AQA A level psychology social influence lesson/revision notes
21 vistas 0 veces vendidas
Grado
Social Influence
Institución
AQA
Book
AQA Psychology for A Level Year 1 & AS - Student Book
Hello - I hope these notes find you well. These notes are for everything you need to know in social influence psychology! They cover all lessons and the format to these notes are very easy to use. They contain notes written in a 16 marker structure with an extensive amount of AO1 first for you to c...
AQA A level psychology psychopathology revision/lesson notes
AQA A level psychology attachment revision/lesson notes
Todos para este libro de texto (17)
Escuela, estudio y materia
A/AS Level
AQA
Psychology
Social Influence
Todos documentos para esta materia (605)
Vendedor
Seguir
sadiajannat
Vista previa del contenido
Social Influence:
Conformity
- Conformity is a change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a
person or group of people
- Solomon Asch (1951) came up with a baseline procedure to assess what extent people would conform
even when the answer was obvious (unambiguous)
- Asch (1955) tested different variables that might increase or decrease conformity (group size, unanimity
and task difficulty)
- Group size is when Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates and therefore
increased the size of the majority. Conformity increased as group size increased but only to a certain
point where it then levelled of when the majority was greater 3
- This is a curvilinear relationship
- With 3 confederates conformity to the incorrect answer was 31.8% then levelled off
- Unanimity is the extent to which all the members of a group agree
- When majority of the group (confederates) all agreed this resulted in the greatest degree of conformity
- In a experiment where the dissenter, a confederate, gave a different wrong answer this allowed the naive
participant to be free and conform less
- Task difficulty in when Asch made the answers more difficult to work out. Conformity increased because
naive participant assume that the majority is more likely to be right
- Asch’s baseline procedure:
- 123 American men tested against 6-8 confederates
- A line would be presented on one card and all participating had to say which line it compared to where 3
answers where displayed on another card
- 2 of the answers where ambiguously wrong and the other line was clearly correct
- The naive participant was tested either last or second last
- The confederates were told what incorrect answer to say and the genuine participant did not know they
were fake
- Asch’s baseline findings:
- Genuine participant agreed with confederates incorrect answer 36.8% of the time (1/3)
- Individual differences were also present where 25% of the participant never gave a wrong answer
Evaluation:
- P: One limitation of Asch’s research is that the task and situation is artificial.
- E: Susan Fiske (2014) claimed that “Ash’s group was not very groupy” - They did not resemble groups we
may experience in everyday lives.
- E: Participants also knew that they were in a study and may have then gone along with what was expected
of them. (demand characteristic)
- L: This means that the findings can’t be generalised to a real world situation where consequences of
conforming may actually be important.
- P: One limitation of Asch’s research is that Ach’s participants were mainly American men.
- E: Bond and Smith (1996) found that collectivist cultures have a higher conformity rate than individualist
cultures and Neto (1995) found that women may also be more conformist.
- E: Collectivist cultures may have a higher conformity rate than individualist cultures because social groups
are more important than the individual and women may conform more that men possibly due to being
more concerned about social approval and being accepted.
- L: This means that Asch's findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures.
,- P: One strength of Asch’s research is support from other studies for the effect of task difficulty.
- E: Lucas et al (2006) asked participants to answer easy and hard maths problems.
- E: The 3 confederates gave similar incorrect answers which caused the genuine participant to conform
when the questions became harder.
- L: This shows that Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity.
- P: On the other hand, Lucas et al’s study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested.
- E: For example, participants with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks.
- E: This shows that there is an individual-level factor which can influence conformity by interacting with
situational variables.
- L: Asch did not research into the roles of individual factors and therefore his findings can have limited
application.
Conformity: Types and explanations
- Kelman (1958) suggested that there are three ways which people conform
- Compliance is a temporary type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we
value it and want to be part of it. However, deep down we don't agree with everything the group believes
- You could pretend to like monopoly in front of others but deep down you hate it
- Identification is a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we
value it and want to be part of it. After some time we go back to our original beliefs (temporary)
- You have christian friends and so you adopt the belief however after some time you change your mind
- Internalisation is a deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as
correct. It leads to a permanent change in behaviour even in the absence of the group
- You change your religion and even when your friends aren't present you still believe it to be right
- Deutch and Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory claiming that people conform for two reasons
- To be liked (normative social influence) and to be right (informative social influence)
- Informative social influence is an explanation for conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the
majority because we believe it to be right.
- It leads to a permanent change in what we think (internalisation) and it is also a cognitive process
because it is to do with what you think
- Normative social influence is an explanation for conformity that says we agree with the majority because
we want to be liked and gain social approval. This leads to a temporary change in what we believe
(compliance) and is more of an emotional process.
Evaluation:
- P: One strength to support ISI is research evidence by Lucas et al. (2006)
- E: When maths problems were difficult participants would conform to the majority incorrect answers.
- E: This is because when the maths problems were easy the participants knew what they had to do
however when the questions became harder they didn't want to be wrong and as a result conformed to
the majority's incorrect answer.
- L: This proves that ISI is a valid explanation as to why people conform.
- P: In most research it is unclear whether the participants conformed due to ISI or NSI.
- E: For example, Asch (1955) found that conformity reduced when there was a dissenting participant
present.
- E: He concluded that due to the dissenting participant being present it reduced the power of NSI due to
providing social support. Although this could be the case the participant may have provided a different
answer as it reduces the power of ISI too by providing an alternative source of information.
- L: This shows that it is hard to separate ISI and NSI as both processes could operate together in most real
world conformity situations.
,- P: One strength to support NSI is that there is research evidence for it.
