Paper 1 Essay Plans
Outline and evaluate the types and explanations of conformity.
Types: compliance, identification, internalisation
Explanations: NSI, ISI
+Supporting evidence NSI: Asch. Found many of his p’s went along with a
clearly incorrect answer just because other people did. P’s said this was
because they felt self-conscious and were afraid of disapproval.
Conformity rate dropped to 12.5% when asked to write down answers
instead of saying them out loud (after hearing confederates say their
answers out loud). BUT Perrin and Spencer (1980) ‘child of its time’ –
findings lack temporal validity.
+Supporting evidence ISI: Lucas. Students to give answers to maths
problems – greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were
difficult, compared to easier ones, especially for students who rated their
maths ability as poor.
-Ignored factor: individual differences in NSI. Some people who care more
about being liked – nAffiliators (greater need for ‘affiliation’). McGee and
Teevan found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to
conform.
-Counter evidence: ISI and NSI work together. Conformity is reduced when
there is one dissenting p in the Asch experiment. This dissenter may
reduce the power of NSI (provides social support) or ISI (alternative source
of information).
Outline and evaluate the variables affecting conformity, as investigated by
Asch
Line study: 2 cards, one with standard line and the other with 3
comparison lines (one same length, 2 obviously different/ unambiguous).
123 male American undergraduates tested individually (naïve p) in a
group with 6-8 confederates, sat one from last to give answer. Each took
part in 18 trials, 12 critical trials (confederates gave wrong answer).
Findings: 36.8% conformity rate, 75% conformed at least once, 25% didn’t
conform on any trials. P’s interviewed afterwards – said they conformed to
avoid rejection (NSI).
Variations:
Group size – rose to 31.8% with 3 confederates, after that plateaus.
Unanimity – conformity rose 5% with dissenter (confederate who gave
correct answer)
Task difficulty – conformity increased with task difficulty (made standard
line and comparison lines more similar in length). ISI.
-Lacks temporal validity: Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s
original study with engineering students in the UK. Only one p conformed
,in a total of 396 trials. 1950’s – especially conformist time in America,
people possibly less conformist today. P%S claimed it to be a ‘child of its
time’. BUT different sample, not completely replicated, education level
could be an EV.
-Lacks internal validity: demand characteristics, p’s knew they were in a
research study, task of identifying lines relatively trivial and therefore
there was no reason not to conform.
+Application of findings: helps to explain situations such as peer pressure,
can help in a school setting to understand these conformity and
potentially how to reduce it.
-Ignored factors: women and collectivist cultures conform more. Similar
studies conducted in China found that conformity rates were higher (social
group more important than the individual). Findings can only be
generalised to American men.
Outline and evaluate conformity to social roles
Social roles
Zimbardo: Stanford prison experiment (1973). 21 male volunteers,
randomly allocated to guards/ prisoners, arrested in their homes, created
deindividualization = called by numbers, prisoners uniform. Guards had
uniform e.g. handcuffs, wooden club – told they had complete power over
the prisoners.
Meant to last 2 weeks, lasted 6 days, prisoner rebellion after 2 days.
Rebellion put down – prisoners became depressed, anxious and subdued.
Guards brutal e.g. ‘the hole’ – man on hunger strike, locked in dark closet.
Individuals readily conform to social roles due to situational factors.
+High internal validity: emotionally stable individuals were chosen and
randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. Minimises individual
personality differences as an EV, able to establish a cause and effect
relationship. BUT some argue that p’s were responding to demand
characteristics, one p said he based his role on a brutal character from the
film ‘Cool Hand Luke’.
-Lacks reliability: Reicher and Halsam (2006) replicated Zimbardo’s
experiment. Results contradict Zimbardo’s findings as prisoners took
control of mock prison, suggesting conformity to social roles may not be
automatic, as Zimbardo implied. Used alternate explanation – social
identity theory (SIT) to explain this outcome.
-Ignored factors: role of dispositional factors. Only a minority (one third) of
the guards behaved in a brutal manner. Findings over-exaggerate
situational factors influencing conformity. Differences in guard’s behaviour
– indicates role of dispositional factors e.g. authoritarian personality.
-Ethical issue: Zimbardo’s dual role in the study. One student wated to
leave, Zimbardo refused in his role as superintendent. Breaks ethical
guidelines – protection from harm.
