Social Influence

Question 1

What is conformity?

Answer 1

Conformity is a form of social influence. It occurs when a person’s behaviour or thinking changes as a result of group pressure. This ‘pressure’ from others may be real or imagined and can come from just one person or a group of people.

Question 2

Aim and Sample of Asch’s study of Conformity (A01)

Answer 2

To investigate the effect of group pressure on an individual’s opinion in situations where the answer is obvious. The sample used was 123 American, male students who did not know the aim of the study.

Question 3

The procedure of Asch’s study of Conformity (A01)

Answer 3

-ppts were sat in a semi-circle in a group of 6-8 confederated.
-the men were shown two large cards, on which a single standard line and the other with three comparison lines.
-They took turns to call out which of the 3 lines they thought was the same length as the ‘standard’ line, with the real ppt always answering 2nd to last.
-all confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer. Asch wanted to see whether the real ppts would stick to what they know or conform to the majority and go along with their answer.
-there were 18 trials in total. The first few, the confederates gave the correct answer but on the 12 ‘critical trials, they all gave the same wrong answer.

Question 4

The findings and conclusion of Asch’s study of Conformity (A01)

Answer 4

-On the 12 ‘critical’ trials, the ppts gave the same wrong answer 36.8% of the time.
- 75% conformed atleast once.
-conclusion: Individuals are influenced by group pressure even when the answer is obvious.

Question 5

give one strength of Asch’s Study into Conformity (AO3)

Answer 5

One strength of Asch’s line experiment is that is has high reliability. This is because the study was a lab experiment with high control meaning that it is easy to repeat the study in order to gain consistent results into conformity.

Question 6

give one weakness of Asch’s Study into Conformity (AO3)

Answer 6

One weakness of Asch’s research is that the task is artificial. This is because the task of matching line lengths does not reflect everyday situations of conformity. The task was trivial and meaningless so pps may have conformed more compared to if the task had severe consequences. This suggests the results of Asch’s line experiment may be difficult to generalise to real life situations of conformity.

Question 7

give another weakness of Asch’s Study into Conformity (AO3)

Answer 7

Another weakness of Asch’s research is that the sample is not representative of all cultures. This is because the research was conducted in America which is an individualist culture. Collectivist cultures may have been more likely to conform because they believe in the good of the group. This suggests the results of Asch’s line experiment into conformity may be difficult to generalise to all cultures.

Question 8

Give a further weakness of Asch’s Study into Conformity

Answer 8

A further weakness of Asch’s study was that it was conducted in the US in the 1950s during which the government was dominated by McCarthyism.This was a movement which was designed to identify and ostracise anyone with Communist tendencies. This means that people were scared to behave different from the majority. This suggests that Asch’s results into conformity may be outdated and not reflective current behaviour.

Question 9

What are social factors?

Answer 9

Social factors are external factors in the environment that will affect conformity rates

Question 10

explain the social factor that affects conformity -group size

Answer 10

The more people in a group, the more likely people are to conform as there is greater pressure. In one of Asch’s variations, he found this was true, up to a certain point
* With two confederates conformity was 13.6%
* With three confederates, conformity was 31.8%
However, adding more confederates after 3 made little difference to conformity rates.

Question 11

Evaluate group size as a social factor affecting conformity.

Answer 11

One weakness of this explanation is that group size has different affects depending on the type of task. In Asch’s study there was an obvious answer but when there was no obvious answer (such as asking people about their music preferences), then group size does matter. People do not conform with 1 or 2 others, but do conform when the group gets to 8 or 10 people. This suggests that the task may affect whether or not people conform in relation to group size.

Question 12

explain the social factor that affects conformity -anonymity

Answer 12

Anonymity means that no one knows who you are.
Asch did a variation of his study where pps were able to write their responses down anonymously.
He found that conformity rates decreased.

Question 13

Evaluate anonymity as a social factor affecting conformity

Answer 13

One weakness of anonymity as a social factor affecting conformity is that Asch used a group of strangers. Huang and Li (2016) found that the affect of anonymity changes if the group are friends who are expressing their opinions anonymously would conform more than if they were strangers. Suggesting that anonymity may not be the only factor to consider, and it is dependent on whether you know the people.

Question 14

Explain the social factor that affects conformity- task difficulty

Answer 14

In one of Asch’s variations of his study, he made the task harder by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar in length.
He found that conformity increased
People feel less confident about their answer and look to the group for the right answer.

