
The above explains majority influence. You might also want to touch on minority influence. This is where the minority exert influence over the majority and often convert them. As such it results in internalisation. A good example is the Sufragette movement. Research: Moscovici (1976) - different coloured slides experiment.
State strengths and weaknesses of the above research to get AE marks.
Obedience (if this comes up it'll be a 20 marker)
Define it; yeilding to the demands of a figure of real or perceived authority.
Various factors affect obedience levels, such as: buffers; legitimacy of the authority; a person's disposition (i.e. their moral compass; how smart they are; their personality); and others.
Research: Milgram (1963) - Shock experiment; Hofling (1966) - Nurses experiment
Suggest strengths and weaknesses of the research to score AE marks.
Resisting Social Pressure/CoercionIf the question is exclusively on this (and not simply an extension of one of the above), then define social pressure/coercion.
Various factors affect whether people conform or obey, and as such resistence strategies can help to mitigate these factors.
Questionining motives/legitimacy of authority. This helps a person re-align themselves with their own moral compass, increasing the likelihood of them establishing an autonomous state. If they simply act in an agentic state (i.e. as an agent of the authority figure), they are more likely to carry out their orders.
A disobedient model. This applies to both conformity and obedience. If someone sees another person go against the group norm or refuse orders, it gives them moral support to do the same. For instance, a child in school who feels pressured to adopt the normative fashion trends is more likely to resist if someone else comes into school sporting something different. This was also evident in Milgram's study. Whenever a disobedient model was present the participant was more likely to resist.
Attitude inoculation. This is like a psychological equivalent of a medical vaccination. The idea is to administer small doses of an argument in order to prepare the person for the bigger "real thing". For instance, if you teach a child good responses to the suggestion that
smoking is cool, whenever they are in a group where this attitude predominates they will be much better equiped to argue against it and therefore resist it.
Self esteem. People with higher self esteem are more likely to resist pressures because they are more confident in their own thoughts and beliefs. This is a dispositional factor.
Reactance. This is almost like a deliberate over-reaction to something in order to emphasise protest against it. For instance, if the government outlawed the wearing of tartan, people - even those who would otherwise never wear tartan - would go out of their way to wear it as a form of protest against the limitation on their freedom.
***
There are others that you could discuss. The above are just off the top of my head, but I think if you know them then you're doing well. Also worth mentioning that there are situational factors as well as dispositional ones, and both interact with each other in a complex way. Zimbardo (1973) argues that the situational factors are so powerful that they are often overwhelmining to almost anyone, irrespective of their disposition. He labels those who can resist such as "heroes". The analogy he gives for this is that it's not just a case of a bad apple in a barrel, but a bad barrel that can invariably turn a good apple bad. So the apples are the people and the barrel is the situation in this analogy.
But not all conformity/obedience is bad. Quite the opposite in fact, to a large degree it's pretty much essential for our society to function. For example, if drivers didn't conform/obey and decided to drive up the wrong way on the motorway, they would put themself and others in extreme danger.
Generally you'll get AE marks for points like this. But strengths and weaknesses of resistence strategies will also help. Compare them with each other will score AE as well. For instance, a disobedient model might increase people's resistence but this is still subject to people's disposition as to whether they will resist or not. Milgram's (1963) study suggests that some people - even in the presence of a disobedient model - will not resist the authority figure.
Hope it helps.