Social

Question 1

Types of conformity

Answer 1

Herbert Kelman (1958) suggested that there are three ways in which people conform to the opinion of a majority

Question 2

Types of conformity - what is internalisation?

Answer 2

Applies to informational explanation of conformity. It occurs when a person genuinely accepts group norms. This results in a private as well as a public change in opinion and behaviour.
Change is usually permanent as attitudes have become internalised so it becomes a part of the way they think.
The change in opinion or behaviour persists even in the absence of the group so it’s the strongest form of conformity.
Study - sheriff Example - Woolworths 1979

Question 3

Types of conformity - identification

Answer 3

Conforming to social roles.
Sometimes we conform to the behaviours and opinions of a group as we value something about the group. We identify with the group so we want to be part of it.
This may mean we publicly change our opinions and behaviours to be accepted by the group even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for.
For example when someone conforms to the demands of a social role in society
Study - Zimbardo. Example- Abu Graib

Question 4

Types of conformity - what is compliance?

Answer 4

It applies to the normative explanation for conformity.
Change behaviour but not mind, knows what their doing is wrong ‘going along with others’ in public but privately not changing opinions and behaviour.
Results in superficial change and means a particular behaviour or opinion stops as soon as the group pressure stops. Change in peoples expressed view is temporary.
Study - Asch - ptps comply in public and answer incorrectly but in private did not agree with answer given.

Question 5

Explanations for conformity

Answer 5

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory arguing that there are two main reasons people conform. Based on two central human needs - the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (NSI)

Question 6

Explanations for conformity - normative social influence (NSI)

Answer 6

Changing your behaviour to be liked/ fit in with a group. It’s about norms or typical behaviour of the group and we pay attention to them to gain social approval and to not be rejected. So NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process. It leads to a temporary change in opinions/behaviour (compliance)
More likely to occur with strangers and people you know as most concerned about rejection and social approval of our friends.
More pronounced in stressful situations as people have greater need for social support.
Study - asch

Question 7

Explanations for conformity - informational social influence (ISI)

Answer 7

The desire to be correct - when you are unsure what to do you follow the group and conform
Its about who has the better information- you or the rest of the group
We follow the majority or the group because we want to be right
Occurs when we lack knowledge or expertise about the correct way to act in an ambiguous situation
It’s a cognitive process as its to do with what you think and leads to permanent change in mind and behaviour.
Also occurs in crisis situations where decisions need to be made quickly and assume group is more likely to be right.
Study -sheriff

Question 8

A03: research support for NSI

Answer 8

Evidence supports it as an explanation for conformity. For example when Asch (1951) interviewed his participants, some said that they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%. This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure. Shows at least some conformity is due to desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them. (NSI)
However it may not always predict conformity as McGee and Teevan (1967) found student nAffiliators are more likely to conform as they want to relate to other people.

Question 9

A03: research support for ISI

Answer 9

Todd Lucas et al (2006) found ptps conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the ptps ‘knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous. The ptps did not want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given. Shows ISI is valid explanation for conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
Counter - often unclear whether NSI or ISI at work in research studies or in real life. Eg Asch 1955 found conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant. The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (social support)or reduce the power of ISI (alternative source of social information). So hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real- world conformity situations.

Question 10

A03: is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?

Answer 10

One reason is, it may not be useful is because it’s difficult to tell which one is operating eg Lucas et als findings could be due to NSI or ISI or both. However Aschs research demonstrates both ISI and NSI as reasons for conformity. For instance in terms of group unanimity a unanimous group is a powerful source of disapproval. The possibility of rejection is a strong reason for conforming (NSI). But it’s also true that a unanimous group coveys the impression that everyone is ‘in the know’ part from you (ISI).

Question 11

A03: limitation- individual differences in NSI

Answer 11

NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others. Such people are called nAffiliators- have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ so want to relate to other people. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were likely to conform. Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.

Question 12

Sherif (1935) - support for ISI

Answer 12

Tried to show that people conform to group norms when they’re performing ambiguous tasks. He used the autokinetic effect and ptps were led to believe someone was moving the light and were asked to guess how far the light moved.
They were asked this twice alone and in a group. Half the ptps were asked in a group then alone and the other half were asked alone and in a group. (Counterbalancing)
Found when asked alone first ptps changed their answers the second time to fit with the group. But when asked in group first they would stick to groups answer when asked alone. Shows informational social influence.

Question 13

Sherif evaluation

Answer 13

• supports ISI as when unsure of what to do ptps goes along with group. Shows internalisation as when given opportunity to change opinion away from group didn’t.
• only male ptps - not generalisable - low population validity
• low ecological validity - artificial situation so not natural so can’t be generalised to real-life situations.
• deception - ethical issue as ptps believed stationary light was moving
• variables controlled in lab - method replicable as ptps variables controlled and kept constant. 3rd variable should not have influenced results and should be able to establish cause and effect.

Question 14

Asch (1951) - support for NSI

Answer 14

Devised a procedure to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others even in a situation where the answer is certain so unambiguous .

