Paper 1 - Social

Question 1

How is social support linked to resistance in conformity?

Answer 1

Asch found that the presence of social support enables and individual to resist conformity.
Social support offered by an alley causing conformity to drop from 33% to 5.5% (with unanimous majority and a supporting ally)
This is because they break the unanimity and raise possibility of other, equally legit alternatives (provides individual assessment and raises confidence)

Question 2

How is social support linked to resistance in obedience?

Answer 2

Disobedience can change perception as they are more confident in resisting the temptation to obeys if they find an ally
Disobedient peers = role models
Milgram’s study - defiance and refusal to shock (confederates) liberated influence over real ppts, 10% only willing to continue (initially 64%)

Question 3

Describe types of conformity

Answer 3

Compliance: adjusting social views in order to gain approval and avoid exclusion (temporary effect and only in public)

Internalisation: Exposed to opposing view and will be accepting if it comes from trustworthy leads (permanent and public/private change)

Identification: Belonging to a group and following their values (which you wouldn’t have adopted outside of the group) - enhances group membership - permanent and expresses privately
G

Question 4

Describe and evaluate explanations of conformity

Answer 4

Normative influence: All human beings are social and require approval and want to avoid disapproval and rejection - this influence only occurs under surveillance, meaning it is temporary and displayed publicly

• Perkins et al found that teenagers which were told not many teenagers smoke were less likely to.
• Shutz had told ppts that 75% of hotel guests reuse their towels and towel changes decreased by 25%
• high ecological validity and positive applications on the economy

Informational influence: humans seek to be correct so this influence takes place in ambiguous situations and relies on the opinions of others - public, private and permanent
- Henley et al: when exposed to negative info about African-Americans, ppts tended to describe/ report negative things about African-Americans - we should use positive imagery to prevent racism and discrimination

In both cases, it is difficult to know whether these effects are long term

Question 5

Describe Asch’s study into conformity

Answer 5

Aim: to see if participants would react to the behaviour of confederates.
Ppts: all male and American (123)
Procedure: Ppts told that they were partaking in a visual-discrimination test (deception)
- they asked the participant to identify which line (out of 3) was most similar to a stimulus line
- the confederates gave unanimously incorrect answers
Findings: 33% conformity rates

In variations of the study, Asch decided to see whether there were other factors responsible in influencing conformity
Group size: Found little conformity with 1-2 participants but when there was 3 confederates; 30-33% (and would not continue rising with group size) - with more ambiguous Q’s, group size is more significant as the individual may want to fit in (minimum of 3 required for conformity)

Unanimity: Asch’s participants gave unanimously incorrect answers but when the ppt was given support by someone else, conformity levels dropped to 5.5%, showing the benefit of social support on conformity

Difficulty of task: Asch made differences between the lines less noticeable and this increased conformity (due to informative influence)
Influence may vary according to the self-efficiency of an individual (more independent, less reliant on conformity ad their peers)

Question 6

Evaluate Asch’s study in conformity

Answer 6

Lacks temporal validity

• study conducted during an anti-communist period, therefore this could be the reason for the high levels of conformity as people were scared to rebel - this may not reflect currently
• Penn investigated and found 1/396 conformed in a more recent study (which shows the inapplicability)
• repeats on youth on probation, and they found that conformity levels of high when the perceived costs of rebellion are high

Cultural differences
Smith investigated across different cultures and found conformity was 25% in individualistic and 37% in collectivist (showing you cannot apply Asch’s study to everyone as it was only done in America on individualist cultures)

Could have been independent behaviour
- may not have been due to conformity but genuine beliefs; only in 1/3 of trials was there a conforming response which means that 2/3’s of the time, they stuck to their initial judgement

Methodology was good

• Asch’s confederates were proved to be convincing: when conducted in a study with polarised sunglasses, the ppts still conformed despite not seeing the confederates
• therefore eliminates the acting ability of the confederates as an intervening/ extraneous variable

Question 7

Describe Zimbardo’s study into conformity to social roles (Stanford prison experiment)

Answer 7

Aim: to investigate the impact of social roles on behaviour (the aim was told to all the ppts)
Ppts: volunteers (24 males) who had been initially screened for physiological and psychological conditions - the most stable were assigned randomly to the role of the guard and the prisoner
- Gave the prisoners uniform and ID numbers which they were referred to for the duration (only allowed 3 meal times and 3 supervised toilet trips)
- the guards were given uniform, badges whistles and reflective sunglasses (prevent eye contact)
- the study was meant to last 2 weeks

