AS Edexcel Psychology Revision: Exploring the Social Approach and Obedience

This work has been verified by our teacher: 26.02.2026 at 18:26

Homework type: Essay

Added: 25.02.2026 at 13:27

AS Edexcel Psychology Revision: Exploring the Social Approach and Obedience

Summary:

Explore the AS Edexcel Psychology social approach and obedience to understand key theories, research, and how social context shapes behaviour for effective revision.

Psychology Revision AS Edexcel: The Social Approach with a Focus on Obedience

Psychology’s social approach investigates how our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are powerfully shaped by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others. Within the AS Edexcel course, the social approach isn’t simply a theoretical curiosity; it's a prism through which we can understand issues as varied as group loyalty, prejudice, and, most centrally, the disturbing power of obedience. How far will ordinary individuals go in following the commands of authority figures—even when these commands clash with personal conscience? In this essay, I will outline the foundational assumptions of the social approach, explore obedience as a phenomenon, critically examine key research such as Milgram and Meeus & Raaijmakers, and appraise the leading theories explaining why people submit to authority. Along the way, I will weave in examples, evaluate the ethical and methodological merits and pitfalls, and suggest effective revision strategies for AS Psychology students following the Edexcel specification.

---

The Social Approach: Foundations and Assumptions

At its heart, the social approach to psychology asserts that we are, above all, social creatures: our behaviour cannot be solely explained by internal drives or individual differences, but by the shifting contexts in which we find ourselves. For instance, G.C. Brown’s explorations of conformity at British public schools, or the infamous case of the “Merton Mob” at Oxford, both highlight how young people adjust to new social norms—often unconsciously—when navigating group environments.

This framework rests on several core assumptions. Firstly, the social context is central: even the mere presence of another person (or a perceived expectation) can alter our behaviour dramatically. Secondly, humans are wired for group affiliation, which manifests in the tendency to conform, comply, and obey the unwritten and written rules that govern our interactions. The lines between “us” (the in-group) and “them” (the out-group) not only explain friendship circles and sporting allegiances but also, regrettably, prejudice and discrimination on local and national scales.

Within this fabric, the mechanisms of conformity (adapting to group expectations), compliance (agreeing outwardly, regardless of private beliefs), obedience (yielding to explicit authority), and the adoption of social roles guide much of human behaviour. Whether students are following a school uniform code, marching in Remembrance Sunday parades, or even participating in a "banter" culture that veers into exclusion, the social pressures at play are profound.

The real-world relevance is everywhere—think about the tendency for schoolchildren to conform to peer pressure around substance use, or the way British football crowds can both unite as one cheering mass and, occasionally, turn into a hostile mob. These dynamics aren’t just academic—they underpin issues from bullying to systemic bias in institutions.

---

Obedience: Concept and Importance

Obedience, within this context, refers to the act of behaving in response to an order from a figure recognised as an authority—someone perceived, rightly or wrongly, as having legitimate power over us. It is distinguishable from conformity, which is a subtler process of adaptation to group norms, and from compliance where there may not be a power differential.

Familiar scenarios illustrate the range of obedience. Everyday acts—waiting when a teacher instructs you to, standing for the national anthem at the Cenotaph, or sticking to the left on London escalators—reflect the smooth operation of authority. Problems arise, however, when obedience turns toxic: school “initiations” that go too far, staff in NHS trusts failing to question unsafe directions from superiors, or—in more chilling cases—ordinary citizens complying with governmental atrocities, such as the complicity of administrators in the Windrush scandal.

The study of obedience, then, is not merely about understanding why we follow rules, but about the ethical, moral, and practical ramifications of surrendering personal responsibility to authority. It asks: how resilient are our moral compasses when someone in a white coat or uniform tells us what to do?

---

Foundational Research: Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Study (1963)

In the aftermath of the Second World War, as Europe dealt with the horrors of the Holocaust, questions of obedience became urgent. Milgram, a Yale psychologist influenced by the Nuremberg trials and Hannah Arendt’s writing on the ‘banality of evil’, designed an experiment to probe the dark side of the social approach.

