AQA Psychology A Level - Social Influence

Topic 1 - Types and Explanations of Conformity

Outline and evaluate the types and explanations of conformity

State the 3 types of conformity

1. compliance

2. internalisation

3. identification

Define compliance

- public but not private

- expressed in public by adjusting behaviour/accepting views

- follow majority to gain approval or avoid disapproval > 'fit in'

Define internalisation

- public and private

- accepting views of group, assuming they are right and believing this

- more likely if the group seems trustworthy

Define identification

- conforming to be seen as part of the group

- merges compliance and identification

State the 2 explantions for conformity

1. normative social influence

2. informational social influence

Define normative social influence

- 'the need to be liked'

- when individual conforms with expectations of majority to gain approval, avoid censure or achieve specific goals

- may not internalise views in private

- feeling of being under surveillance from the group

Give an example of normative social influence

- if someone pretends to be interested in other people's conversations even when they aren't

- this prevents potential disapproval and gains approval

Define informational social influence

- 'the need to be right'

- when individual accepts information from others as evidence of reality to validate their beliefs and perceptions

- initially they may make objective tests against reality (I.e check the facts)

- if this isn't possible they rely on others who seemingly have a clearer solution and are more knowledgeable

- involves changing behaviour in public and private to fit group position

Give an example of informational social influence

- if a new students observed other students and copied their method when completing work to avoid mistakes as they assume others are correct/knowledgeable about this

1. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = research support for normative social influence explanation

> studies found telling hotel guests 75% of other guests reused towels instead of needing new ones made hotel guests reduce towel usage by 25%

> study shows people shape behaviour out of desire to fit in with their reference group, as normative social influence explanation states.

2. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = there is research support for informational influence explanation

> studies (Fein et al) demonstrated how judgement of candidate's performance in US presidential debates were influenced when ppts saw fellow ppts reactions on screen during debate - produced large shifts in ppts' judgements of candidate's performance

> study shows that large shifts in judgement made by people when exposed to views of others, as informational social influence explanation states

3. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = difficulties in distinguishing between compliance and internalisation

> assumed that person who publicly agrees with group but disagrees in private is complying - but could be because they forgot or received new information + assumed that person who agrees with group in public and private is internalising - but may have internalised this view due to self-perception ("I already said I agreed, so that must be what I really believe")​

> means we cannot divide people's behaviour cleanly into compliance and internalisation as theory suggests

Topic 2 - Variables Affecting Conformity​

Discuss research into conformity.

Asch’s study

• procedure

• findings (3)

• type of conformity

• explanation of conformity

Study: 12 critical trials, majority gave the same wrong answer on line-matching task

- 32% conformed on original trials (gave same wrong answer)

- 75% conformed at least once

- in control condition with no confederates, errors made 1% of time

Type of conformity = compliance (most ppts who conformed trusted their own judgement privately)

Explanation = normative social influence

How did group size variation affect conformity? (4 points)

- If majority opinion is only one or two confederates = little conformity.

- If majority opinion is three confederates = conformity rates increased to 30%.

- Further increases of majority (i.e., larger group of confederates than 3) didn't increase percentage substantially.

- Increasing group size increases conformity, but only to a point. ​

How did group unanimity variation affect conformity? (3 points)

- Level of conformity reduced if there was break in group's unanimity.

- If one confederate or another real participant in group gave the correct answer = conformity dropped to 5.5%.

- If dissenter (the one who disagrees) gave different wrong answer = conformity dropped to 9%.​

How did task difficulty variation affect conformity? (3 points)

- Difference between lines was made less obvious - more ambiguous/difficult = conformity levels increased

- Therefore, higher difficulty task increases conformity.

