Psychology Paper 2 Flashcards
(120 cards)
Conformity
Person’s behaviour changing because of group pressure.
Asch’s study
Aim-
to investigate how people respond to group pressure in an unambiguous situation.
Method-
123 male American students (naive ppts). There were other students involved in the study, known as confederates.
Each naïve ppt were tested with a group between 6 to 8 confederates.
they were asked to sit in a semi-circle, the naïve part was at the end to hear the other ppts answers first.
They were two large cards, one with a standard line, and the other one with three comparison lines.
They were asked to select the matching line.
Results -
The departments agreed with the wrong answer given by the confederates.
25% never gave wrong answer
75% conformed at least once.
32% conformed overall.
Conclusions-
Asch’s effect - people conform, even when the answer is clear.
However, some people went against the group opinion, shows people can resist the pressure to conform.
Evaluate Asch’s study
One weakness is the results may only be relevant to 1950s America.
The 1950s were a particularly conformist time in America. this means people were very scared to behave differently.
This suggested Asch’s effect is not consistent overtime, and may only be apparent in certain conditions
Another weakness is that the task and situation was artificial.
Being asked to judge the length of a line with strangers, doesn’t reflect everyday situations where people could conform.
It might be that people are less willing to confirm when the consequences are bit more important.
The results may not explain more serious real-world situations.
Another weakness is that his research is more reflective of conformity in individualist cultures like America and UK.
Studies conducted in collectivist countries, such as China could use higher conformity rates than individualist countries.
This is because countries like China may focus much on the community.
Suggest that his results cannot be generalized collective cultures.
Conformity: Social and Dispositional factors
Dispositional - something about you
Social- other people
Social and disposition Factors of conformity
Social:
Group size
Anonymity
Task difficulty
Dispositional:
Personality- external locus of control more conformist ( external- don’t have influence over things that happen to them, outside of their control, eg getting good on test bc of luck.)
Expertise-increases confidence and knowledge, greater expertise, less conformist.
Group size
More people meaning, greater pressure to confirm.
Evaluation- people don’t conform until the group size gets to 8/10 people
Anonymity
If group members are anonymous, you would feel less pressure.
it is difficult to voice ideas or opinions that go against the group as this would risk rejection which means that even if people disagree with the group they are unlikely to say so openly
Task difficulty
As difficulty of Task increases, the answers become less certain , so you feel less confident and look for others for the right answer.
Evaluation- people with greater expertise may be less affected by task difficulty
Milgram’s agency theory (Social Factors)
Agency
Agentic state: Person follows orders with no sense of personal responsibility.
Autonomous state: Person makes their own free choices and feels responsible for their own actions.
Authority
The term ‘agentic shift’ is used to describe the change from autonomous to an agentic state.
The shift occurs when a person sees someone else as a figure of authority.
Culture
The social hierarchy societies have a hierarchy with some people having more authority than others.
This hierarchy is agreed on by society.
The culture we live in tells us to respect the social hierarchy.
Proximity
In Milgram’s further studies, if the teacher was physically closer to the learner, they were less obedient (less likely to listen to the teacher)
Greater proximity increases ‘moral strain’ that a person feels, meaning increased sense of responsibility, and less likely to deliver shocks.
Evaluate Milgram’s agency theory
One strength is that there is research support.
Blass and Schmitt showed a film of Milgram’s study to students who blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the ‘teacher’ for the harm to the learner.
Therefore the students recognised the legitimate authority of the experimenter as the cause of obedience.
One weakness is that agency theory can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience.
In Milgram’s study 35% of the participants didn’t go up to the maximum shock of 450 volts.
This means that social factors cannot fully explain obedience.
Another weakness is that It “excuses” people who blindly follow destructive orders
It is offensive to the holocaust survivors as it suggests that the Nazis just obeyed orders and ignores roles that racism and prejudice played.
Dangerous, as it allows people to think they aren’t always personally responsible.
Milgram only addresses social factors that may affect obedience, but other psychologists (eg Adorno) think dispositional factors such as personality are very important.
Adornos theory (Dispostional factors)
The authoritarian personality
Some people have an exaggerated respect for authority. They are more likely to obey orders and look down on people of inferior status.
Cognitive style
‘Black and white’, rigid style of thinking. They believe in stereotypes and do not like change.
Originates in childhood
Originates from overly strict parenting and receiving only conditional love from parents when they behave correctly.
Child identifies with parents’ moral values.
The child internalises these values and expects all people to behave the same
Also feels anger towards parents which cannot be directly expressed for fear of reprisals.
Scapegoating
Freud suggested that people who have anger displace this onto others who are socially inferior in a process called scapegoating.
You offload anger to something else relieving anxiety and hostility.
He concluded that people who had a harsh upbringing and critical/strict parenting, were more likely to have an Authoritarian Personality.
Evaluation of Adorno’s theory
A weakness is that it lacks support due to the flawed questionnaire.