Findings:

• guards became increasingly abusive to the prisoners (perform sexually degrading acts with each other, cleaning toilets with their bare hands)
• some guards became so enthusiastic that they volunteered to do overtime (without pay)
• prisoners were passive and asked for parole rather than withdrawal (engrossed within the experiment)
• some prisoners were released early due to extreme reactions and study terminated after 6 days (by Zimbardo’s girl)
• demonstrates the conformity

Question 8

Evaluate Zimbardo’s study

Answer 8

Research from Haslam (BBC):

• carried out a similar procedure to Zimbardo but found ppts did not conform automatically
• the prisoners worked collectively to challenge authority and the guards failed to identify with their role (reluctant to impose power)
• led to power shift and shut down
• therefore Zimbardo’s lacked temporal and cultural validity as the experiment could not be replicated

Unethical

• initially considered ethical because it met the guidelines (no deception and informed consent) but there was intensive psychological trauma
• however, Zimbardo should have acknowledged to stop it early due to the emotional distress but he did find no long lasting effects in his offered counselling/ debriefing sessions which took place for several years after

Positive applications

• Zimbardo argued the same effect was present in Abu Ghraib prison which is notorious for cruel treatment of prisoners
• he argued the abusers were influenced by situational factors such as lack of training, boredom and no accountability to high authority - given the opportunity to abuse power
• this can therefore be used to prevent abusive guards by getting rid of the potential situational factors

Disputed methodology

• powerful demand characteristics may have been the reason for it - researchers gave info to university students with no recognition of the study - they guessed the purpose
• However… Zimbardo did reduce them - arresting prisoners at their homes etc

Question 9

Describe Milgram’s initial study into situational variables affecting obedience

Answer 9

Aim: to see if situational variables will lead to extreme obedience
Ppts: males in a lab experiment (were all told it was to see how punishment effects learning)
Procedure: The experimenter was a confederate and so was the second male who was introduced as another volunteer. The two drew (fixed) ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ with the ‘teacher’ always being the real ppt
- teacher was told to administer increasingly strong electric shocks (fake) every time the learner got a Q wrong (continued up to 450V in 15V intervals)
- the learner would scream, pound on the walls until 300V where there would be no response (implying death)
- experimenter had a series of ‘prods’ to encourage the ppt to continue

Findings:

• initially, Milgram expected very few to go beyond 150V and 1/1000 would reach 450V
• shocking results: 65% of ppts continued to 450V (which had several warning labels), all participants reached 300V and only 12.5% stopped there (but had prods)

Question 10

Describe the situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram’s variations)

Answer 10

Proximity

• Obedience levels fell to around 40% when the teacher and the learner were in the same room
• in another variation, the teacher had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate - obedience fell to 30%
• if experimenter absent and gave instructions over the phone, there was more defiance and only 21% continued to the max shock level (some even only gave the smallest shock repeatedly, defying procedure)

Location
- Conducted in a lab in Yale university but when down in a run down office, obedience rates dropped slightly to 48% (to max level)

The Power of Uniform

• Bushman found obedience is influenced by uniform: when in uniform 72% of pedestrians listened to their instruction (giving money to someone) 52% obeyed the beggar
• When the experimenter wore jeans in Milgram’s experiment, obedience dropped to 20%

Question 11

Evaluate Milgram’s study

Answer 11

Ethical issues
- Milgram had a lack of concern for the wellbeing of the ppts: deceived them (meaning they couldn’t give conformed consent), he claimed the ppts had the right to withdraw but had a series of prods to make them feel as though they had no choice

Lack of realism

• People have learned to distrust psychologists because they know the true purpose of the study may be disguised
• the experimenter remained cool and distant when the learner screamed in pain leading ppt to believe there was no real pain (Perry discovered that many of Milgram’s ppts thought this - found that those who believed they were real shocks were more likely to disobey)

Application to genders:

• underestimate the importance of individual differences: common assumption that women would be more susceptible
• when he did have an all female condition: rate of obedience was exactly the same

Historical validity:
Believed that obedience may vary and the researcher conducted statistical analysis and found no difference across time
- Burger did a 2009 experiment and the results were almost identical