Question 15

Aschs baseline procedure and findings

Answer 15

A lab experiment to investigate if people would conform even if they knew the answer. 123 male American ptps were tested.
Groups of 6-8 student male ptps looked at two cards on the test card was one vertical line and the other showed 3 vertical lines of different lengths. The ptps had to call which line matched the length of the test line. The answer was obvious.
All the ptps except one were accomplices to the experimenter and the genuine ptp called the answer 2nd to last.
Findings - ptp conformed to wrong answer 36.8% of the time, 72% conformed at least once and 26% never conformed.

Question 16

Asch baseline - post experimental interviews

Answer 16

Some ptps said they thought it was the right answer or did not want to be minority or thought they were wrong. - normative social influence or informational pressures doubting themselves. Even in the ambiguous situation there was still strong group pressure to conform.

Question 17

Variables investigated by asch - variables affecting conformity

Answer 17

Asch (1955) extended his baseline study to investigate the variables that might lead to an increase or a decrease in conformity

Question 18

Factors/variables affecting conformity - Asch (1955) - group size

Answer 18

Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. To test this he varied the number of confederates from 1 - 15 ( so the group size was 2- 16). He found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity.
- 1 ptp and 1 confederate = low/none conformity to wrong answer
- 1 ptp and 2 confederates = 13% conformity to wrong answer
- 1 ptp and 3 confederates = 32 % conformity to wrong answer
Conformity increased with group size but only up to a point. Adding extra confederates from 3 had no more increase in conformity. - conformity rate levelled off.
Suggests that most people are very sensitive to the views of others because just two confederates were enough to sway opinion.

Question 19

Factors/variables affecting conformity - Asch (1955) - unanimity

Answer 19

Asch wondered if the presence of a non-conforming person would affect the naive ptps conformity. His original study had unanimity as all confederates have wrong answers. This time he introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates.
One variation of the study this person gave the correct answer and in another he gave a different wrong answer.
Ptp conformed less often in presence of a dissenter as rate decreased to less than a quarter of original level. Presence of a dissenter freed ptp to behave more independently. True even when dissenter disagreed with genuine ptp.
Conformity rates decline when majority influence is not unanimous therefore conformity drops if an individual goes against majority - called a social supporter or group dissenter and conformity drops to 5.5%.

Question 20

Factors/variables affecting conformity - Asch (1955) - task difficulty

Answer 20

Asch wanted to know whether making the task more difficult would affect the degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the line-judging task and made stimulus line and comparison lines more similar to each other in length so it was harder for genuine ptps to see the differences between the lines.
Conformity increased as situation is ambiguous and answer is less clear. People look to other people for guidance and assume they are right and you are wrong. (ISI)
Greater conformity rates as task difficulty increases people look to others for guidance and this leads to informational social influence occurring.

Question 21

A03: Asch Low ecological validity

Answer 21

The task and situation were artificial. Ptps knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with what was expected (demand characteristics). The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and therefore there was really no reason to conform. Also, according to Susan Fiske (2014) ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’ ie they did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life. This means the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important.

Question 22

A03: Asch has research support

Answer 22

Todd Lucas et al (2006) asked their ptps to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Ptps were given answers from three other students (not actually real). The ptps conformed more often (ie agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder. Shows asch was correct in claiming task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.
Counter - However Lucas et als study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. Ptps with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence. Shows that an individual- level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables (eg task difficulty). But asch did not research the roles of individual factors.

Question 23

A03: Asch study has limited application - low population validity and culture bias

Answer 23

The sample was all American men so a limited sample so can’t generalise - low population validity. Other research suggests that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are concerned about social relationships and being accepted - Neto (1995)
Furthermore, the US is an individualist culture (ie where people are more concerned about themselves rather than their social groups). Similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures (such as china where the social group is more important than the individual) have found that conformity rates are higher (Bond and Smith 1996). This means Aschs findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures.

Question 24

A03: Asch study has ethical issues - deception

Answer 24

Asch’s research increased our knowledge of why people conform, which may help avoid mindless destructive conformity. The naive ptps were deceived because they thought the other people involved in the procedure (the confederates) were also genuine ptps like themselves. However, it is worth bearing in mind that is ethical cost should be weighed up against the benefits gained from the study.

Question 25

Zimbardo (1973) conformity to social roles - Stanford prison experiment procedure

Answer 25

Set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford Univeristy. 21 male student volunteers well adjusted and healthy paid $15 a day. Volunteers randomly allocated to the roles of prisoner or guards. Local police ‘arrested’ the prisoners at their homes without warning. They were taken, blindfolded to the ‘prison’ stripped and sprayed with disinfectant, given smocks and caps and their prison number to memorise. From then on they were only referred to by number - de-individualised them so making them more likely to conform. Three guards on each shift who wore khaki uniforms, dark glasses and carried wooden batons. No physical aggression was permitted. Prisoners also told rather than leaving study early they could ‘apply for parole’. Guards encouraged to play role as reminded they had complete power over the prisoners.

Question 26

Zimbardo (1973) - findings

Answer 26

- the guards harassed and humilated the prisoners and conformed to their perceived roles with such zeal that the study had to be discontinued after six days although it had been planned to last two weeks. - prisoners rebelled against the guards after only two days. Guards quelled the rebellion using fire extinguishers. - some prisoners became depressed and anxious - one prisoner had to be released after only one day. Two more prisoners had to be released on the fourth day. By day 6, prisoners were submissive to the guards. - the guards used ‘divide and rule’ tactics playing the prisoners off against each other. They had harassed the prisoners constantly to remind them of the powerlessness of their role eg they conducted frequent head counts sometimes at night. - the guards force fed a prisoner on hunger strike and put him in isolation in a tiny dark closet.