Question 15

Evaluate task difficulty as a social factor affecting conformity

Answer 15

One weakness of Asch’s research into task difficulty is that the task is artificial. This is because the task of matching line lengths does not reflect everyday situations of conformity. The task was trivial and meaningless so ppts may have conformed more compared to if the task had severe consequences. This lowers the validity of the research into task difficulty as a social factor affecting conformity.

Question 16

What is a dispositional factor?

Answer 16

Dispositional factors are internal factors that affect conformity such as personality

Question 17

Explain the dispositional factor that affects conformity- Personality (locus of control)

Answer 17

Locus of control is a personality trait which refers to a person’s perception of personal control over their behaviour. There is a scale of locus of control, with internal at one end and external at the other. Those with an internal locus of control believe they control what happens to them and their behaviour is caused by their own personal decisions and effort. Those with an external locus of control believe that what happens to them is determined by external factors such as the influence of others, luck or fate. External LOC are more conformist because they take less responsibility for their actions compared to internal.

Question 18

Evaluate personality as a dispositional factor that affects conformity

Answer 18

Research support personality as a dispositional factor affecting conformity was conducted by Burger and Cooper (1979). They showed ppts a set of cartoons and asked them to rate them in terms of funniness. A confederate sat next to them, giving their ratings out loud for some of the cartoons. They found that those with an external locus of control conformed more to the confederates ratings than those with internal locus of control. This suggests that an individuals disposition can affect whether they conform.

Question 19

Explain the dispositional factor that affects conformity- Expertise

Answer 19

Experience increases your confidence in your opinions and knowledge. This means that people may be LESS likely to conform if they have expertise. For example, Lucas et al (2006) found that when judging answers to maths problems, people who rated themselves good at maths were less likely to conform than those who were less confident.

Question 20

Evaluate expertise as a dispositional factor that affects conformity

Answer 20

One weakness of expertise as a factor affecting conformity is that there is an alternative explanation. Group size is a social factor which suggests people conform due to how many people are present when someone is considering conforming whereas expertise argues that individuals conform due to a lack of opinions and knowledge. Therefore expertise may not be the only factor to consider when explaining conformity.

Question 21

What is obedience?

Answer 21

A type of social influence that causes a person to act in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority

Question 22

What was the aim and sample of Miligram’s study of obedience (not on spec= ***)

Answer 22

Aim: To investigate whether an individual would give somebody a potentially lethal electric shock if told to do so by an authority figure
Sample: 40 American, male volunteers (who were told this was a study on memory). They were aged from 20-50 years and from a range of jobs.

Question 23

What was the procedure of Miligram’s study of obedience? ***

Answer 23

Ppts drew their ‘role’ out of a hat.
A confederate ‘Mr Wallace’ always ended up as the learner and while the true ppt was always the teacher. An experimenter (another confederate) directed the study.
The participants were told they could leave at any time. The learner (confederate) was strapped to a chair with electrodes, that would electrocute him (the ppt saw this) when then ppts gave a shock from the other room.
The teacher’s (ppts) job was to administrate a learning task and deliver fake ‘electric shocks’ to the learner (confederate in another room) if the learner got a question wrong. The shocks began at 15 volts and increased in increments of 15 volts to a maximum of 450 volts. The experimenter used prompts if the ‘teacher’ refused (this tested the obedience to authority

Question 24

What were the findings and conclusions of Miligram’s study of obedience? ***

Answer 24

Findings: All ppts went to at least 300 volts, with only 12.5% stopping at that point.
65% of ppts continued to the maximum 450 volts, showing high levels of obedience.

Conclusion: Ordinary people are obedient to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way. It is not necessarily evil people who commit evil crimes but ordinary people who are just obeying orders.

Question 25

Describe the social factor affecting obedience- Agency & Authority

Answer 25

This is where people may move from being in a state where they take personal responsibility for their actions (an autonomous state) to a state where they believe they are acting on behalf of an authority figure (agentic state).
This is known as the agentic shift. When an individual is in the agentic state they lose sense of personal responsibility and see themselves as carrying out the wishes of a more knowledgeable authority figure. If a person is in an agentic state, they will be more likely to obey.