Milgram recruited 40 male participants, aged 20-50, from a range of occupations, via a newspaper advertisement. The set-up was simple but ingenious: participants were told they were part of a study on memory. Assigned (unknowingly, always) to the role of "teacher", they were to administer increasingly higher voltage ‘shocks’ to a “learner” (an actor, in the next room) whenever he made errors in a word-pair exercise. The “shocks” were not real—but the participants believed them to be, with the voltage rising from a mild 15 volts to a deadly 450 volts. The authority figure, a man in a lab coat, pressed them on with increasingly terse prods: “The experiment requires that you continue.”

The results were shocking: despite visible and verbal distress—nervous laughter, trembling, expressions of doubt—26 out of 40 participants (65%) went all the way to 450 volts. Variations in the experiment (changing proximity to the learner, or to the authority, for example) revealed that obedience rates fluctuated depending on situational factors, but remained distressingly high.

Milgram concluded that ordinary people, under the “right” (or wrong) conditions, could be induced to act against their values, all under the weight of perceived authority. The participant’s obedience was not blind but conflicted—many expressed moral strain, sweat, and even protest—but the tendency to submit remained.

Ethically, Milgram’s methods would raise eyebrows (and official complaints) today. The deception, the psychological distress, and the pressure to continue were all serious ethical violations by today’s British Psychological Society standards. Yet, the study’s impact on our understanding of authority remains unmatched.

---

Replications and Extensions: The Meeus & Raaijmakers Study (1985)

While Milgram’s study was conducted in the American context, the question remained: would these findings generalise to other cultures and forms of authority? Dutch researchers Meeus and Raaijmakers adapted the scenario, shifting from physical (fake) harm to psychological harm. Their “job interview” experiment involved real participants acting as interviewers, instructed to deliver a series of increasingly harsh “insults” to a confederate hoping for a job.

Unlike Milgram’s uniform male sample, the Dutch study included both men and women, aged 18-55, providing broader demographic coverage. Their findings were still more concerning: over 90% of participants obeyed the instruction to deliver all 15 insults, despite visible distress in the applicant. But in the control condition—where the researcher’s authority was absent—none of the participants complied.

The implications were clear: the presence of authority, regardless of the harm’s nature (physical or psychological), dramatically amplifies obedience. The study also demonstrated, for British students, that these mechanisms can be found across diverse European contexts, not confined to one nation or generation.

Ecologically, the scenario simulated a real workplace dynamic, but it, too, faced ethical scrutiny. The lesson: authority’s power to override personal morals is a robust, cross-cultural phenomenon—and psychology cannot ignore the enduring risks this implies.

---

Theoretical Perspectives: Agency Theory and Social Identity Theory

Milgram’s Agency Theory offers the most direct explanation for these unsettling findings. He posited two states—autonomous and agentic. In the autonomous state, we act according to our own principles, feeling responsible for outcomes. In the agentic state, we see ourselves as instruments of another's will, shifting the moral burden onto the authority. Milgram argued that authority figures (by virtue of symbols such as uniforms, positions, or titles) trigger the transition into this agentic state, which renders people capable of otherwise unthinkable acts.

However, Agency Theory isn’t faultless. It can help us understand why a nurse in the NHS might unquestioningly follow a senior doctor’s unsafe instruction. Yet, it risks excusing immoral behaviour as mere submission—ignoring individual differences and broader social values. Some people do resist, suggesting more complex factors at play.

Social Identity Theory, developed by British psychologist Henri Tajfel, adds another layer. According to this theory, our group memberships form a key part of our self-concept. If the authority figure is identified as part of our in-group, we are more likely to obey; if not, rates of rebelliousness rise. This might explain, for example, why a pupil is less likely to follow the instructions of a visiting supply teacher than a beloved head of year.

The interplay of these theories helps us situate obedience as both an individual psychological process and a broader social phenomenon.