Question 27

Zimbardo (1973) - conclusions

Answer 27

Social roles have a strong influence on individual’s behaviour. The guards became more brutal and the prisoners became submissive. Role were very easily taken on by ptps. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions such as ‘prison chaplain’ found themselves behaving as if they were in prison rather than in a psychological study. The situation of the ‘prison environment’ was an important factor in creating the guards brutal behaviour. The roles that people play shape their attitudes and behaviour. If it took only 6 days you alter the behaviour of ptps in the study then the roles we play in real life will have an even more far-reaching effects.

Question 28

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - lack of informed consent

Answer 28

Participants were not told they would be arrested the night before, but it was a last minute decision

Question 29

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - protection from harm

Answer 29

Savin (1973) study humiliated participants and had huge emotional and behavioural effects so had to stop study after six days. But Zimbardo did follow ups over many years that revealed no lasting negative effects.

Question 30

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - deception

Answer 30

Not told they would be arrested by dragging out of homes, made them feel foolish and humiliated. Decided to arrest last minute and considers experiment to be essential in scientific study of behaviour.

Question 31

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - right to withdraw

Answer 31

One prisoner asked to leave but felt pressure to return to the group so others thought they could not leave but told they could withdraw in a brief and debrief.

Question 32

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - brief, debrief and confidentiality

Answer 32

Zimbardo debriefed and briefed participants and kept confidentiality

Question 33

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - high internal validity

Answer 33

As Zimbardo and colleagues had control over variables. Participants were selected as emotionally stable individuals so researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. if guards and prisoners behaved very differently but were in those rules only by chance then their behaviour must’ve been due to the role itself.

Question 34

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - low ecological validity and low population validity

Answer 34

As all male students so can’t be generalised and applied to real life situations. Only done on 21 American students.

Question 35

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - prison lacked realism

Answer 35

Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggest participants were just play acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. Guard based his role on a character from the film cool hand Luke. Prisoners rioted because they thought this is what real prisoners did. This suggests that the experiment tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons. Counter - McDermott (2019) argued ptps did behave as if the prison was real eg 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life and prisoner 416 believes it was a real prison run by psychologists instead of the government. This suggests the experiment replicated the roles of Guard and prisoner just like in a real prison, increasing internal validity.

Question 36

Zimbardo (1973) - conformity to social roles - AO3 - zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles

Answer 36

The power of social roles influence and behaviour may have been exaggerated in the Stanford prison experiment (Fromm 1973). Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggests that the Stanford prison experiment overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences Eg personality

Question 37

Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority

Answer 37

Societies are structured in a hierarchal way so people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. The authority is legitimate as agreed by society. It is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others. Individuals are socialised to accept the power and status of authority figures eg parents, teachers and police officers. One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others. The higher up the social hierarchy the more perceived authority a person has and more likely they are to be obeyed. Destructive authority - when legitimate authority becomes destructive eg in milgrams study or powerful leaders eg hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and make people behave in cruel ways

Question 38

Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - its a useful account for cultural differences in obedience

Answer 38

Kilham and Mann (1974) found 16% of Australian women went to 450V but mantell (1971) found in German ptps it was 85%. Different society structure and upbringing

Question 39

Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - evidence to support

Answer 39

Hofling (1966) a field experiment on obedience in the nurse- physician relationship. In the natural hospital setting it was arranged for a unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask each of them (alone) to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list (‘Astroten’). 95% of the nurses (21 out of 22) started to administer the drug (they were prevented from continuing). The nurses obeyed without question.

Question 40

Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - it can’t explain all disobedience - rank and Jacobson 1977

Answer 40

Replicated hoflings experiment but were told to administer Valium a real drug the nurses were familiar with and the doctors name was known to the nurses and they all had the chance to discuss the order with each other. 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed. Doctor was the authority figure. Limitation of agentic shift and legitimacy of authority.

Question 41

Explanations of obedience - legitimate authority - AO3 - real life evidence of legitimacy of authority leading to destructive obedience

Answer 41

Jonestown - November 18th 1978 - 909 died as the leader Jim Jones’s of Christian based cult peoples temple ordered to drink poison ‘kool-aid’. Those who didn’t commit suicide were injected with poison or shot. A third of those who died were children. The members of the group lived in Jonestown and worked long days and had harsh punishments if questioned jones authority. He said the suicide was due to the US government and others being out to destroy him - they had mock suicide drills Massacre at Mylai - 1968 in Vietnam war 504 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers. Women gang - raped, people shot when leaving homes with arms up. Soldiers blew up and burnt buildings and killed all the animals. One soldier found guilty Lt William calley whose defence was that he was doing his duty and following orders.