- However, further research suggests that person with expertise/high self-efficacy are less likely to conform to difficult situations.​

1. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = findings may not be true today

> research took place in particular period of US history when anti-communism was strong (McCarthyism), so people scared to go against majority. Recreation of Asch's study (Perin and Spencer) later in time and found only one conforming response from around 400 trials done on regular engineering students. In tests where ppts were youths on probation and confederates were probation officers, conformity levels were similar to Asch's study

> conformity is more likely if perceived risk of not doing so is high e.g., in McCarthy time period​

2. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = cultural differences in conformity

> studies (Smith et al) found that Asch's study being done in different cultures produced different results - average conformity for individualistic cultures (Europe, US) = 25%, but average conformity for collectivist cultures (Asia, Africa, South America) = 37%.​

> shows that collectivist cultures have higher levels of conformity as it's viewed as more favourable to bind communities together.

3. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = this research shows more about independent behaviour than conformity

> in two-thirds of trials, participants stuck to their own judgement and gave correct answers despite being faced with opposing majority.

> means that human beings tend to stick with what we believe is correct i.e., to show independent behaviour.

Topic 3 - Conformity to Social Roles

Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles.

Zimbardo study

- aim

- procedure

- findings

- aim = to see if people conformed to their social role

- procedure = 24 male ppts, assigned role of prisoner or guard, mock prison in Stanford Uni basement, prisoners deloused/wore degrading outfit/ID number, guards had uniforms/batons/reflective glasses, Zimbardo was superintendent, study planned to last 2 weeks but terminated after 6 days

- findings =

> guards grew increasingly tyrannical, forced degrading activities like prisoners cleaning toilets with bare hands at night, some enjoyed it and volunteered to work extra hours with no pay

> prisoners became increasingly withdrawn and passive, remained in their roles even when not watched, 5 released early due to extreme reactions (e.g., crying, rage, acute anxiety) - started only after 2 days, study stopped early due to abuse ppts faced.​

Differences between Zimbardo study and BBC Stanford Prison Study?

- BBC study = televised, 15 males divided into 5 groups and matched on personality traits, from each group 1 guard, 2 prisoners, study ran for 8 days

- findings = ppts didn't automatically conform to role, prisoners began identifying as group and worked collectively to challenge guard's authority, guards reluctant to assert authority, led to collapse of prisoner-guard system.​

1. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = conforming to social roles may not be as automatic as Zimbardo claimed.​

> in SPE, guard behaviour varied from fully sadistic to a few 'good' guards who didn't degrade/harass prisoners, even did small favours

> shows that ppts not blindly following social role, but rather thinking independently and choosing how to behave in accordance with their own morals.​

2. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = demand characteristics may have affected results in SPE

> psychologists (Banuazizi and Movahedi) argued that ppts behaviour consequence of demand characteristics, not social roles, presented some details of SPE to large sample of students who hadn't heard of it, vast majority correctly guessed purpose of experiment; to show that ordinary people assigned to role of guard/prisoner would act like real guards/prisoners, also predicted guards hostility/dominance and prisoners passiveness

> shows that guard's/prisoner's behaviour may be due to demand characteristics in experiment situation (they guessed how they 'should' act) rather than natural response.​

3. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = though controversial, research was conducted ethically.​

> all ppts informed beforehand about procedure, willingly agreed to give up rights, lengthy debriefing sessions carried out long after concluded no lasting negative effects.​

> shows that having ethics in study can vastly change outcome and ethical values must be carefully considered.​

Topic 4 - Situational Variables Affecting Obedience​

Discuss the role of situational variables in obedience.

Milgram study

- aim

- procedure

- findings

aim = to see if obedience was more situational than dispositional (personality)

procedure = Milgram set up situation using fake shocks where naïve ppt (teacher) believed they were shocking another ppt (learner - who was actually confederate) in increasing voltage each time question answered wrong, if ppt asked to stop, researcher used prods for them to continue

findings = all participants went to 300 volts, 65% went to 450 volts (maximum)

How did proximity variation affect obedience? (3 points)

- victim proximity

- touch proximity

- researcher proximity

- when teacher and learner in same room, obedience dropped to 40%

- when teacher ppt told to force learner's hand onto shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%

- when researcher gave orders over phone in different room, obedience dropped to 21%

How did location variation affect obedience? (2 points)

- location of study moved from prestigious Yale Uni lab to run-down office block

- obedience dropped to 48%

How did two peers rebel variation affect obedience? (2 points)

- 2 confederates join teacher ppt, but they don't obey

- obedience dropped to 10%

How did uniform affect obedience?