- E: For example, Asch (1951) interviewed his participants and found that most participants conformed as
they felt self-conscious and were afraid of disapproval. When participants were also asked to write down
their answers conformity fell to 12.5%.
- E: This is because giving their own answers privately meant that there was no normative group pressure.
- L: This proves that some conformity is due to a desire of not wanting to be rejected.
- P: One limitation that goes against NSI is that it can’t predict conformity in every case.
- E: McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that nAffiliators were more likely to conform than others. This is
because they are greatly concerned with being liked by others.
- E: This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others.
- L: As a result it can be concluded that there are individual differences in conformity that can’t be
explained by one general theory of situational pressures.
Conformity to social roles
- Social roles are the ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. Everyday examples include
parent, child or a student. With these social roles there are certain expected behaviour in each role for
example a student should be obedient
- Zimbardo wanted to know if police behaved brutally because of their personality or social roles
- Zimbardo et al (1973) set up a mock prison at stanford university
- Procedure: This included 21 men who tested as emotionally stable. Randomly assigned to be a prison
guard or a prisoner. They were encouraged to conform to their roles
- Prisoners were given a loose smock and a cap. Identified by number (de-individualised)
- They also had to act a certain way instead of leaving ‘apply for parole’
- Guards were reminded they had complete power over the prisoners
- Findings: The guards took their roles with enthusiasm. They did frequent head counts and enforced rules
and punishments to the prisoners
- Within 2 days the prisoners rebelled. They became depressed, anxious and showed signs of psychological
disturbance. Some went on hunger strikes
- Zimbardo ended his study in 6 days rather than the intended 14
- Zimbardo concluded after his research that social roles have a strong influence on the individual's
behaviour. This is because guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive.
Evaluation:
- P: One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo had control over key variables.
- E: For example, the selection of participants. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly
assigned their roles of guard or prisoner.
- E: This rules out individual personality differences as an explanation for the findings. If the prisoners and
guards were acting differently then it must be due to their role itself.
- L: The degree of control over these variables increase the internal validity of the study and therefore we
can be confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.
- P: One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison.
- E: Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued that participants were play acting rather than genuinely
conforming to a role.
- E: Their performances were based on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.
One of the guards claimed that they behaved the way they did based on a character from a film called
Cool Hand Luke.
- L: This suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
, - P: On the other hand McDermott (2019) said the participant behaved as if the prison was real to them.
- E: For example, 90% of the prisoners' conversation was about prison life.
- E: They discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘sentences’ were over. ‘Prisoner 416’
later explained how he believed the prison was a real one run by psychologists rather than the
government.
- L: This suggests that the SPE did replicate social roles giving the study a high degree of internal validity.
- P: One limitation is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour.
- E: Fromm (1973) found that only one third of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner. The other
third tried to apply the rules fairly and the rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners.
- E: They sympathised and offered cigarettes to each other. Most guards were therefore able to resist
situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.
- L: This suggests that Zimbarado overstated situational factors which may have caused them to conform to
their social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors e.g. personality.
Obedience
- Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing
the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when the obedient behaviour is not
forthcoming
- Milgram (1963) assessed obedience levels
- Procedure: 40 American men were told them they would take part in an experiment about memory
- Aged 20-50 years old.
- When each volunteer arrived they were introduced to a confederate
- They drew lots to see who would be the ‘Teacher’ and who would be the ‘Learner’ but naive participants
would always be the Teacher. An ‘Experimenter’ was also involved dressed in a grey lab coat
- In the experiment the learner was given words to remember each time and if they forgot they would be
given an electric shock - this was fake
- The volts would go up from 15 to 450 however the participant did not know these were fake
- When they didn’t want to give the person an electric shock they used the phrases ‘Please continue’, 'The
experiment requires you to go on’, ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’ and ‘you have no other
choice you must go on’
- Findings: all participants delivered shocks up to 300 volts
- 12.5% stopped at 300 volts and 65% continued to deliver the highest shock present
- Milgram collected qualitative data such as participants showing signs of extreme tension. They would
sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips and dig their fingernails into their hands
- Milgram concluded that participants were willing to obey even when it would have harmed others
- Before the study he asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants behaviour and they believed
no more than 3% of the participants would go over 450 volts
- Milgram gave a debrief to all the participants and assured them that their behaviour was normal
- A follow up survey also suggested 84% of the participants were glad to have participated
Evaluation:
- P: One limitation is that Milgram's findings may not explain obedience.
- E: Milgram found that 75% of the participants believed the shocks to be genuine. However, Orne and
Holland (1968) showed how the participants didn’t believe in the set up and were acting. Perry (2013)
confirmed this when she listened to tapes of the study and found only half of them believed the shocks to
be genuine.
- E: In his research all participants gave out shocks of 300 volts.
- L: This shows that the participants were only responding to demand characteristics.
Los beneficios de comprar resúmenes en Stuvia estan en línea:
Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios
Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!
Compra fácil y rápido
Puedes pagar rápidamente y en una vez con iDeal, tarjeta de crédito o con tu crédito de Stuvia. Sin tener que hacerte miembro.
Enfócate en lo más importante
Tus compañeros escriben los resúmenes. Por eso tienes la seguridad que tienes un resumen actual y confiable.
Así llegas a la conclusión rapidamente!
Preguntas frecuentes
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.
100% de satisfacción garantizada: ¿Cómo funciona?
Nuestra garantía de satisfacción le asegura que siempre encontrará un documento de estudio a tu medida. Tu rellenas un formulario y nuestro equipo de atención al cliente se encarga del resto.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sadiajannat. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for 5,69 €. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