Question 42

Explanations of obedience - agentic state

Answer 42

Where an individual obeys and authority figure who is seen as responsible for their actions. The individual behaves as an agent of another person as they pass the responsibility of their actions onto those giving the orders eg Eichmann in charge of Nazi death camps says he was just obeying orders. Individuals become de - individualised so lose their individuality and obey orders that go against their moral code. Autonomous state - opposite of agenic state individuals are seen as personally responsible for their actions. The shift from autonomy to agency is called agentic shift. Milgram 1974 suggest it occurs when someone perceives someone else as authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in social hierarchy. Eg in milgrams study ptps asked who is responsible for this man and experimenter said ‘I am responsible’ meaning they then gave more shocks. Binding factors - aspects of the situation that allows the person to ignore minimise the damaging effect with their behaviour and reduce the ‘ moral strain’ they feel.

Question 43

Explanations of obedience - agentic state - AO3 - limitation doesn’t explain Rank and Jacobson where dr is authority figure

Answer 43

Replicated hoflings experiment but were told to administer Valium a real drug the nurses were familiar with and the doctors name was known to the nurses and they all had the chance to discuss the order with each other. 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed. Doctor was the authority figure. Limitation of agentic shift and legitimacy of authority.

Question 44

Explanations of obedience - agentic state - AO3 - support from hofling as drs authority figure

Answer 44

Hofling (1966) a field experiment on obedience in the nurse- physician relationship. In the natural hospital setting it was arranged for a unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask each of them (alone) to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list (‘Astroten’). 95% of the nurses (21 out of 22) started to administer the drug (they were prevented from continuing). The nurses obeyed without question.

Question 45

Explanations of obedience - agentic state - AO3 - real life examples

Answer 45

Massacre at Mylai - 1968 in Vietnam war 504 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers. Women gang - raped, people shot when leaving homes with arms up. Soldiers blew up and burnt buildings and killed all the animals. One soldier found guilty Lt William calley whose defence was that he was doing his duty and following orders. The commander is the authority figure.

Question 46

Explanations of obedience - agentic shift - A03 - support from milgram

Answer 46

Most of milgrams ptps asked the ‘experimenter’ who is responsible for this man if he is harmed (mr Wallace). When the experimenter replied ‘I am responsible’ the ptps when through with the procedure quickly without objecting. This shows ptps acted more easily as an agent when they were not responsible for their behaviour.

Question 47

Explanations for obedience - authoritarian personality

Answer 47

Dispositional explanation- the perception of behaviour as caused by the internal characteristics of the individual. Adorno et al (1950) believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder and tried to find its causes in the individuals personality. Authoritarian personality (fromm 1941) - a personality type characterised in the belief in absolute obedience, submission to authority and domination of minorities. Sees personality traits as being associated with obedience. People with authoritarian personality show contempt for those inferior social status. People who are ‘ other’ minority groups are responsible for the ills in society. They follow orders without question whatever the consequences and who admire and respect powerful authority figures. They have rigid beliefs , intolerant of uncertainty or change, hostile to minorities but submissive to those in authority. They are very conformist, concerned with status and upholding convention. Tend to be very obedient towards people they see as having a higher status than them but treat those ‘ below‘ them with contempt.

Question 48

Explanations of obedience - authoritarian personality - where it originates from

Answer 48

Forms in childhood through harsh parenting - extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism. It is also characterised by conditional love - parents love depends entirely on how their child behaves These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child , but they cannot express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear reprisals. The feelings are displaced onto others who are weaker - scapegoating. This is a psychodynamic explanation.

Question 49

Explanations of obedience - authoritarian personality - Adorno et al 1950

Answer 49

The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans. Measured AP using the F-scale = fascist scale (rated on a scale of 1-6 where 6 = agree strongly) items included - obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn. - there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents Authoritarians (who scored high on the f-scale and other measures) identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’. They were conscious of their own and other status showing excessive respect and deference to those of higher status. They had black and white categories of people and have fixed and distinctive stereotypes of other groups.

Question 50

Explanations of obedience - authoritarian personality- AO3 – evidence authoritarians are obedient

Answer 50

Elms and milgram 1966 interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from milgrams original studies. They scored significantly higher on the f-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient ptps. This suggests obedient people may share may of the characteristics of people with an authoritarian personality. Counter – however subscales of the F scale showed that obedient ptps had characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians. Eg they did not experience high levels of punishment in childhood. This suggests a complex link and means authoritarianism is not a useful predictor of obedience.

Question 51

Explanations of obedience - authoritarian personality- AO3 – authoritarianism can’t explain a whole country’s behaviour

Answer 51

Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour but can’t all have had the same personality. It seems unlikely the majority of Germany’s population had an authoritarian personality. More likely explanation is that Germans identified with the Nazi state. Therefore, social identity theory may be a better explanation.

Question 52

Explanations of obedience - authoritarian personality- AO3 – F-scale is politically biased

Answer 52

Christie and Jahoda 1954 suggest the F scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right wing ideology. But right wing and left wing authoritarianism eg Chinese Maoism both insist on complete obedience to political authority. Therefore Adornos theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism i.e. it is politically biased.

Question 53

Explanations of obedience - authoritarian personality- AO3 – questionnaire easily manipulated

Answer 53

Likely many people second-guess questions to avoid being authoritarian so limits effectiveness of theory. Highly educated people tend to score higher so could be more about how educated the person is rather than how authoritarian.

Question 54

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 aim

Answer 54

Study aimed to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure ordered a participant to give an increasing electric shock to a learner in another room.