- researcher wore grey lab coat, gave authoritative appearance

- made ppt trust him more, so more obedient

1. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = Milgram's study lacked internal validity

> psychologists (Orne and Holland) claimed ppt may have guessed 'victim' wasn't really suffering as researcher remained cool and distant even when learner cried out in pain.

> shows that demand characteristics may have meant that ppts were not obeying, but rather saw no consequences of shocking 'victim' as it wasn't real.

2. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = research also lacks external validity

> psychologists (Mandel) challenges obedience research as Milgram's experiment was carried out in control of lab, so cannot be applied to events like Holocaust, which had real life severe consequences to general population, also situation outside study was completely different to that of Holocaust and time period was different.​

> shows that study lacked ecological validity and temporal validity as it can't be applied to various settings and time periods, so less externally valid.​

3. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = some external validity as obedience rates shown to be same in females

> Milgram replicated study multiple times so females put through same procedure, found obedience rates the same

> shows study had good population validity + not beta biased (doesn’t minimise/exaggerate gender differences), so external validity somewhat high

Topic 5 - Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority​

Outline and evaluate agentic state and legitimacy of authority as explanations for obedience.​

Define 'Agentic state'

Define 'Autonomous state'

What is it called when a person goes from an autonomous state to an agentic state?

- agentic = when person acts on behalf another person's wishes/as an agent for carrying out demands, so they are not responsible for their actions.

- autonomous state = seeing oneself as responsible for actions

> autonomous to agentic state = agentic shift

Give an example of the agentic state in relation to a study

- e.g in Milgram's study, ppts felt responsibility to authority figure directing them, but no responsibility for their actions, which made them continue study.

What are the explanations for why people shift into the agentic state + why people stay in the agentic state?

- one explanation for shift into agentic state is to maintain positive self-image, agentic state = ppt doesn't feel responsible for actions, even if consequences are immoral, so this won't reflect on their self-image, leaving them virtually guilt-free.​

- binding factors keep a person in agentic state, such as social etiquette/fear of appearing rude or arrogant, if ppt wanted to stop experiment, they must breach commitment made to experimenter, which seems small compared to violence to learner, but the emotions bind ppt into obedience.

Define legitimacy of authority (3 points)

- what are they given the ability to do?

- authority of a perceived socially controlling figure in a social situation.

- it is when a person recognises their own and another person's position in a social hierarchy.

- increased with visible symbols of authority e.g uniform.

- legitimate authority can therefore define a situation.

Give an example of legitimacy of authority in relation to a study

- e.g in Milgram's study, experimenter acted as one in charge with introductory remarks, 'air of authority', and grey lab coat.

- he defined situation as being fine/acceptable by telling ppts this. ​

What does an authority figure need to seem legitimate? (3 points)

- legitimate authority requires an institution (e.g the setting or physical symbols), especially if demands are harmful.

- this could be a scientific laboratory, the military, a university, etc.

- even if not very specifically reputable, if there is institution, there is obedience.

> more institutional credibility = more obedience. ​

1. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = problem with agentic state explanation is idea that people rapidly shift between agentic or autonomous state.​

> psychologists (Lifton) found change is gradual and irreversible. German doctors in Auschwitz changed from medical professionals concerned with welfare of any patients to being capable of vile, possibly lethal experiments on helpless prisoners.​

> shows that in real life situations, people change mindset after a while instead of flicking between autonomous or agentic state (gradual commitment)​

2. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = behaviour may be explained more accurately as 'plain cruelty'.​

> ppts may have used situation (e.g Milgram's study) to express sadistic impulses of wanting to commit evil acts without consequences. Also present in Stanford Prison Experiment (guards not instructed to be violent, but did so anyway)​