Question 26

Describe the social factor affecting obedience- Culture (Social Hierarchy)

Answer 26

Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way. Certain people have more authority than others because of the hierarchy. Younger children obey older children, older children obey their parents, parents obey the courts, the courts obey the government. The higher up the hierarchy, the more authority people have. Obedience to authority is a social norm in most cultures and we are taught from a young age to respect that legitimate authority

Question 27

Describe the social factor affecting obedience- Proximity

Answer 27

Proximity refers to how far or close you are to someone
Milgram’s Variations:
* When the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience fell from 65% to 40%
* When they had to force their hand onto a shock plate, decreased to 30%
The closer people are to the victim, the greater the moral strain – individuals have an increased sense of personal responsibility, therefore are less likely to obey.

Milgram also found that the closer an individual is to the authority figure, the more likely they are to obey.

Question 28

Give a strength of Milgram’s Agency Theory

Answer 28

Research to support Milgram’s agency theory comes from Blass and Schmitt. They showed students a film of Milgram’s study and asked them to identify who was responsible for the harm to the learner. They identified the experimenter as being to blame as he was the legitimate authority figure as the experiment. This support Milgram’s agency theory because it shows people recognize legitimate authority as a cause of obedience.

Question 29

Give a weakness of Milgram’s Agency Theory

Answer 29

One weakness of the agency theory is that it excuses people who blindly follow destructive orders. Mandel claims it’s offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that Nazis simply obeyed orders. The theory ignores the prejudice and racism that would have occurred in Germany at the time and would have played a part in genocide. This limits the use of Milgram’s Agency Theory and is dangerous as it allows people to believe they are not fully responsible.

Question 30

Give another weakness of Milgram’s Agency Theory

Answer 30

An alternative explanation of obedience is Adorno’s authoritarian personality. This is a dispositional explanation which suggests that individuals obey due to their personality type having a rigid cognitive style, an exaggerated respect for authority and look down on people with an inferior personality rather than obeying because an individual is in an agentic state. Therefore, Milgram’s agency theory may not be the only explanation of obedience.

Question 31

Describe Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality

Answer 31

Adorno believes that personality type determines whether or not someone is likely to obey
In his research, Adorno found that having an Authoritarian personality makes and individual more likely to obey
* These people have an exaggerated respect for authority
* They have a rigid cognitive style
* They look down on people of inferior social status (scapegoating)
Adorno believed that the authoritarian personality is rooted in childhood.

Question 32

What is a rigid cognitive style?

Answer 32

A cognitive style is an individual’s way of thinking.
Those with an authoritarian personality like things to be ‘black and white’
Something is either good or bad
* For example, they feel uncomfortable with the idea that some men are bullies and some women are emotional.
* They prefer to believe in rigid stereotypes that all men are bullies and all women are emotional.

Question 33

What is scapegoating?

Answer 33

Those with hostility have a need to displace their anger onto something else to relieve anxiety. People with an authoritarian personality have a lot of hostility. As they disapprove of those with a low status, they show anger towards them.

Question 34

Where does Authoritarian Personality originate from?

Answer 34

Adorno believes an authoritarian personality is made rather than born, through:
* Overly strict parenting
* Strong discipline
* Critical of their children’s behavior
* Extremely high standard of achievement
* Offer conditional love (only receive love if they behave correctly)
Children learn their morals through identification with the same-sex parent. So, a child who has strict parenting, internalizes these feelings and expects everyone to behave like this.
At the same time, they feel hostility towards their parents because of the high standards and conditional love. Instead of taking this hostility out on their parents, they take it out on those who are inferior.

Question 35

Give one weakness of Adorno’s Authoritarian personality

Answer 35

One problem with the authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience is that the research is based on a questionnaire. This is a problem because people may have lied about their answers to prevent themselves in the best possible light for example, lying on questions to not present themselves as a fascist. This reduces the validity of the F Scale and the research into Authoritarian Personalities.

Question 36

Give another weakness of Adorno’s Authoritarian personality

Answer 36

Another criticism of the authoritarian personality, is that the research is based on correlations. Correlations only show a link between an authoritarian personality and levels of obedience. There may be a third factor such as level of education, that may be responsible. This lowers the validity of the research into authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience.

Question 37

Give a final weakness of Adorno’s Authoritarian personality

Answer 37

An alternative explanation of obedience is Milgram’s agency theory. This is a social explanation which suggests that individuals obey due moving from an autonomous state to an agentic state where they believe an authority figure is taking responsibility for their actions rather than obeying because of their personality type. Therefore, Adorno’s authoritarian personality may not be the only explanation of obedience.

