Class notes
Psychology paper 1 exam notes
- Course
- Institution
This document contains relevant information in an informative manner regarding AQA psychology paper 1 for AS/A level
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Caitc05
Content preview
Revision summaries (1) - Social Influence (A level psychology)Conformity
Conformity
Asch's research:
-123 male participants judged line lengths, confeds gave wrong answers
-naiive participants conformed on 36.8% of trials. 25% never conformed
Variations:
-2-16. Conformity increased up to 3, then levelled off
-asch placed a dissenter (confed) in group, conformity reduced
-Asch made more similar. Conformity increased, task harder : ISI informative social
influence
Evaluation
-artificial (knew was study, played along. Demand characteristics
-limited application (Asch only did American men
-Lucas et al found more conformity when maths harder. Counter: conformity is more
complex
- It's a lab experiment so that means it can easily be replicated
Types & explanations
-internalisation (Private and public acceptance of norms)
-identification (change behaviour for group we like, MAY change private)
-compliance (go along in public, no private)
-Informational social influence (ISI
^conform be right. Assume group > you
-Normative social influence (NSI)
^conform to be liked
Evaluation
-research support for NSI (no normative group pressure, conformity to 12.5%
-research for ISI (participants relied on others for hard maths - lucas et al
^Counter: cannot usually seperate ISI or NSI, dissenter may reduce either
-individual differences (nAffiliators want to be liked more, so conform more
(McGhee and Teevan)
Conformity to social roles (extra attention)
-SPE (stanford prison experiment)
Makeshift prison, 21 students, randomly assigned to roles
-guards became increasingly brutal, prisoner's rebellion put down and prisoners
became depressed (6 day study)
-participants strongly conformed
Evaluation
-control (increased internal validity through random assignment)
-lack of realism (participants were acting stereotypes (Banuazizi et al)
^counter: only 1/3 of guards were brutal, conc exaggerated
-social identity theory suggests taking on roles due to active identification, not
automatic
Obedience
Obedience
Milgram's research:
-American men gave fake electric shocks to a learner in response to instructions
(prods) from an experimenter
,-65% gave highest level shock of 450v, 100% gave up to 300v
Evaluation
-Good external validity - lab based relationship reflects wider real-life authority
relationships. Hofling found high levels of obedience of nurses to unjustified
demands of doctors
- in a French documentary, people had to give electric shocks to others. 80% gave
maximum. Behaviour was similar. Supports original conclusions
-Lacks internal validity - Orne and Holland suggest that pp's knew the shocks were
fake. He wasn't testing what he intended to test. However, Sheridan and King found
that 54% males and all females gave what they thought was a lethal shock to a
puppy.
-Ethical issues - deception was used
Situational variables
Proximity - obedience 40% with teacher and learner in same room, 30% for touch
proximity
Location - obedience 47.5% in run down office, Uni gave authority
Uniform - obedience 20% when experimenter was 'member of public', uniform is symbol
of legitimate authority
Evaluation
-field experiment; New York City - Bickman (1974). 3 confederates dress in 3
different outfits - jacket&tie, milkman's outfit & security guard's uniform; stood
in street and asked people to pick up litter. people were twice as likely to obey
person dressed as security guard
-cross cultural replications. miranda et al found an obedience rate over 90%
amongst spanish students
-lack of internal validity. more likely participants realised the procedure was
fake due to the extra manipulation - for example the member of public replacing the
experimenter
-demand characteristic
Situational explanations
-agentic state (acting as agent for another)
-autonomous state (in control, free to act according to conscience)
-binding factors (allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient
behaviour, reducing moral strain)
Evaluation
-Support of agentic state by Milgram who proposed people shifted back and forth
between autonomous and agentic state. Demonstrated when experimenter in his study
kept saying any harm to the learner was their responsibility resulting in more
participants giving higher shocks
-Obedience in cockpit study - studied blackbox recordings of plane accidents where
crew actions were a contributing factor in the crash and found excessive dependence
on the captain's authority
-Zimbardo's idea that some people just have sadistic natures rather than agentic
state
Legitimacy of authority
Evaluation
-explains cultural differences Australia, 16% obeyed (Kilham et al), 85% in germany
-cannot explain all (Rank and Jacobson nurses in hierachical structure,did not obey
legit auth)
-Real world crimes
-Rank and Jacobson found disobedience to doctors but stronger hierarchy nd
, obedience at My Lai
Authoritarian personality
Evaluation
-RESEARCH SUPPORT- Milgram and Elms (1966), conducted interviews with a small
sample of fully obedient pp's, who scored highly on the F-scale, believing that
there's a link between obedience and authoritarian personality. However, this link
is a correlation between two measured variables. This makes it impossible to draw
the conclusion that authoritarian personality causes obedience on the basis of this
result
-POLITICAL BIAS- The F scale measures the tendency towards an extreme form of
right-wing ideology. Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that this is a politically
biased interpretation of authoritarian personality. They point out the reality of
left-wing authoritarianism in the shape. Extreme right-wing and left-wing
ideologies have much in common
-limited explanation (cant explain obedience across whole culture)
-demand characteristics
Minority influence
Minority influence
-consistency (minority consistent, attracts attention)
-commitment (sacrifices, shows commitment)
-flexibility (is willing to compromise)
Evaluation
-Moscovici et al. found a consistent minority view had more impact on other people
than an inconsistent one.
- Moscovici varied his study, so participants privately wrote down their answers
instead. This increased agreement with the minority.
-Moscovici's task was identifying the colour of a slide, which is not a way in
which the minority would need to influence a majority.
Social influence and social change
Lessons from minority influence research: Minority influence powerful for change
Lessons from conformity research: dissent breaks power of majority
Lessons from obedience research: disobedient role models (Milgram)
Evaluation
-Minority influence supports social change - Nemeth claimed social change was due
to engagement with minority view. The wider society critically evaluate minority
viewpoints and leads to better decision making.
-Barriers to social change - Bashir found that participants did not want to be
associated with stereotypical minority groups, such as environmentalists
-Research supporting normative influences - Nolan wanted to see if people could
reduce their energy intake, and gave out signs for doors in San Diego
Resistance to social influence
Social support
-resisting conformity (reduced by presence of dissenters from group)
Evaluation
-Real world support - Albrecht evaluated an American programme for pregnant teens
to resist the pressure to smoke. The girls were given a buddy who supported them.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Caitc05. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.67. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
48298 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now