> shows that ppts may not have been acting according to being in agentic state, but rather in evil cruelty.​

3. PEE chain - strength + weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = it's proven that people do follow legitimate authority.

weakness = can be used to justify harming others. ​

> there can be positive consequences to legitimate authority (responding to police officer in an emergency), however can also cause people to obey authority even when it's immoral as they have let legitimate authority to deem acts as acceptable.​

> suggests that though legitimate authority explanation is true to real life situations, it is crucial that people do not blindly follow authority and should question judgements made by perceived authorities.​

Social Influence Topic 6 - The Authoritarian Personality​

Discuss the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.

What other factor could affect obedience?

- who believed this + what did they create?

- Adorno believed that disposition caused obedience, rather than situation.

- he created F-Scale to measure authoritarian personality (more answers you agreed with = more authoritarian)​

What are the characteristics of an authoritarian personality?

What does this personality type come from + how do people develop this?

- refers to rigid thinkers who obey authority, see the world as black and white and enforce strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies.​

- comes from people who likely had strict, authoritarian style, upbringing (including use of physical punishment).

- through learning and imitation, people who grow up in certain social system like this consider authoritarian attitudes the norm.​

Who refined the authoritarian personality theory?

What theory did they suggest?

What important characteristics predisposed these people into obedience?

- Altmeyer refined right wing authoritarianism (RWA) theory

- people with high RWA gave 3 important personality characteristics that predispose them to obedience:

> conventionalism (adherence to conventional norms/values)

> authoritarian aggression (aggressive towards people who violate norms)

> authoritarian submission (uncritical submission to legitimate authorities/complete obedience). ​

How did Altmeyer test this theory + findings?

- tested relationship between obedience RWA in study where ppts asked to shock themselves at increasing levels when they made mistakes on learning task

- found significant correlation between levels of shocks people gave themselves and RWA score.​

1. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = there is research support for link between authoritarian personality and obedience.​

> studies (Elms and Milgram) found that those with higher levels of authoritarianism were more likely to be obedient ppts in Milgram's shock experiment (went to 450volts) than defiant ppts. Also, obedient ppts reported being less close to their fathers in childhood and saw authority figure in Milgram's study as more admirable than learner.​

> shows that ppts authoritarian personality did cause higher levels of obedience, as theory suggests.​

2. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = research shows that obedience levels are not down to people believing shocks are fake.​

> studies (Dambrun and Vatine) found that even when creating virtual simulation of Milgram's experiment where shocks and victim was fake, ppts still behaved as if it was real. There was correlation between ppts RWA score, and maximum shocks given.​

> shows that situation was not main factor causing obedience; it was disposition, which supports theory.​

3. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = there is a difference between authoritarian and obedient participants characteristics.​

> when (Elms and Milgram) ppts asked about upbringing, many of fully obedient ppts said they had very good relationships with their parents, rather than strict one. It is also implausible that out of the many ppts in the experiment, the vast majority would have grown up in harsh environment and father.​

> means that there may be other factors other than disposition/authoritarian personality that cause obedience.​

Topic 7 - Resistance to Social Influence​

Discuss two explanations of why people resist the pressure to obey.

State the 2 explanations for why people resist the pressure to obey/resist social influence

1. Social support

2. Locus of control

Define social support

- 2 key aspects of social support

- when other people are also resisting pressure to conform or obey (known as dissenters - disagree with majority/refuse to obey).

- 2 key aspects =

if someone else doesn't conform or disobeys, it allows for resistance as it:

> breaks group unanimity or

> challenges legitimate authorities

Give an example of breaking group unanimity to resist social influence in relation to a study (3 points)

- in Asch's variations:

- 32% of people conformed on original trials, but 5.5% when ally gave the right answer and 9% when ally gave a different wrong answer.

- shows ppts were able to more confidently resist conformity when social support was present (group unanimity was broken) - conformity reduced.