Question 38

What is prosocial behavior?

Answer 38

Prosocial behaviour means to act in a way that promotes the welfare of others.

Question 39

What was the aim of Piliavin’s Study of Prosocial behavior?

Answer 39

To investigate bystander behaviour in a natural setting.

Question 40

What was the procedure of Piliavin’s Study of Prosocial behavior?

Answer 40

• 4 researchers board a New York Subway train (always at the same stop)
• They did 103 trials
• One of the researchers always played the male victim who stood next to a pole in the centre of the carriage
• After 70 seconds the victim staged a collapse and remained on the floor until help came
• On 38 trial the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol in a brown bag (drunk condition)
• On 65 trials he appeared sober and carried a cane (disabled condition)
• In all other aspects he behaved the same
• Two of the researchers were observers who noted what the people in the carriage did and how long it took before people began to help
• The fourth researcher was a model who would step in and help after a further 70-150 seconds if no other assistance had been offered.

Question 41

What were the findings of Piliavin’s Study of Prosocial behavior?

Answer 41

The disabled person was helped 95% of the time, whereas the drunk man was only helped 50% of the time
87% of the time on the disabled victim trial, they were helped in the first 70s, which was only 17% for the drunk victim.
People were just as likely to offer help when the carriage was full rather than empty.

Question 42

What was the conclusion of Piliavin’s Study of Prosocial behavior?

Answer 42

The results show that certain characteristics of a victim determine whether prosocial behaviour will occur.

Question 43

Give one strength of Piliavin’s Study of Prosocial behavior?

Answer 43

One strength of Pilivian’s subway study is that s has high ecological validity because it took place in a real environment. This is because the study was carried out on a New York Subway and the passengers did not know they were taking part in an experiment so their helping behaviour is true to real life. This increases the validity of Piliavin’s study into prosocial behaviour.

Question 44

Give one weakness of Piliavin’s Study of Prosocial behavior?

Answer 44

However, one weakness of Piliavin’s study into prosocial behaviour is that it has low control over extraneous variables. This is because this is a field experiment in a real-life environment which makes it difficult to control extraneous variables, such as whether people were in a rush, which could have affected prosocial behaviour. This lowers the validity of Piliavin’s study into prosocial behaviour.

Question 45

Give another weakness of Piliavin’s Study of Prosocial behavior?

Answer 45

Another weakness of Pilivian’s subway study is that is raises ethical issues. One ethical issue is deception because this was a covert observation, people did not know they were being watched and did not know the collapsed man was an actor. Due to this, there is a further issue with lack of informed consent from the participants. This devalues Piliavin’s research into prosocial behaviour and decreases psychology’s reputation.

Question 46

Explain the social factor affecting prosocial behaviour- Presence of Others

Answer 46

• One reason people may not help in situations is due to the bystander effect or bystander behaviour
• The more people there are present in a situation, the less likely people are to help
• This is because in an emergency situation, we have to assume full responsibility for helping a person in need as there is no one else that can help. When others are present, the responsibility of helping is divided or shared amongst the group (diffusion of responsibility)

Question 47

Evaluate Presence of Others as a social factor affecting prosocial behaviour.

Answer 47

Research to support the presence of others as a social factor affecting prosocial behaviour was conducted by Darley and Latane (1968). They conducted an experiment in which ppts were having a conversation over the intercom. Some pps were only speaking with one other student (confederate), others were in a group with four confederates. During the conversation one of the ‘students’ seemed to have an epileptic fit. The ppt was more likely to get help if they were on their own in the conversation, compared to when they were in a group. This supports the presence of others as a social factor affecting prosocial behaviour because it shows that when other people are present, prosocial behaviour is decreased and responsibility is diffused.

Question 48

Explain the social factor affecting prosocial behaviour- Cost of helping

Answer 48

• Research has suggested that before helping someone, people weigh up the costs and rewards.
• The cost of helping someone could be possible danger, effort, the time it may take and possible embarrassment.
• The costs of NOT helping someone could be guilt and blame from others
• Reward could be feeling good about yourself.

