Psychology

1. 1.

   Fictional case: a student privately doubts a group's answer but agrees aloud to avoid rejection. Explain normative social influence.

   [2 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. The student seeks belonging rather than information about correctness. The private doubt distinguishes compliance from a genuine change of belief.

   Marking points

   • Agreement is motivated by acceptance or avoidance of social disapproval.
   • Public compliance need not involve private acceptance of the answer.

   Examiner tip: Use the stated motive to distinguish normative from informational influence.

2. 2.

   Fictional case: tourists follow local people toward a platform because they do not know where trains depart. Explain informational social influence.

   [2 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Unlike agreeing to be liked, the tourists use observed behaviour to resolve ambiguity. They may privately believe the chosen route is correct, though the others could still be mistaken.

   Marking points

   • Uncertainty motivates reliance on others as a source of information.
   • Perceived local expertise makes their behaviour seem a useful guide to the correct platform.

   Examiner tip: Influence based on expertise can still lead to an incorrect decision.

3. 3.

   Fictional experiment: a participant's conformity drops when one group member gives a different answer, even though that answer is also wrong. Analyse what this suggests about unanimity.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. The key change is not necessarily an ally with the right answer but the existence of dissent. Compare conditions holding group size and task difficulty constant to strengthen that interpretation.

   Marking points

   • The dissenter breaks the majority's unanimity.
   • This may reduce pressure to agree by making disagreement socially possible.
   • A wrong dissenter does not provide direct evidence of the correct answer.
   • The result therefore supports a unanimity mechanism, though other changes should be controlled.

   Examiner tip: Do not describe every dissenter as supplying correct information.

4. 4.

   Fictional case: several people see a dropped bag and each assumes someone else will help. Analyse diffusion of responsibility and one intervention.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. The account explains how a shared situation can weaken individual action. A direct request can counter diffusion, but it cannot guarantee help where danger, uncertainty or lack of ability remains.

   Marking points

   • The presence of others can reduce each person's felt responsibility.
   • Assuming another will act can delay helping even when help is feasible.
   • Directly asking an identified person assigns responsibility more clearly.
   • Ambiguity or perceived danger may also affect helping and should not be ignored.

   Examiner tip: Avoid treating bystander numbers as the only determinant of helping.

5. 5.

   Fictional case: staff follow a manager's unsafe instruction. Evaluate a situational explanation based on authority compared with an explanation based only on obedient personalities.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. A personality-only account risks overlooking power and incentives. Compare behaviour under different authority cues and sanctions while recognising individual variation; explanation does not excuse unsafe conduct.

   Marking points

   • Indicative: legitimate role authority and organisational pressure can promote compliance.
   • Individual differences can influence response but do not explain every context change.
   • Fear of sanctions or unclear responsibility may operate alongside personality.
   • A justified judgement considers person-situation interaction and evidence across conditions.

   Examiner tip: Explaining obedience is different from endorsing the instruction.

6. 6.

   Fictional case: a consistent minority promotes recycling at a college, but students call its campaign inflexible. Evaluate consistency as a sufficient condition for minority influence.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Maintain the core message while responding reasonably to practical objections. Consistency may attract attention, but influence also depends on credibility and whether recipients can act.

   Marking points

   • Indicative: consistency can signal commitment and prompt reconsideration.
   • Inflexibility can make the minority seem unreasonable and reduce engagement.
   • Credible arguments, flexibility and feasible actions can affect acceptance.
   • A justified conclusion treats consistency as contributory rather than sufficient by itself.

   Examiner tip: Distinguish consistency of principle from refusal to adapt implementation.

Original, unofficial practice questions from SubjectScout — not official past-paper questions.