Give an example of challenging legitimate authority to resist social influence in relation to a study (3 points)

- in Milgram's variations:

- 65% of ppts went to 450volts in original trials, but only 10% in the 'two rebel peers' condition.

- shows that ppts were able to more confidently resist obedience when social support was present (disobedient peers acted as role models, challenged legitimate authority) - obedience reduced.

Define Locus of control

- two types of locus of control

- continuum meaning

- extent to which we believe we have control over our own behaviour and life

- ranges from high internal to high external

- described as a continuum (i.e no one is 100% either, they are on a scale/can shift) - most of us are between the two, but are more similar to one

What are the key characteristics of people with a high internal locus of control (3 points)

- internal locus of control people have key characteristics that help them to resist, such as:

> being independent in thought and behaviour

> relying less on others' opinions

> being more achievement/leader oriented.

What are the key characteristics of people with a high external locus of control (4 points)

- external locus of control people have key characteristics that stop them resisting, such as:

> taking less personal responsibility of actions

> having less independent behaviour

> approaching things more passively

> believing more in the influence of luck and external factors (like others' opinions)

1. PEE chain - strength (for social support explanation)

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = explanation is shown to help even when support is invalid.​

> psychologists (Allen and Levine) set up copy of Asch's study but one confederate providing support wore glasses with very thick lenses (invalid social support) versus another condition where the supporter had normal vision (valid social support). Both conditions reduced conformity, but valid social support had more impact.​

> shows that, though valid support is more effective, both social support's help us resist social influence.

2. PEE chain - weakness + strength (for social support explanation)

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness + strength = explanation is dependent on circumstances.​

> psychologists (Allen and Levine) studied position of person offering support in Asch's study. A confederate first answered correctly (position 1), then all the others gave wrong answer, with the ppt last resisting conformity more so in this condition than if the confederate gave the right answer just before the ppt (position 4). ​

> shows that social support does reduce conformity, though it should be given early to be effective.

3. PEE chain - weakness (for locus of control explanation)

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = explanation doesn't always help to resist the pressure to conform for different social influences

> a psychologist (Spector) measured LOC & predisposition to normative & informational influence in undergraduates. He found a significant correlation between LOC & predisposition to normative social influence, with externals more likely to conform. However, there was no relationship between predisposition to informational influence. ​

> shows that LOC explanation only seems to help us resist normative social influence

4. PEE chain - strength (for locus of control explanation)

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = there is evidence for external locus of control affecting our behaviour

> studies found that young Americans increasingly believed that their fate was determined more by luck and powerful others than their own actions. Locus of control scores became substantially more external in student and child samples in 2002 (compared to 1960), which was believed to be due increasing alienation young people experience

> this shows that having an external locus of control (e.g as a result of alienation) can affect behaviour, such as being less resistant/more influenced by social media

Social Influence Topic 8 - Minority Influence

Outline and evaluate research into minority influence.

Define minority influence (2 points)

- when a small group of people/an individual changes the attitudes, behaviours and beliefs of the majority by persuading others to adopt their beliefs/behaviours

- opposite of conformity, where majority are influencing others to join them

What did Moscovici research in terms of minority influence?

- what did he find (2 points)?

- did research where he saw if a minority could influence people into saying that blue slides were green

- when minority gave same answer consistently, this influenced people into agreeing

- also found that later, when asked to order colour cards from blue to green, more people put slides as being green

= shows they internalised the minority influence

What are the three main principles that make minority influence more likely?

1. Consistency

2. Flexibility

3. Commitment

How can consistency affect minority influence? (2 points)

- two types of consistency?