Question 55

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 baseline procedure

Answer 55

Stanley Milgram recruited 40 American male participants supposedly for a study of memory.lab Experiment Each ptp Arrived at milgrams lab and drew lots for their role. A confederate ‘mr Wallace’ Was always the learner while the true participant was the teacher. And an experimenter who was another confederate wore a grey lab coat. Ptps were paid $4.50. The learner had to memorise pairs of words and would indicate choice through a system of lights and the teacher had to administer a shock every time the learner made a mistake. Participants watch the Confederate being strapped into a chair in an adjourning room with electrodes attached to his arms. To begin with learner answered correctly then began to make mistakes so the teacher electric shocked him starting at 15 V rising in 15 V increments to 450 V. If teacher hesitated, experimenter encouraged him to continue. No shock actually administered. Experiment stopped when teacher refused or 450 V reached. After participant was debriefed and taken to meet the learner/accomplice

Question 56

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 baseline findings

Answer 56

Every participant delivered all shocks up to 300 V 12.5% - 5 ptps stopped at 300 V = intense shocks. And 65% continued to the highest level of 450 V = fully obedient Qualitative data collected including observations such as, participants showed signs of extreme tension - many of them were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands. Three even had full blown uncontrollable seizures. Although they dissented verbally they continued however to obey the experimenter who prodded them to continue giving the shocks. Other findings – before the study milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they thought the naïve ptps would respond. The students estimated no more than 3% of ptps would go up to 450V (so baseline findings were unexpected). After the study the ptps were debrefied. Follow up questionnaire showed 84% were happy they participated.

Question 57

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 conclusions

Answer 57

Under certain circumstances most people will obey orders that go against their conscience. When people occupy a subordinate position in a dominance hierarchy they become liable to lose feelings of empathy, compassion and morality and are directed towards blind obedience. Atrocities such as those in WW2 may be largely explained in terms of pressure to obey a powerful authority – caused by situational factors not characteristics. Certain situational factors encourage obedience as milgram found in his variations.

Question 58

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 -ethics – informed consent

Answer 58

Ptps needed to be made aware of anything that might affect their willingness to participate. It was broken as participants did not know the true purpose of the experiment so could not give informed consent but it would affect results as would not of worried if he did not lie.

Question 59

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – ethics – deception

Answer 59

Participants needed to be told the aim of the study and participants did not know the purpose of the experiment and can the deception be justified. Participants feel used when learn true nature and how they have been deceived. But deception was essential for experiment to work and in debriefing reasons for deception were explained and the purpose of the study revealed.

Question 60

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – ethics – right to withdraw

Answer 60

Participant must be given the right withdraw from the study at any time and their data destroyed. The ptps were not told they had the right to withdraw and if they asked to withdraw or asked to stop researcher prompted them to keep going - Milgram completed a survey beforehand

Question 61

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – ethics – protection from harm

Answer 61

The risk should be no more than participants expect in every day life - physically and psychologically. The stress of carrying out instructors orders to continue giving shocks to the learner. Milgram 1963 recorded participants often trembled, stuttered and sweated. Long-term psychological effects of learning they had been willing to give potentially lethal shocks to other human beings. Milgram believed when they showed distress it wasn’t sufficient enough to stop the experiment. He arranged a psychiatrist to interview a sample of participants to see if any psychological damage could be detected – none was

Question 62

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – ethics – confidentiality and debriefing

Answer 62

Not broken

Question 63

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – low internal validity

Answer 63

Orne 1966 says it has low internal validity as the ptps were not really fooled. They were just playing along with the demand characteristics of the situation. Milgram replied that if the ptps weren’t really fooled why did they get so stressed? This would suggest that they thought the shocks were real. Orne said the stress came from having to play along with the situation. They didn’t really believe they were hurting mr Wallace. Milgram Said if they didn’t believe that mr Wallace was really getting hurt why did they ‘cheat’ when the experimenter was absent.

Question 64

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – external validity – low ecological validity –

Answer 64

Milgrams study involved a biazzare task and an artificial situation. People don’t really behave that way in real life. But hofling et al found that nurses would obey an order to hurt a patient. This shows that authority can make People do bad things. But the nurses were only doing their job. they thought it was for the patients benefit, and most didn’t notice the incorrect dosage. However Bickman 1975 showed that just wearing a uniform increases people’s obedience. That’s what milgram showed.

Question 65

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – external validity of milgram – low population validity

Answer 65

Milgram only used men in his research. That means we cannot generalise his results to women. We cannot wholly trust his results. But milgram did a later study with female ptps and found that the rate of obedience was the same as male samples of 65%. But milgram only used 40 females so small sample. Kilham and Mann 1974 found only 16% of females obeyed – less than the males in their study – 40%. This could be a freak finding. The experiment has been done many times and usually male and female don’t differ regardless of the culture of ptps.

Question 66

Research into obedience – milgram 1963 – AO3 – milgrams findings have been replicated in other cultures also for situational variables of obedience

Answer 66

Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986 used a more realistic procedure on Dutch ptps who were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate for a job – 90% of ptps obeyed – suggests milgrams findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men but are valid across cultures and women. Counter – however smith and bond 1998 note that most replications took place in societies eg Spain, Australia, culturally not that different from US. Therefore we cannot conclude that milgrams findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all (or most) cultures.