---

Critical Evaluation of Research and Theories

Both Milgram’s and Meeus & Raaijmakers’ studies share methodological strengths: careful experimental control, replicable procedures, and clarity of definition. They have cast an enduring shadow on our understanding of social influence. Nonetheless, the use of laboratory settings and artificial tasks raises doubts about ecological validity—while we might obey in the rarefied air of a test room, does this mirror the messiness of real life?

Sample bias is another concern. Milgram drew only from American males, Meeus & Raaijmakers mostly Dutch participants. Can we safely apply these findings to other cultures—including the nuanced, status-conscious environment of British secondary schools, or authority scepticism in post-colonial nations?

Ethically, the studies fall foul of modern standards—deception, anxiety, and emotional distress would not pass an SQA research board today. However, they did inspire a much-needed tightening of ethical guidelines (such as the BPS Code of Human Research Ethics), especially around informed consent, debriefing, and the right to withdraw.

Despite these faults, the reliability of findings is strengthened by both replication and real-world resonance. From the Hillsborough Disaster’s police commands to more recent revelations from the Post Office Horizon scandal—where subordinates obeyed faulty instructions, with tragic consequences—obedience, and its risks, remain alive in British life. Understanding these findings is crucial for designing safer, more conscientious systems.

---

Practical Revision Tips for AS Psychology Students (Edexcel)

1. Organise Research Clearly: Break down each major study using a table with columns for aim, methodology, sample, results, and evaluation. This not only aids memory but makes quick revision in exam season far easier.

2. Connect Theory and Practice: Create mind maps linking Agency Theory and Social Identity Theory to key studies and contemporary examples from UK life or global news. This can boost evaluation marks in longer exam questions.

3. Practice Evaluation: Every study and theory should be accompanied by strengths, weaknesses, ethical considerations, and real-life applications. Consider writing ‘for and against’ lists or using PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link) paragraphs as practice.

4. Master Exam Skills: Use specimen Edexcel questions to practise writing concise AO1 (describe), AO2 (apply), and AO3 (evaluate) responses. Time yourself and ask teachers for feedback on structuring 12-mark essays.

5. Apply to Real World: Bring in British case studies or examples—statements from the Daniel Pelka serious case review, for instance, exemplify tragic consequences of uncritical obedience in authority contexts.

---

Conclusion

The social approach to psychology, with its focus on obedience, challenges us to scrutinise the nature and influence of authority in our own lives and in society at large. Research by Milgram and Meeus & Raaijmakers—however ethically contentious—demonstrates the alarming extent to which situational pressures can override individual conscience. Theories such as Agency Theory and Social Identity Theory help us make sense of these patterns, albeit imperfectly. As British students of psychology, grasping these concepts is essential—not only for exam success but for navigating the moral complexities of citizenship in a world where the voices of authority, for good or ill, are never far away.

---

Frequently Asked Questions about AI Learning

Answers curated by our team of academic experts

What is the social approach in AS Edexcel Psychology revision?

The social approach studies how our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by others. It emphasises the impact of social context and group dynamics on individual actions.

How does AS Edexcel Psychology define obedience in the social approach?

Obedience is defined as following orders from a recognised authority figure. It is distinct from conformity or compliance due to the perceived power difference.

Why is studying obedience important in AS Edexcel Psychology revision?

Studying obedience reveals how authority affects behaviour, which explains both everyday actions and serious issues like institutional wrongdoing. It highlights ethical and moral implications of following orders.

What are the key differences between conformity and obedience in the social approach?

Conformity involves adapting to group norms without direct orders, while obedience means responding to explicit commands from authority. The difference lies in the presence of an authority figure.

How does the social approach explain prejudice and group behaviour in AS Edexcel Psychology?

The social approach explains prejudice and group behaviour through processes like in-group and out-group dynamics, showing how social environments encourage unity or discrimination.

Write my essay for me

Tagi:#psychology #socialapproach #revision