Question 12

Describe the agentic state as an explanation of obedience (situation)

Answer 12

Agentic state: obedient individual sees themselves as not being responsible for their own actions but attribute responsibility to someone else (normally an authority figure)

• moves into an autonomous state (Milgram’s ppts claimed they shocked because they were told to do so - feels responsible for listening to authority but not for the behaviour itself)
• shifting responsibility (agentic shift)

Happens because they need to maintain a positive self-image by doing as requested - however, once moved into the agentic state, it no longer reflects self-image as no longer their responsibility (remain guilt free)

Bound to the situation: social etiquette regulating behaviour - they don’t want to appear arrogant and rude

Question 13

Describe legitimacy of authority an explanation for obedience (situation)

Answer 13

• requires an authority figure who is in a position of social control with the shared expectation that they are in control (experimenter in Milgram’s) - no consideration from personal characteristic
• although it is the participant who performs the act, he allows the authority figure to define its meaning (learner is in pain so he thinks he should quit but legitimate authority orders him to continue - they feel committed to figure so continues)
• Requires an institution: doesn’t have to be particularly reputable but requires something - high obedience in both Yale university and a run down office - category of institution rather than relative status that causes obedience

Question 14

Evaluate situational explanations for obedience

Answer 14

Both can be used to identify real-life atrocities:

• the holocaust
• American soldiers in My Lai (village of non- combatants) in Vietnamese war - told soldiers to murder the unarmed villagers - they carried out the command - all said they obeyed their superior officers

Agentic state false applications:
-Milgram claimed you shift back and forth to agentic and autonomous states - Lifton et al claimed it fails to explain the irreversible transitions of German doctors in Auschwitz - they changed from ordinary doctors to carrying out lethal experiments.
Staub et al suggested it was the experience of acting evil over time which caused it

Supporting test for legitimacy of authority:
- Tarnow investigated data of airline accidents, found that when the crew was responsible, it was usually because they had submitted to an authority figure (for example, the captain)

Alternative: dispositional:

• ignoring the effects of individual differences
• individuals may still refuse to obey

Question 15

Describe the authoritarian personality

Answer 15

• dispositional factors may cause obedience
• Adorno’s F-Scale: measured fascist views (obedience and respect for authority are the most important things, rules are made to be followed) - those who agreed had authoritarian personalities (saw the world in black and white, strict adherence to hierarchies and rules).
• Furthermore, those who had high F-Scale scores tended to be raised in an authoritarian parenting style (physical punishments, strong emphasis on obedience), children acquired the same through imitation

Right- wing authoritarianism:

• Conventional
• Authoritarian aggression (especially to lower class)
• Submission to authority
• Found that those who shocked highest had high RWA scores

Question 16

Describe Elm’s and Milram’s study into dispositional factors

Answer 16

Follow up study using ppts involved in Milgram’s original study

• 20 obedient and 20 defiant
• all completed a questionnaire measuring personality variables and F-scale to measure views (many open ended questions)
• Found that there was little difference between obedient/defiant on personality variables but there was high levels of authoritarianism
• obedient ppts reported being less close to their fathers/ negative terms but saw authority figures as admirable

Question 17

Evaluate the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience

Answer 17

Research

• debated that Milgram’s ppts may have been suspicious of shocks but when done using simulations (knew shocks were fake), there was still a clear correlation between RWA scores and obedience
• although use of self reports is indicative of response bias

Social context
- Milgram accepted some dispositional basis but he believed situation was more significant as he found certain social situations skewed the obedience rates significantly - authoritarianism wouldn’t explain the variation results

Individual differences
- some of the ppts claimed they came from loving families etc but still obeyed - heavily unlikely that all the participants had strict upbringings

Education - Meleon

• less educated people are consistently more authoritarian
• therefore education could be responsible for authoritarianism as well as obedience

Question 18

Evaluate social support as resistance to social influence

Answer 18

• real life applications: Rosentrasse, German women rebelled for Jew partners, all supported each other despite death threats until Jews set free
• doesn’t have to be valid to be effective: Levine conducted a visual task and even when support was from someone with thick glasses (poor visibility), still was effective (although in the condition with a valid supporter, there was a high reduction in obedience)

Question 19

Describe locus of control

Answer 19

Locus of control: refers to a persons perception of personal control over own behaviour
High internal: believes that what happens is a consequence of their own behaviour (rely less on other opinions, therefore more resistant)
High external: believed what happens is highly governed by external forces (fate)- tend to be more passive and fatalistic, less likely to take responsibility and likely to accept influence of others