Question 67

Situational variables of obedience – proximity

Answer 67

The psychical distance individuals are from the consequences of being obedient. The greater the distance the less awareness of the consequences so the greater levels of obedience. In original study teacher and learner not in same room. Milgram (1974) in proximity variation found that obedience dropped from 65% to 40% when teacher and learner were in the same room. In touch proximity variation – milgram 1974 found obedience dropped to 30% when the teacher had to physically force the learners hand onto the shock plate. Remote – instruction variation the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience rate was 20.5% and ptps often pretended to give shocks. Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. Eg when teacher and learner physically separated the teacher was less aware of the harm done so was obedient.

Question 68

Situational variables of obedience- location

Answer 68

Can add or subtract to the legitimacy of authority figure. Obedience is higher in locations that add to legitimacy of authority figure and in institutionalised settings eg an army camp more than everyday life. Milgram may have got high obedience rates due to Yale Univeristy being a high status institution. Milgram 1974 found obedience rates dropped from 65% to 47.5% when the study was replicated in a run-down office block. However obedience still high in office block as ptps perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure.

Question 69

Situational variables of obedience – uniform

Answer 69

Adds further legitimacy to authority figure. Gives impression of legitimacy to authority figures so increases obedience. Milgrams researcher wore a grey lab coat to give perception of legitimacy of authority. Individuals are socialised to obey people in uniforms eg police officers rather than people in casual clothes. In one variation of milgrams study the experimenter was called away by a phone call at the beginning of the procedure and his role was taken over by an ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes and the obedience rate dropped by 20%. Uniforms are widely recognised as symbols of authority in society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience.

Question 70

Situational variables of obedience – uniform – support from Bickman 1974

Answer 70

He did a field experiment and he had 3 confederates dress in different outfits – jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guards uniform. The confederate individually stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. 33 % of individuals obeyed the jacket and tie but 89% obeyed the person dressed as a security guard. 37% obeyed the milkman. Supports situational variable of uniform – increases obedience Counter – study unethical as couldn’t gain ptps consent and lacked control of extraneous variables as a field experiment.

Question 71

Situational variables of obedience – AO3 – same as milgram baseline

Answer 71

Same as milgram – - Lacks internal validity - Lacks ecological validity - Low population validity – one culture - Replicated in other cultures

Question 72

Situational variables of obedience- AO3 – the danger of situational perspective

Answer 72

Milgrams conclusions suggest situational factors determine obedience. Mandel 1998 argues that this offers an excuse (alibi) for genocide. Situational explanations hugely oversimplify the causes of the holocaust and are offensive to survivors. This permits others to excuse destructive behaviour in term of ‘I was just obeying orders’.

Question 73

Resisting conformity – social support

Answer 73

Social support is the perception of assistance and solidarity available from others. The pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming. Dissenters who go against the majority provide social support and make it easier for individuals also to resist to social influence. Asch (1956) found a dissenter giving the correct answer reduced conformity from 32% to 5.5%. Simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a ‘model’ The dissenter shows the majority is no longer unanimous.

Question 74

Resisting conformity – locus of control

Answer 74

Rotter (1966) proposed locus of control and described internal versus external LOC. Internal LOC – believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves eg doing well or badly in an exam depends on how hard you work External LOC – believe things that happen are outside of their control eg if they fail an exam they say it was because they had a bad teacher or had bad luck because the questions were hard LOC continuum – not either external or internal, LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it. High internals are at one end and high externals at the other, low internals and low externals lie in-between. People with a high internal locus of control are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey - If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions (good and bad) they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs - People with high internal LOC are more confident, more achievement-orientated and have higher intelligence – traits that lead to greater resistance (also traits of leaders, who have less need for social approval)

Question 75

Resisting conformity – reactance

Answer 75

Rebellious anger produced by attempts to restrict freedom of choice reduces conformity (Hamilton 2005)

Question 76

Resisting conformity – status

Answer 76

Conformity is more able to be resisted if people perceive themselves as of higher status (Richardson 2009)

Question 77

Resisting obedience – systemic processing

Answer 77

If individuals have time to consider the consequences of obeying, they are more likely to disobey orders that have negative consequences (martin et al 2007) Consistent, committed and flexible minorities create systematic processing where individuals carefully consider the minority viewpoint

Question 78

Resisting obedience – personality

Answer 78

Individuals who are able to empathise are more likely to disobey orders that have negative consequences (Oliner and oliner 1988)

Question 79

Resisting obedience – social support/ dissenter/ role models

Answer 79

Pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey. Disobedient models provide social support by modelling that disobedient is possible could be seen as a form of conformity. Milgram research 1974 rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ptp was joined by a disobedient confederate. The ptp may not follow disobedient persons behaviour but the other persons disobedience act as a ‘model’ of dissent for the ptp to copy and frees them to act from own conscience. The disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure.

Question 80

Resisting obedience – locus of control

Answer 80

Rotter (1966) found People with high internal LOC are more able to resist social influence as they see themselves as having the choice to obey/ conform or not. If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (as internals do). They tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others.

