Psychology - Paper 1 Social Influence

Question 1

What is conformity?

Answer 1

Type of social influence in which an individual changes their behaviour/beliefs in response to real or imagined social pressure.

Question 2

Compliance

Answer 2

Individual agrees in public but disagrees in private - temporary change in behaviour/belief

Question 3

Internalisation

Answer 3

Individual changes behaviour publically and privately - permanant change in behaviour/beliefs

Question 4

Identification

Answer 4

Individual changes behaviour to fit the role given, publically changes behaviour but internally no change has occurred

Question 5

Normative social influence

Answer 5

Individual conforms to behaviour/beliefs to fit in to not been seen as foolish or left out - avoid social rejection

Question 6

Informative social influence

Answer 6

individual conforms to behaviour/beliefs as they have the desire to be right and look to others that appear to have more information - avoid social rejection

Question 7

Asch line study (AO1) - Procedure

Answer 7

5-7 participants in each group
Each presented with a standard line and three comparison lines
P’s had to say aloud which line matched the standard line
1 real p other 6 confederates
Confederates told to answer incorrectly 12 out of 18 trials

Question 8

Asch line study (AO1) - Results

Answer 8

Real p’s conformed on 32% of the critical trials when confederates gave the wrong answer.
75% of the sample conformed to the majority on at least one trial.

Question 9

Asch line study (AO3) - Evaluation

Answer 9

Lacks ecological validity - comparing lines does not reflect complex real life conformity
Gender bias - only on men - lacks population validity

Question 10

Asch line study (AO3) - Ethical issues

Answer 10

Deception - told it was the perception of lines
P’s did not give informed consent
P’s may have been embarrassed after true nature of study revealed - psychological harm

Question 11

Asch line study - Group size

Answer 11

the larger the majority group the more people conformed until a certain point.
1 confederate - 3% conformity
2 confederates - 13% conformity
3 or more confederates - 32% conformity
conformity did not increase over a group of 4/5

Question 12

Asch line study - Group unanimity

Answer 12

An individual is more likely to conform when all members agree and give the same answer.
1 person disagreed - conformity dropped
found that just 1 confederate going against majority choice can reduce conformity by 80%

Question 13

Asch line study - Difficulty of task

Answer 13

When the comparison lines where more similar in length, harder to judge correct answer conformity increased.

Question 14

Asch line study - Answer in private

Answer 14

When p’s allowed to answer privately conformity decreased, less group pressure and normative influence was not as powerful.

Question 15

Stanford prison experiment (AO1) - Procedure

Answer 15

Converted the basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison
Advertisement - news paper
P’s randomly allocated a role - prisoner or guard
Prisoners issued uniforms and referred as their number only
Guards given uniform, handcuffs.whistles, and dark glasses making eye contact impossible
Guards worked in 8 hour shifts

Question 16

Stanford prison experiment (AO1) - Findings

Answer 16

Guards harassed prisoners and behaved in a sadistic and brutal manner and were enjoying it
Prisoners adopted the rules and took the rules seriously and if another prison broke them they would tell the guards
Over time prisoners became more submissive the guards acted more aggressively and assertive and wanted a greater level of obedience from prisoners

Question 17

Stanford prison experiment (AO3) - Evaluation

Answer 17

Demand characteristics - p’s stated they were simply acting their role
Lack population validity - used american male students, gender bias
American uni students - looked at individualistic culture but not collectivists

Question 18

Stanford prison experiment (AO3) - Ethical issues

Answer 18

Protection from harm - one p’s had to be taken out after 36 hours due to constant screaming, crying and anger study on lasted 6 days.
Lack of fully informed consent - p’s did not know they were going to be arrested at home, Zimbardo did not know what was going to happen in the study.
Harmful treatment of p’s - meant ethical guidelines were put in place in prisons.

Question 19

Obedience

Answer 19

An individual follows an order from another person who is usually an authority figure.

Question 20

Milgram’s Shock Study (AO1) - Procedure

Answer 20

Lab experiment
2 p’s role of teacher- always real p and role of learner- confederate
Teacher and learner put in to separate rooms
Teacher asked by experimenter (wore a lab coat) to shock the learner if they answered wrong - 15-450 volts
Experimenter told prompt to the Teacher if they did not administer the shock-
please continue
the experiment requires you to continue etc

Question 21

Milgram’s Shock Study (AO1) - Results

Answer 21

All p’s went to 300 volts
65% of participants were willing to go to 450 volts

Question 22

Milgram’s Shock Study (AO3) - Evaluation

Answer 22

Lacks ecological validity - done in an artificial environment - lab experiment
Gender bias - only males were used
Standardised procedure - increases reliability as experiment can be repeated

Question 23

Milgram’s Shock Study (AO3) - Ethical issues

Answer 23

Protection from harm - p’s exposed to extremely stressful situations, many were visibly distressed.
Deception - p’s believed they were shocking a real person.
Debrief - all p’s debriefed at the end of experimenting their stress levels decreased when they saw the learner was okay.