High internals tend to resist social influence as they are:

• active seekers of information that is useful to them so less vulnerable to other opinions and other influence
• more achievement orientated and more likely to be leaders rather than follow
• better able to rests coercion from others (internals able to resist interrogators to gain info, more intense pressure greater difference between internal and external)

Question 20

Evaluate locus of control

Answer 20

Support
-Holland et al ; meta analysis - external are less likely to resist. In Milgrams: 23% resisted whereas internals=37% resistance

Locus of control only relates to normative social influence

• externals will give into normative but internals will not
• however both are equally likely to give into informational (active seekers of knowledge)

Contradictory research: Twenge; resistance in America increased but external also increased which doesn’t support central assumption

Question 21

Describe the process of minority influence

Answer 21

Minority influence creates a conversion process if they follow specific approaches - these make majority understand minority position

Consistency:

• majority will initially think minority is in error. However, if they are consistent, provokes majority to reassess the situation ( synchronic - within group and diachronic - for some time)
• Wood et al carried out a meta-analysis of 97 studies and found that the minorities who were perceived as consistency were most influential

Commitment:

• Difficult to dismiss the minority when it adopts and uncompromising/consistent commitment to the position
• suggests certainty and confidence, they will be taken more seriously

Flexibility;

• more effective at changing majority
• minority; typically powerless so they must negotiate their positions - rigid appears narrow
• too flexible means they may appear inconsistent

Question 22

Describe Moscovici’s key study into minority influence

Answer 22

• each group consisted of 4 ppts and 2 confederates (who acted as minority)
• shown series of blue slides and were asked to judge the colour
• confederates repeatedly called them green (consistent condition) and only a couple times in the ‘inconsistent’ and no confeds in control
• Found that when they consistently said ‘green’ , they influenced on 8% of trials

Question 23

Evaluate research into minority influence

Answer 23

• research support for flexibility- Nemeth and Brilmayer: simulated jury arguing whether compensation should be paid to someone in a ski-lift incident. When confederate put forward alternative POV and refused to change their mind, no effect on group member, when they compromised, they did exert influence
• valuable: Nemeth et al showed that minority opinions tend to open minds; considering more options, being more creative and making between decisions (research showed that groups were better when exposed to minority exposure)
  HOWEVER… Nemeth still claims that minority find it difficult to convince and it is only on the surface - we may become quickly irritated by it and attempt to belittle/ try to contain

Tipping point
- Xie et al found that in a computer model of social networks where individuals were free to chat others - each individual had a traditional view and when confronted with an alternative view, they initially rejected and moved on. If the second individual had the same alternate view (demonstrating consistency), the listened adopted. The percentage of holders to ‘tip’ majority was just 10%.

Question 24

Describe the process of social change in minority

Answer 24

• Drawing attention to the issue: bringing attention to the majority (e.g. women were denied the same voting rates as men)
• Cognitive conflict: majority will think deeply about the conflict (suffragettes created conflict)
• Consistency: consistent position despite opinions; suffragettes lobbied etc
• Augmentation principle: minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they would be taken more seriously (willing to risk imprisonment etc) - more powerful
• Snowball effect: minority influence has a small effect but then it spreads more widely and more people consider it - leads to wide-scale social change as minority will slowly become majority (and people don’t want to be in the minority) e.g. suffragettes allowed to vote
• social cryptomnesia; they don’t know if there was social change
• social change may be encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority is doing
• gradual commitment

Question 25

Evaluate social change research

Answer 25

Research for minority (Nemeth)

• Barriers to social change (Bashir et al) - people often resist social change despite secretly agreeing - they don’t want to be associated with stereotypes - care about environment but don’t want to be called tree gingers
• some mechanisms involved in social change may reinforce the stereotypes so we should avoid this

Methodology: explanations of social change draw heavily in lab experiments

Question 26

Describe process of social change through majority influence (conformity)

Answer 26

Social norm interventions

• Perkins et al suggested that was normative influence as individuals want to change their behaviour to fit into the norm
• gap between the perceived and actual norms is ‘misperceptions’ - and correcting these is through social norms interventions
• these may be by communicating the actual norms to the target population but advertising it so that people moderate their own behaviour