The F scale used has a response bias
It challenges validity as it’s based on poor evidence
Another weakness is that data is correlational
can’t claim that authoritarian personality causes greater obedience as it may also be caused by a lower level of education.
suggests that other factors may explain apparent link between obedience and the authoritarian personality.
Adorno’s theory is useful when applied to real-world situations/events and attitudes e.g. war, prejudice, racism
Adorno’s theory is limited i.e. not everyone who is obedient has an authoritarian personality
Adorno used a questionnaire (the F-scale) to measure the authoritarian personality which has some strengths: it is replicable due to the use of standardised questions; it generates quantitative data which is easily analysed and can be converted to percentages and graphical displays. Thus, his theory can be tested for reliability and consistency.
Another weakness is that it’s both social and dispositional.
Germans were obedient but didn’t all have the same upbringing (otherwise we’d expect all Germans to be authoritarian)
This shows that a dispositional factor alone can’t explain high levels of obedience.
Piliavin’s subway study
Aim
To investigate if characteristics of a victim affect help given in an emergency.
Method
A male confederate collapses on a New York City subway train (field experiment), opportunity sampling, either appearing drunk or disabled (with a cane).
103 trials.
One confederate acted as a ‘model’ if no one else helped.
Two observers recorded key information.
Results
Disabled condition: helped at some point on 95% of the trials and 87% of the of the victims were helped in the first 70 seconds after they collapsed
Drunk condition: helped at some point on 50% of the trials and 17% of the of the victims were helped in the first 70 seconds after they collapsed
Conclusion
Characteristics of victim affects help given
Number of onlookers doesn’t affect help in natural setting.
Evaluate Piliavin’s study
One strength of this study is that participants did not know their behaviour was being studied. The subway train passengers did not know they were in a study and behaved naturally.
This means that the results of this study are high in validity.
One weakness of the study is that the participants came mostly from a city.
They may have been more used to these types of emergencies.
This means that their behaviour may not have been generalised to other places, especially collectivist cultures.
Another strength of this study was that qualitative data was also collected.
The two observers on each trial noted down remarks they heard from passengers.
This offered a deeper insight into why people did or did not offer help.
Prosocial behaviour
Acting in a way that promotes the welfare of others and may not benefit the helper.
Bystander behaviour
The presence of others reduces likelihood of giving help to someone.
Deindividuation
Becoming so immersed in the norms of the group that people lose their sense of individuality/identity and self awareness, resulting in feeling less responsibility for their actions.
Prosocial behaviour- Social factors
Presence of others
Cost of helping
Presence of others
The more people present=less likely someone will help
Darley and Latane found that 85% of people reported a seizure when they believed they were alone but only 31% when they believed they were in a group of 4.
Evaluation- when immediate action is required, and the emergency is very serious the presence of others doesn’t always have a negative effect
Cost of helping
Cost of helping: possible danger to yourself, effort, time taken and possible embarrassment
Cost of not helping : feeling guilty, blame of others and leaving someone in need of help
Cognitive conflict between these 2 costs and possible rewards (feeling good, praise and social recognition)
Evaluation- If someone doesn’t judge/interpret a situation to be an emergency where someone needs help they won’t help. research by Shotland and Straw found that 19% of people intervened when a married couple were arguing whereas 85% intervened when the attacker appeared to be a stranger. shows that cost of helping alone can’t explain why someone will or will not help
Dispositional factors
Similarity to victim
Expertise
Similarity to victim
if you identify with the victim, you are more likely to help.
research by Levine et al. found that people were more likely to help a victim if they believed them to support the same football team
Evaluation- in many bystander studies there was no similarity, but the victim still received help, similarity may increase the likelihood of help but if the situation is too ambiguous or if there are high costs help isn’t guaranteed.
factors other than similarity affect bystander behaviour
Expertise
People with specialist skills are more likely to help in emergency situations
Cramer et al. found that when a workman fell off a ladder registered nurses (high expertise) were more like to help than non-medical students (low expertise)
Evaluation- red cross trained people were no more likely to give help than untrained people when faced with someone bleeding a lot (both intervened)
decision to help was unaffected by expertise but it definitely affects the quality of help given
Crowd and collective behaviour: social factors
Social loafing
When working in a group, people put in less effort as you can’t identify individual effort
-Latane et al. found that when participants were asked to scream as loudly as they could, when they were in a larger group they individually made less noise than when they were on their own
Evaluation- creative tasks (brainstorming) benefit from a group of people working together. Shows that in some tasks the output from a group is often greater than the sum of individuals in the group
Culture
individualists (US): focused on individual result
collectivists (Chinese): decisions are made with reference to the needs of the group, social loafing is likely to be lower
Earley found that Chinese people put in the same amount of effort in a group task where individual effort can’t be identified as the group task where individual effort could be identified whereas the Americans put in less effort on the group task where individual effort couldn’t be identified
Evaluation- People vary considerably within a country as there is more than one culture and religion so people will hold different values
too simplistic to talk about national cultures and make predictions about behaviour