Paper 1: Social Influence

Question 1

(AO1) Outline Milgram’s (1963) study

Answer 1

Aim: Investigate wether ordinary people obey unjust order from authority fig. and inflict pain/injure innocent

Method: 40 male US students recruited newspaper ad. Volunteers paid $4.50.
Lab Yale uni. met experimenter and another participant (confederate). ‘Drew lots’ see who assign what, but always got ‘teacher’. Inflict electric shock ‘learner’ aka ‘Mr Wallace’. when make mistake recalling words.
‘Learner’ strapped in chair next door. Starting 15 volts to 450 volts. 300 volts learner bang on wall + complain. 315+ no response.
Continued to refusal or full 450. ‘the experiment requires that you continue’.

Results: all ppts. went least 300 volts + 65% continued to 450. In addition to quantitive, qualitative aberrations show sign distress: sweating, stuttering…

Conclusion: Ordinary obey to unjust orders from someone seem to be authority figure.

Question 2

(AO1) what is meant by agentic state?

Answer 2

• suggests socialised from very young age to follow rules of society, but need surrender some free will.
• when person acting independently = autonomous state. Opposite is agent state.
• carrying order of authority figure as their ‘agent’, little personal responsibility.
• Shifting from autonomy to agency = ‘agentic shift’

Question 3

(AO1) Agentic state in relation to Milgrams (1963) study?

Answer 3

• 65% administered 450, arguably in agentic state.
• variation additional confederate administered shocks on behalf of teacher. Administration of 450 rose to 92.5% highlighting power of agentic shift, as other acting as ‘agent’.

Question 4

(AO1) What is meant by legitimacy of authority in relation to Milgrams study?

Answer 4

• Listening to experimenter = recognising legitimate authority of researcher.
• Originally at Yale, but when done run down building, Bridgeport Connecticut obedience drop to 47.5%.
• Power of authority diminished

Question 5

(AO1) Obedience: Proximity?

Answer 5

• Situational variable affecting obedience referring how close to some1 or something. e.g. how close teacher was to learner, teacher to experimenter
• Milgram, variation were teacher + learner in same room. Levels drop from 65% to 40%.
• Experimenter leave room + instructions over phone, 20.5%.

Question 6

(AO1) Obedience: Location?

Answer 6

• run down building, Bridgeport
• 65% to 47.5%
• Location create atmosphere of respect

Question 7

(AO1) Obedience: Uniform?

Answer 7

• Milgrams, experimenter wore white lab coat indicating status as Yale professor/scientist.
• Variation = experimenter called away + replaced from confederate in normal clothes pretending ordinary member of public. Increase V every mistake idea. 65% to 20%

Question 8

(AO1) What is meant by authoritarian personality relating to key psychologist?

Answer 8

• dispositional (internal) factors contribute obedience. Personality associated higher levels obedience.
• Adorno (1950) = foundations personality in early childhood. Love parents conditional + depend on how behave. Resentment for child. label others as ‘weak’ or ‘inferior’ = scapegoating

Question 9

(AO1) Outline Key study: Adorno et al. (1950)

Answer 9

Aim: 2,000 middle-class, Caucasian Americans find unconscious views towards other racial groups.

Method: develop questionnaires i.e. F-scale, measuring facist tendencies. (thought core authoritarian personality)
e.g. ‘Obedience and respect for authority are most important virtues children should learn’, ‘homosexuals hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished’

Findings: High F-scales and others self-report identifying with ‘strong’ people, showing disrespect ‘weak’. + status conscious, excessive respect to higher power. Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism + prejudice.

Conclusion: Those with personality more obedient authority + extreme submissiveness/respect. Uncomfortable with uncertainty - everything right/wrong, no ‘grey areas’. Inflexible attitude. Society need strong leadership.

Question 10

(AO3) For authoritarian personality?

Answer 10

1) support - Milgram/Elms (1966), conducted post-expert. interviews those fully obedient with links authoritarian personality. Scored higher on F-scale. Vice versa. Close to fathers during childhood + admired experimenter. Obedient in Milgram more authoritarian.
2) Indivi. diff. - e.g. found less educated people more likely than well educated display personality. If correct can conclude not personality characteristics alone, but also education.
3) Metho. criticisms with measures determining… - F-scale may suffer response bias or social desirability, ppts provide answers socially acceptable. e.g. may appear more as believe answers more socially correct - incorrectly classified as authoritarian. Reduce internal validity of F-scale.
4) F-scale political bias - highlight weakness f only measuring right-wing, ignoring role in left-wing e.g. Maoism, Bolshevism etc. Presents bias at core of autho. Limitation of Adorno’s theory, scale not account for diverse pol. range.

Question 11

(AO1) What is meant by social support in terms of resistance to social influence?

Answer 11

• have ally = build confidence + remain individual
• No longer fear being ridiculed avoiding normative social influence
• if dissenter return to confirm so does naive ppt., only ST.
• Less likely to obey if other present

Question 12

(AO3) For social support?