Question 81

Resisting obedience – suppport the role of LOC in resisting obedience

Answer 81

Holland (1967) repeated milgrams study and measured whether ptps were internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to then highest shock level and 23% of externals – shows resistance partly related to LOC

Question 82

Resisting obedience – not all research supports the role of LOC in resistance

Answer 82

Challenges between LOC and resistance – Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over 40 years – over time span people became more resistant to obedience and more external – if resistance and internal LOC linked people would become more internal not external – LOC not valid explanation

Question 83

Resisting obedience and conformity – limited role of LOC

Answer 83

A lot of studies (eg Holland 1967) show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence. However, Rotter (1982) pointed out that LOC only significantly influences behaviour in new situations. In familiar situations our previous responses are always more important. Therefore, the validity of the lOC explanation is limited because it can predict resistance in some situations but not in others.

Question 84

Resisting obedience and conformity – evidence for the role of support in resisting conformity

Answer 84

In a programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke, social support was given by an older ‘buddy’ (Albrecht et al 2006). These adolescents were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who did not have a buddy. This shows social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world situations.

Question 85

Resisting obedience and conformity – evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers

Answer 85

Gamson et al (1982) groups asked to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign. 29/33 groups = 88% rebelled against orders, much higher than in milgrams studies. This shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience.

Question 86

Resisting obedience and conformity – social support evaluation

Answer 86

Only 3% of Allen and Levines (1971) ptps resisted conformity where there was no supporter. But 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform. However only 39% resisted when the supporter clearly had poor eyesight and could not be relied on to judge the lines. This shows the explanation is valid because we would expect less resistance when ptps believed social support was not helpful.

Question 87

Minority influence

Answer 87

It refers to how one person or small group influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people. The minority may influence just one person, or a group of people (the majority) – this is different from conformity where the majority does the influencing (conformity is sometimes referred to as ‘majority influence’. Minority influence leads to internalisation – both public and private beliefs are changed. Three processes – consistency, commitment and flexibility

Question 88

Minority influence – consistency

Answer 88

Always doing the same thing. Means the minority view gains more interest. Consistent minorities are persuasive, they create doubt about established viewpoint. Consistency makes other people rethink their own views (‘maybe they’ve got a point if they all think this way and they have kept saying it’). - Synchronic consistency – People in the minority are all saying the same things - Diachronic consistency – they’ve been saying the same thing for some time.

Question 89

Minority influence – commitment

Answer 89

Showing deep involvement. Consistency in the face of abuse shows that minorities are committed and helps motivate individuals to consider their viewpoint. Helps gain attention eg through extreme activities. Activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause. Augmentation principle – majority pay even more attention (‘Wow, he must really believe in what he’s saying. So perhaps I ought to consider his view’).

Question 90

Minority influence – flexibility

Answer 90

Show willingness to listen to others. Minorities should balance consistency and flexibility so they don’t appear rigid. Nemeth (1986) argued that being consistent and repeating the same arguments and behaviours is seen as rigid and off-putting to the majority. Instead, the minority should adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter arguments.

Question 91

Minority influence – explaining the process of change

Answer 91

Individuals think deeply about the minority position because it is new/unfamiliar. Snowball effect – over time, more people become ‘converted’ (like a snowball gathering more snow as it rolls along). There is a switch from the minority to the majority. The more this happens the faster the rate of conversion. Gradually the minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred.

Question 92

Minority influence – research to support consistency – Moscivici (1969) – procedure

Answer 92

To see if a consistent minority can influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception task. A lab experiment with an independent groups design. 172 female American ptps were told they were taking part in an experiment on colour perception. Six ptps at a time were asked to estimate the Color, out loud of 36 slides (which were all different shades of blue). 2/6 ptps were confederates. IV – there were two conditions – Condition 1 – consistent – the two confederates called the slides green on all trials Condition 2 – inconsistent- the two confederates called the slides green 24 times and blue 12 times. There was one control group with no confederates.

Question 93

Minority influence – reseach support for consistency – Moscovici – findings

Answer 93

Ptps in the consistent condition were influenced by the minority as they called the slides green on 8.4% of the trials. Ptps in the inconsistent condition only called the slides green in 1.3% of the trails. Control – 0.25% of time ptps identified green A consistent minority has more power to influence majority to give an incorrect answer in comparison to an inconsistent minority. Moscovici found that flexibility, commitment and consistency are important for minority to be effective

Question 94

Minority influence – reseach support for consistency – Moscovici – AO3 – controls

Answer 94

control group result proves that the minority groups had influence

Question 95

Minority influence – reseach support for consistency – Moscovici – AO3 – lacks population validity

Answer 95

Used a biased sample of 172 female American participants so unable to generalise results to other populations including males so unable to say whether male participants would respond to minority influence in a similar way.

Question 96

Minority influence – reseach support for consistency – Moscovici – AO3 – lacks ecological validity

Answer 96

Lab study so different to real life situation of minority influence as in real life situations of minority influence the minorities face much stronger opposition than a group of students in an experiment - unable to generalise results to a real life situation

Question 97

Minority influence – reseach support for consistency – Moscovici – AO3 – ethics

Answer 97

Broke several BPS guidelines. Deceived his participants as did not tell them the true aim of the experiment. Did not respect his participants who may have felt foolish following the experiment. But it was essential to deceive his participants to test the effect of minority influence and improve the validity of his results.