Question 24

The Agentic State

Answer 24

An individual will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Obedience levels dropped when reminded they are responsible for their own actions none of p’s wanted to participate.

Question 25

The Agentic State - Limitations

Answer 25

May be better explained as plain cruelty- Zimbardos study people changed their behaviour to be more submissive or aggressive - obedience may be caused by certain aspects of human behaviour.

Question 26

Legitimacy of Authority Figure

Answer 26

Individuals tend to obey others if they recognise their authority as morally right and / or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school and workplace.
With regard to Milgram” study the experimenter is seen as having legitimate authority as he has scientific status.

Question 27

Situational factors - Authority Figure Wearing a Uniform

Answer 27

Expert wearing a lab coat, scientific status - obedience increased
Expert wearing every day clothes - obedience decreased

Question 28

Situational factors - Status of Location

Answer 28

Original study conducted at Yale uni, a more prestigious place - higher obedience levels
Another study conducted in a run down offices - obedience dropped by 47.5%

Question 29

Situational factors - Proximity of Authority Figure

Answer 29

Individual more likely to obey authority figure if they are in close proximity
When p’s instructed to shock the learner through the telephone obedience levels dropped by 20.8%

Question 30

Dispositional Explanation: Authoritarian Personality - (AO1)

Answer 30

Adorno felt that personality factors rather than situational factors could explain obedience. He proposed that there was such a thing as an authoritarian personality.
Authoritarian personality is that the individual is hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status.
Investigated 2000 middle class, white Americans and their attitudes towards other racial groups
Used F-scale to measure authoritarian personality

Question 31

Dispositional Explanation: Authoritarian Personality - (AO3)

Answer 31

Adorno found many significant correlations but we cannot say that one variable causes another.
Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient behaviour but didn’t have the same personality, it is unlikely that the majority of Germany’s population possessed an authoritarian personality.
May be better explanations – Prejudice and submissiveness could just as easily be caused by a poor standard of education as a child.
Lacks internal validity as it assumes obedience is caused by dispositional explanations when it may be situational variables.
Biased sample - only used white middle class Americans, more than likely to have AP due to the demographic at the time - lacks population validity and historical validity

Question 32

Resistance To Social Influence - Social support

Answer 32

Social support decreases conformity and obedience levels as they are more confident to give their own decision

Question 33

Resistance To Social Influence - Locus of control

Answer 33

High internal locus of control - great deal of personal control over their behaviour and are therefore more likely to take responsibility for the way they behave.
High external locus of control - their behaviours as being a result of external influences or luck.
Research - people with high internal locus of control are less obedient and conforming may be due to them taking responsibility for their actions.

Question 34

Minority Influence - Consistency (AO1) - Procedure

Answer 34

Movinsci used female participants
Shown 36 blue slides of different intensity and asked to report the colours.
Two confederates (the minority) and four participants (the majority).
The first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for each of the 36 slides - consistent responses.
The second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times - inconsistent answers.
Control group used - p’s only

Question 35

Minority Influence - Consistency (AO1) - Results

Answer 35

When confederates were consistent with responses - 8% participants stated that slides were green.
When confederates were inconsistent with responses - 1% participants stated that slides were green.

Question 36

Minority Influence - Two types of consistency

Answer 36

Diachronic Consistency – i.e. consistency over time – the majority sticks to its guns, doesn’t modify its views.
Synchronic Consistency – i.e. consistency between its members – all members agree and back each other up.

Question 37

Minority Influence - Consistency importance (AO1)

Answer 37

Confronted with a consistent opposition, members of the majority will sit up, take notice, and rethink their position.
A consistent minority disrupts established norms and creates uncertainty, doubt and conflict. This can lead to the majority taking the minority view seriously. The majority will therefore be more likely to question their own views.

Question 38

Minority Influence - Commitment

Answer 38

When the majority is confronted with someone with self-confidence and dedication to take a popular stand and refuses to back own, they may assume that he or she has a point.

Question 39

Minority Influence - Flexibility

Answer 39

If the consistent minority are seen as inflexible, rigid, uncompromising and dogmatic, they will be unlikely to change the views of the majority. If they appear flexible and compromising, they are likely to be seen as less extreme, as more moderate, cooperative and reasonable. As a result, they will have a better chance of changing majority views.

Question 40

Minority Influence - Flexibility study

Answer 40

Based on a mock jury
Groups of three participants and one confederate had to decide on the amount of compensation to be given to the victim of a ski-lift accident.
When confederate argued a low amount no effect was found on the majority.
When confederate compromised and moved towards the majority compromised and changed their view.