,Outline and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience
Milgram wanted to know why the German population followed the orders
of Hitler in WW2. Baseline study: 40 USA males, newspaper adverts and
flyers in the post (volunteer sampling), said it was a study on memory, Mr
Wallace (confederate) = learner, participant = teacher, experimenter,
shock machine (15-450V). 4 prods given by the experimenter if the
teacher felt unsure about continuing.
12.5% stopped at 300V (‘intense shock’), 65% continued to the highest
level of 450V (‘danger – severe shock’). Qualitative data: participants
extreme tension, 3 had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’.
-Low internal validity: Orne and Holland argued that p’s behaved the way
they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up (guessed the
shocks weren’t real), i.e. responding to demand characteristics BUT
Milgram reported that 70% of his participants said they believed the
shocks were genuine.
+High ecological validity: despite being a lab environment, authority
figure (experimenter) and p accurately reflected wider authority
relationships in real life. Hofling – 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed unjustified
demands by doctors on a hospital ward.
-Lacks population validity: biased sample (40 male volunteers), unable to
generalise findings to other populations i.e. females
-Ethical issues: right to withdraw, protection from harm, deception BUT did
debrief and 84% of p’s said they were glad to have taken part and
contributed to scientific research.
Outline and evaluate situational variables affecting obedience.
Milgram’s variations
Proximity: (baseline: teacher and learner in different rooms i.e. hear not
see), T and L in same room 40%, T must force L’s hand on ‘electroshock
plate’ 30%, E and T over the phone 20%
Location: (baseline: Yale University), 48% in rundown office, not legitimate
authority
Uniform: (baseline: E wore lab coat as a symbol of authority),
experimenter called away with an important phone call and replaced by
an ‘ordinary member of the public’ wearing everyday clothes, 20%
obedience.
+Research support for uniform: Bickman, field experiment in NYC,
confederates dressed in 3 outfits: jacket and tie, milkman, security guard.
Stood in street asked passers-by to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter.
76% guard, 47% milkman, 30% civilian.
-Low internal validity: Orne and Holland, p’s thought procedure was faked,
even more so in variations because of the extra manipulation e.g. uniform
when experimenter was replaced with a ‘member of the public’. Situation
contrived – demand characteristics.
, +Cross cultural reliability: Miranda found an obedience rate of over 90%
for Spanish students BUT most replications have taken place in Western,
developed societies (not that culturally different from USA), limits
generalisability.
-Social sensitivity: Mandel suggests findings offer an excuse for evil
behaviour, suggest it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest
that Nazi’s were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of
situational variables beyond their control.
Outline and evaluate social-psychological factors as an explanation for
obedience
Proposed by Milgram
Agentic state: agent, moral strain, autonomous state, agentic shift
(autonomy to agency), sense of responsibility, social hierarchy, binding
factors (reduce moral strain i.e. shifting responsibility to the victim or
denying damage they were doing to the victim)
Legitimacy of authority: social hierarchy, destructive authority e.g. Hitler,
Stalin, evidenced in Milgram’s study
+Supporting research (agentic state): Blass and Schmitt, film of Milgram’s
study shown to students, blamed the experimenter rather than the p,
students indicated this was due to legitimate authority
-Counter evidence (agentic state): 35% didn’t obey in Milgram’s baseline
study – dispositional? Doesn’t explain this. BUT could have been due to
demand characteristics.
-Limited application (agentic state): doesn’t explain Nazi behaviour,
Mandel described how German Police Reserve shot civilians in a small
Polish town even though they were not directly ordered to, told they could
be assigned to other duties – not powerless to obey
+Explanation for cultural differences (legitimacy of authority): Milgram
replications 16% Australia, 85% Germany. Some cultures authority is more
likely to be accepted as legitimate
+Application (legitimacy of authority) can help explain how obedience can
lead to real-life war crimes e.g. My Lai massacre due to power hierarchy of
the US army
Discuss the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
Dispositional explanation
Adorno: 2000 white middle class Americans, aimed to measure
unconscious attitudes, F-scale to measure AP. Example of F-scale: ‘nobody
every learned anything really important except through suffering’. 6 point
scale (1 disagree strongly, 6 agree strongly)