Question 49

Evaluate cost of helping as a social factor affecting prosocial behaviour

Answer 49

One problem with the cost of helping is that it may not be the only factor considered in a situation. For example, Shotland and Straw (1976) found that when bystanders saw a man and a woman arguing in the street, 65% helped when the woman yelled ‘get away from me, I don’t know you’ compared to only 19% when she yelled ‘Get away from me, I don’t know why I ever married you’. Suggesting that cost of helping may be too simplistic as the only factor affecting whether people help others.

Question 50

Explain the dispositional factor affecting prosocial behavior- Similarity to victim

Answer 50

• When a bystander feels there are similarities between them and the person in need of help, research suggests they are more likely to offer assistance.
• If people are the same gender, similar age levels, or have other characteristics in common, people find it easier to empathise with those in need of help because they think they are similar to us.
• This means we are able to put ourselves in their shoes and imagine how they are likely to be feeling in the situation.
• By assisting them, we are then likely to feel better because our distress about their situation is reduced.

Question 51

Evaluate similarity to victim as a dispositional factor affecting prosocial behaviour

Answer 51

Research to support similarity to victim as an explanation of prosocial behaviour was conducted by Levine et al. A group of Manchester United football fans were asked to share their experiences of being a Manchester Unit supporter. They were then asked to walk (one at a time) across the college campus to another room. On the way, they saw a runner who appeared to have hurt himself. If the runner was wearing either a Manchester United t-shirt or a Liverpool t-shirt. They were more likely to stop and help the runner if he was wearing a Man Unite T-shirt. This supports similarity to victim as a dispositional factor affecting prosocial behaviour because it shows they empathised with the runner based on their similarity so offered assistance.

Question 52

Explain the dispositional factor affecting prosocial behavior-Expertise

Answer 52

• Bystanders are more likely to help others if they feel they have the skills or expertise required to be able to help them based on the situation.
• For example, if someone was in trouble while swimming, someone who is an excellent swimmer (or lifeguard) would feel more confident in their ability to help due to their knowledge and experience.
• People who are not able to swim may be less inclined and it is through this, expertise becomes a factor in whether bystanders choose to help or not.
• Bystanders may still feel concern and distress observing someone else in trouble however when other people are present, they may believe that someone else might be more capable of helping, or is more able to help better or more easily than themselves which prevents them joining in.

Question 53

Evaluate expertise as a dispositional factor affecting prosocial behaviour

Answer 53

Research to contradict expertise as an explanation of prosocial behaviour was conducted by Shotland and Heinold (1985) who compared those who had received first aid training with those who had not. When faced with an emergency situation in which someone was bleeding a lot, the researchers found that both groups were equally as likely to help, regardless of whether they had received first aid training (however, expertise did affect the quality of first aid training). This goes against expertise because it shows that individuals will still help even if they do not feel qualified to do so.

Question 54

What is crowd and collective behaviour?

Answer 54

Crowd and collective behaviour refers to how people behave when in a group setting.

Question 55

Explain the social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour- deindividuation

Answer 55

• Deindividuation refers to what happens when people lose their sense of individuality.
• Psychologists have found that people can become deindividuated when in a crowd because they feel like they are anonymous.
• Within a crowd, it is hard to be identified and more so if their appearance is masked or they look like other people in the crowd.
• This leads people to lose their inhibitions and sense of responsibility for what they do. As a result, they are less able to monitor their own behaviour and judge whether their actions are right or wrong because they behave as part of the crowd rather than an individual.
• When people are in crowds, they look to those around them to guide their own behaviour.
• If the crowd is happy and joyful, the people joining the crowd will change their behaviour to adapt accordingly.
• If however, the crowd is a hostile mob, the people joining in will also become aggressive and hostile.
• This is because they feel they are anonymous within the group and no one knows who they are and so they think they cannot be punished.

Question 56

Evaluate deindividuation as a social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour

Answer 56

Research to support deindividuation as a factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour was conducted by Zimbardo (1969) Participants were in groups of four female individuals. Each group was required to deliver a (fake) electric shock to another student (confederate). The groups were either individuated, had large name tags, were introduced my name and saw each other while sitting at the shock machine. OR they were deindividuated, so they wore large coats, with big hoods that covered their faces. It was found that they were more likely to give shocks to the learner if they were deindividuated. This supports deindividuation as a factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour because it shows they were more likely to perform harmful acts when they were anonymous.