Question 98

Minority influence – reseach support for deeper processing

Answer 98

Martin et al 2003 gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured attitudes. Then they heard an endorsement of view from either a minority or majority. Finally heard a conflicting view and attitudes measured again. Participants were less willing to change their opinions to the new conflicting view if they listen to a minority group than if they listen to a majority group. This suggests that that minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect. Counter – in research studies (eg Martin et al) majority/minority groups distinguished in terms of numbers. But there is more to majorities/ minorities than just numbers eg power status and commitment. This means research studies are limited in what they tell us about real world minority influence.

Question 99

Process of social change and social influence – social change

Answer 99

The process by which society changes beliefs, attitudes and behaviour to create new social norms. Minority influence incurs social change over time by altering attitudes and behaviour – this involves internalisation (true conformity) therefore is long lasting. Majority influence then maintains the new social order (Keep things the way they are) until a new minority influence emerges to repeat the process. The slow pace of social change through MI allows new ideas to be ‘ road tested’ ie to check their suitability for mainstream Society. People who resist social influence can incur social change by modelling attitudes and behaviour necessary for social change to occur.

Question 100

Process of social change and social influence – minority influence

Answer 100

Social change begins with a minority group, Moscovici inform us that consistency, flexibility are important for a minority to start the change. Minorities draw attention to the situation eg by providing social proof of the problem eg smoking. The minority is also consistent eg of smoking being unhealthy and an invasion of other privacy eventually started to win people over. This then gives people a deeper processing of the issue and the unjustness of the status quo. Minorities also show commitment through the augmentation principle so people going to personal risk to indicate strong belief in message eg protests Minority influence that individuals can more easily identify with is more persuasive. Refers to situations where one person or a small group of people influence the beliefs and behaviours of others. Eg smoking was the norm for many years as well the toleration of others smoking in public, so a few opponents were seen as killjoys. Eg Asch and milgram

Question 101

Process of social change and social influence – zeitgeist

Answer 101

Means spirit of the times. What things were happening at the time that made people think a change was in order? Eg for smoking converts were few at first but then more and more came to agree with the minority viewpoint. A healthy lifestyle became the zeitgeist, it was in the spirit of the times.

Question 102

Process of social change and social influence – snowball effect

Answer 102

When the idea gets hold lots of people join in and attitudes change quickly at this point. Minority influence slowly spreads to a greater number of people until a ‘tipping point’ is reached – thought to be around 10% - when wide-scale social change begins to occur rapidly. More and more people back the minority position. Eg smoking – the snowball effect happened eventually in anti-smoking viewpoint and it became mainstream an enshrined in law, such as bans on smoking in public places.

Question 103

Process of social change and social influence – social crypto amnesia

Answer 103

After a number of members have shifted their opinion to agree with the minority group that minority becomes a majority. By the time change your views people have forgotten the original source of the opinion of change. The gradual process where minority views become majority views - few converts initially then more and more. People have a memory that change has occurred, but don’t remember how it happened. Forgetting when and how things have changed and assuming it has always been. Eg smoking - we have social crypto amnesia where majority influence now serve to maintain the anti-smoking norm

Question 104

Process of social change and social influence – lessons from conformity research

Answer 104

Dissenters make social change more likely – aschs research - variation where one confederate always gave correct answers. This broke the power of the majority encouraging others to dissent. This demonstrates potential for social change. Normative social influence (NSI) - environmental and health campaign exploit conformity by appealing to NSI. They provide information about what others are doing eg reducing litter printing normative messages on bins such as ‘Bin it -others do it’.

Question 105

Process of social change and social influence – lessons from obedience research

Answer 105

Disobedient models make change more likely - milgrams research - disobedient models in the variation where Confederate refused to give shocks. The rate of obedience in genuine participants plummeted. Gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’ – zimbardo (2007) - once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour.

Question 106

Process of social change and social influence – AO3 – strength is support for NSI in social change

Answer 106

Nolan et al (2008) hung messages on front doors of houses. The key message was most residents are trying to reduce energy usage. Significant decreases in energy use compared to control group who saw messages to save energy with no reference to other peoples behaviour. This shows conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI. Counter - exposing people to social norms doesn’t always change their behaviour. Foxcroft et al 2015 reviewed 70 studies of programs using social norms to reduce alcohol intake. There was only a small effect on drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency. This shows that NSI does not always produce long-term social change.

Question 107

Process of social change and social influence – AO3 - strength is that minority influence explains social change

Answer 107

Nemeth 2009 says that minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking (broad, active information searching, more options). This thinking leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems. This shows that minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open peoples minds.

Question 108

Process of social change and social influence – AO3 – limitation is deeper processing may apply to majority influence

Answer 108

Mackie 1987 disagrees with the view that minority influence causes individuals in the majority to think deeply about an issue. Majority influence creates deeper processing because we believe others think as we do. When majority think differently creates pressure to think about their views. Therefore, a central element of minority influence has been challenged casting doubt on its ability as an explanation of social change.

Question 109

Process of social change and social influence – AO3 – barriers to social change

Answer 109

The steps involved in the process of social change provide practical advice for minorities wanting to influence a majority, e.g. be consistent. Even so majority of resistance change because they find the minority unappealing (‘tree -huggers’). But even this can be counteracted (Bashir et al 2013). This shows that minority inference research does provide practical applications that eventually influence majorities to change.