- minority has to be consistent in their views as this increases amount of interest from others and gets people to start to rethink their own opinions as their must be a reason why the minority takes their position and confidently maintains it with each other and over time

- This is due to types of consistency:

> Synchronic consistency: They're all saying the same thing

> Diachronic consistency: They've been saying the same thing for a long period of time

How can flexibility affect minority influence? (2 points)

- minority has to be able to adapt/negotiate their point of view with majority and accept reasonable and valid counter opinions, rather than just enforcing it

- they cannot be dogmatic in their views (unwilling to compromise) nor be too inconsistent (easily change their views)

How can commitment affect minority influence? (3 points)

- minority has to show full commitment to their views and show this through their actions/uncompromising attitude

- joining minority has more cost than staying with majority = shows more dedication, certainty, courage

- extreme actions/extreme views makes majority think that minority must truly believe what they are doing, may cause them to rethink their own opinions

1. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = minorities can use flexibilities in real life situations to influence majority

> study where group members in simulated jury situation discussed amount of compensation paid to someone involved in ski-lift accident. Confederate gave alternative view and refused to change his position, but this had no effect on other members. Though, confederate who compromised did exert influence on group. However, this only found when confederate compromised later rather than those who did earlier (perceived as giving in to majority, inconsistent)

> shows that flexibility does affect minority influence, but shouldn't compromise too early

2. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = any minority influence helps promote thought out decisions

> Nemeth argues that exposure to dissent (minority opinion) makes people search for information, consider more options, make better decisions and stimulate creative thought even if the opinion is wrong. Studies showed that exposure to minority views improved quality of decision making

> shows that minority influence's real value is important for making better quality decisions and can be very useful in real life situations e.g career roles

3. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = minority influence doesn't take a large proportion to be considered

> Xie developed models of social networks with individuals free to chat. Each person had 'traditional view', but also open to other views. Then added some committed individuals with alternative view expressed consistently. If listener had same opinion, it reinforced their belief. If listener didn't share that opinion, they considered it and moved on to another person. If that person held the new belief, listener adopted it. Percentage of committed opinions holders needed to change majority was 10%

> shows that only 10% needed to change minority view into a majority view using consistency

Topic 9 - Social Influence and Social Change

Discuss the role of social influence processes in social change.​

Give some examples of when minority influence caused social change

- Civil Rights movement (to end segregation)

- Suffragettes

What are the steps a minority must follow to create social change? (6)

1. Drawing attention (e.g with social/real life proof of the problem)

2. Consistency

3. Deeper processing of the issue

4. The augmentation principle (commitment - extreme actions)

5. The snowball effect (getting attention of important people, governments, becomes majority)

6. Social cryptoamnesia (people have a memory that change has occurred but don't remember how it happened)

What else in important in social change?

- research of conformity and obedience

- lessons from conformity

> tells us that dissent can lead to change (e.g in Asch's variations where confederate gave right answer), and appealing to normative social influence/creating social norms (e.g by saying everyone else does this, so you should too)

lessons from obedience

> tells us that disobedient role models are important (e.g Milgram's variations where confederate refused to shock) and gradual commitment (once small instruction obeyed, difficult to resist bigger one)

1. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = minority influence is only indirectly effective

> taken decades for attitudes on drink-driving to change and smoking to change, so argued that minority influence likely to be mostly indirect and delayed. Indirect because majority is influenced on matters related to issues at hand/what is more important at the time, and not central issue itself. Delayed because effects may not be seen for some time.

> shows that minority influence can be very time-consuming and indirectly effective/discouraging

2. PEE chain - strength

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> strength = there is research support for normative influences

> investigation into whether social influence processes led to reduction in energy consumption in community. Messages hung on front doors of houses every week for one month with key message that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As control, residents had messages that just asked others to save energy, but didn't reference other people's behaviour. Significant decrease in energy usage in first group.

> shows that social influences can be used by minorities to influence the way in which people think/create social change

3. PEE chain - weakness

> Point

> Evidence

> Explain

> weakness = the role of deeper processing doesn't make sense in how we make decisions in real life

> there is evidence that a majority influence is more likely to cause deeper processing if you don't share their views, rather than a minority. This is because we like to believe that others share our views and when we find that a majority believes something different, we are forced to think about their reasoning.

> shows that deeper processing is a more effective aspect in a majority influences us than a minority using this (however you could argue that if a person doesn't internalise the majority view and just goes along with it, then it isn't deeper processing)