Question 57

Explain the social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour- social loafing

Answer 57

• Social loafing refers to the idea that individuals will put less effort into completing a task when they are part of a group compared to when they are completing it alone.
• When a group are completing the task together, every individual is being helped by others within the group and this results in the diffusion of responsibility occurring as each individual does not have to work as hard.
• This results in each person ultimately contributing less towards the task.
• There are some key factors that reduce the likelihood of social loading occurring, such as:
• When people are in a small group (compared to a large group)
• If individuals are completing a task or activity they think is important
• If the group is in competition with another group.
• Social loafing can also be reduced if each individual’s efforts are identified and evaluated within a group task.

Question 58

Evaluate social loafing as a social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour

Answer 58

Research to support social loafing as a factor affecting crowd behaviour was conducted by Latane (1979). In his study, 84 males were asked to shout as loudly as they could either on their own, with another person or in a group of six. When they were in a larger group they made less noise than if they were on their own. This supports social loafing because it shows that individuals made less effort when in a large group as there was a diffusion of responsibility.

Question 59

Explain the social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour- culture

Answer 59

• The social norms within a culture can also affect collective behaviour.
• Interestingly, social loafing does not occur in all societies. For example, in collectivist cultures such as China, people are prepared to work just as hard for the good of the whole group even when they do not need to.
• However, in individualistic cultures, such as the USA, they are focused on individual needs and therefore may be more likely to partake in social loafing to reduce personal responsibility
• This means that it is difficult to assume that collective behaviour will be the same across all cultures.

Question 60

Evaluate culture as a social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour

Answer 60

Research to support cultural differences in crowd and collective behaviours was conducted by Earley (1989). US and Chinese participants were compared on two types of group task. In one group they were individualized and in the other group they were deindividuated. The individual effort was the same in both tasks for the Chinese ppts, but not for the Americans. As soon as the Americans’ identities they increased their effort. This support cultural differences in crowd and collective behaviour because it shows that collectivists cultures are less likely to social loaf than individualistic cultures.

Question 61

Explain the dispositional factor that affects crowd and collective behaviour- Personality

Answer 61

• Rotter (1966) believed that some people have an internal locus of control while others had an external locus of control.
• People with an internal locus of control believe they control the things that happen to them.
• People with an external locus of control, attribute the things that happen to them to factors outside of their control.
• If people with an internal locus of control (dubbed “internals”) did poorly in an assessment or test, they are likely to believe this was because they did not revise enough whereas people with an external locus of control (dubbed “externals”) would blame the result on poor teaching or difficult questions in the test.
• Subsequent research has found that people with an internal locus of control take greater responsibility for their own behaviour and thus are more likely to decide how to behave based on their own idea of what is right or wrong (rather than conforming to the groups behaviour).
• This means such people are less likely to conform to crowd collective behaviours compared to those with an external locus of control.

Question 62

Evaluate personality as a dispositional factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour

Answer 62

Research to contradict personality as a factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour was conducted by Bocchiaro et al (2021). Participants were tested to see if they would report researchers for conducting an unethical study by speaking out despite the silence of the crowd (whistleblowing). They found that people who were willing to speak out had similar scores on the personality test to those who didn’t speak out. This contradicts personality as a factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour as it shows there must be another factor as to why some people stand out from the crowd and others don’t.

Question 63

Explain the dispositional factor that affects crowd and collective behaviour- morality

Answer 63

• Whether a person engages in prosocial or antisocial behaviour may also depend on their sense of morality.
• Morality is defined as their sense of what is right and wrong.
• For example, young people may not trust the police or believe they are there to protect them and their communities and may, therefore, feel justified in abusing or attacking them when in collective situations.
• However, this is not the only factor to influence their behaviour.
• If for example, they believe their behaviour is right and justified, they may still avoid getting involved in anti-social behaviour if engaging in it presents a personal risk to them, such as getting in trouble, prison, losing their job or facing negative consequences.

Question 64

Evaluate morality as a dispositional factor that affects crowd and collective behaviour

Answer 64

One strength of morality as a dipositional factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour is that it is supported by evidence from real life cases. In Germany, 1943, Sophie Scholl was found guilty of spreading anti-Nazi literature. She stood up for what she believed in and went against the group pressure even though there was great personal cost because she was later executed for treason. This support morality because it shows people will stand out from the crowd if they believe this is the right thing to do.