Answer 12

1) Support - Milgrams (1974) variation ppt. paired 2 confeds. also teachers. Refused to go on + withdrew. 65% to 10%. If real ppt. has desire to stop, support help disobey.
2) Support - Asch (1951) 1 confed. give right answer throughout. Rate conformity dropped to 5%. If social support for real belief = more resistance. social sup. make easier demonstrate indivi. behaviour.

Question 13

(AO1) What is meant by Locus of control in terms of resistance to social influence?

Answer 13

• Rotter (1966) proposed idea = extent which people believe have own control over lives
• Internal locus = what happens in life largely fault of own behaviour + have control over life (easier resist pressure obey)
• External locus = what happens by external factors + not complete control over life. (more likely succumb to pressure/less independent).

Question 14

(AO3) For Locus of control?

Answer 14

1) Support internal - 157 students those with high internal on Rotters scale less likely conform than those high external, but only situations normative social. (conform to be accepted). Suggest normative (desire fit in) stronger than informative (desire be right).
2) Support internal - interview non-Jewish survivors comparing resisting ones and conforming one Nazi’s. 406 ‘rescuers’ more likely internal compared 126 simply follow orders. High internal = less likely obey orders. CP: Many factors cause indivi. follow orders WWII so diff. conclude locus just 1.

CP for either: contradictory evidence = meta-analysis studies over 4 decades seen people becoming more external but also more resistant to obedience, incongruent rotters suggest. Challenges link high internal + resistance.

Question 15

(AO1) What is meant by consistency?

Answer 15

• Minority influence more likely occur when minority members share same belief + retain it over time
• This then draws the attention of the majority group to the minority position

Question 16

(AO1) Outline the key study (Moscovici, 1969) for minority influence in terms on consistency.

Answer 16

Aim: wether consistent minority influence majority give incorrect answer, in colour perception task.

Method: 172 female ppts. told colour perception. 6 groups + shown 36 slides, variating shades blue + shout out loud colour.
2/6 confeds. & in one condition (consistent) said all 36 green; in second condition (inconsistent) 24 = green + 12 = blue.

Findings: consistent real agreed 8.2%, whereas other 1.25%.

Conclusion: Consistent minority 6.95% more effective than a non. + consistency importuning exerting minority influence.

Question 17

(AO1) What is meant by commitment?

Answer 17

• Minorities sometimes engage in risky/extreme behaviour to grab attention
• Important to show commitment to cause = augmentation principle. Minority argument its importance cause personal sacrifice made.

Question 18

(AO1) What is meant by flexibility?

Answer 18

• Minority influence more likely occur when minority willing compromise. cannot be viewed as dogmatic + unreasonable.

Question 19

(AO1) Outline the key study (Nemeth, 1986) for minority influence in terms on flexibility.

Answer 19

Aim: Investigate as key factor for successful minorities who exert pressure.

Method: ppts. groups 4 agree on how much compensation give to victim of ski-lift acc. 1 ppt each group confederate + two conditions:

1) When minority argue low rate compensation + refuse change pos.(inflexible)
2) minority argue low rate compensation, but compromise offer slightly higher (flexible)

Results: inflexible cond., minority little/no effect on majority; flexible - major members more likely compromise + change view.

Conclusion: striking a balance between the two (flexibility + consistency) is the most successful strategy for a minority to adopt.

Question 20

(AO3) For minority influence?

Answer 20

1) Used biased sample 172 female ppt from US. - unable generalise e.g. males + not conclude they respond same way. further, research females more likely conform than males therefore more research needed. Low pop. validity.
2) Breaching ethical guidelines - deceived ppts thought taking part colour… Not fully get informed consent. CP: Needed for experiment. Cost-benefit approach needed. May displayed demand characteristics. Worth ST cost that could be dealt with debrief.
3) Method. issues - judging colour slide artificial, lacks mundane realism. Too farm from real minority e.g. political campaigning. Grossly disproportionate from lab. Lacks external val.
4) Support for informative social influ. - Variation asked write down rather than shout. Response private. Agreement minority higher = internalised viewpoint as true + correct. suggests majority convinced of minority’s argument but easier privately - being associated with minority position ‘radical’?

Question 21

(AO3) For Agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Answer 21

1) Support for role of agentic state - Bass & Schmit (2001) asked students to watch footage and suggest who was responsible for ‘harm’. They named the experimenter. Shows white lab coat = legitimate authority.
2) Cult diff. - Australia (16%) and Germany (85%)
3) not fully explaining why - e.g. because of uniform e.g. Backman NYC. Not work on own
4) Used explain real crimes - e.g. Nazis. Before army autonomous state. Moved to agentic. Hitler legitimate authority. Why kill jews, hITLER TOLD SO. Two theories can be applied

Question 22

(AO3) For situational factors

Answer 22

1) inform - Bickman. CP: Extranoes variables
2) Internal validity Milgrams study (Orne and Holldand,1968)
3) Praise methodological - systematically one by one
4) Findings support situational. Proximity, location and uniform. Criticised for giving ‘obedience’ alibi e.g. holocaust - removes personal responsibility. Anyone else behave in same way. Situation can’t be used adequealtey explain.