psych p1

What are the 2 caregiver-infant interactions and what does each mean?

• Reciprocity - the process in which a behaviour is matched during an interaction e.g. smiling back when someone smiles at us. Reciprocity develops, in its simplest form, at a very early age.

• Interactional synchrony - how a parent’s speech and infant’s behaviour become finely synchronised so that they are in direct response to one another.

- It serves a critical role in developmental outcomes in terms of self-regulation, later attachments, and the capacity for empathy.

Who studied interactional synchrony? How? What did they find?

Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

An adult model displayed one of three facial expressions (tongue protrusion, lip protrusion, mouth opening) to babies aged 2-3 weeks. The infant had a pacifier in their mouths during the display and this was removed afterwards. This was done to ensure that the baby was not making a facial expression before the display and that they were making the facial expression to imitate the model.

They found a strong association between the infant behaviour and the adult model’s behaviour.

Studies supporting caregiver-infant interactions

• Meltzoff and Moore study

- They found a strong association between infant behaviour and the adult model’s behaviour when testing whether they would imitate 3 facial expressions (interactional synchrony)

- CA - The imitation may not be real.

- Oostenbroek et al. tested a wide array of actions and tracked behaviour longitudinally in infants over the first 9 weeks of life.

- They replicated the same finding by Meltzoff and Moore for tongue protrusion, but found no evidence for imitation for other behaviours.

• Tronick et al.

- This is the still face experiment

- Primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore the babies’ signals

- At first they displayed distress, but later responded by curling up and lying motionless

- This shows that babies expect social interaction to be reciprocal

Weaknesses of research into caregiver-infant interactions

• individual differences

- Some babies are naturally more active and sociable

- Some caregivers are more sensitive and respionsive

- Suggests caregiver–infant interaction is not universal

• interpretations of infant behaviour may lack internal validity

- Babies expressions and movements are constantly in motion.

- This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitate behaviours.

- Their actions may be interpreted as deliberate due to confirmation bias

- CA - Meltzoff and Moore prevented this by asking observers to judge the infant behaviour. These observers did not know the aim of the study, thus preventing confirmation bias.

Who proposed the stages of attachment due to their research?

Schaffer and Emerson

Explain the research into the stages of attachment

Schaffer and Emerson

• 60 babies from working-class families in Glasglow

• The babies and mothers were visited every month for the first year and again at 18 months

• The mothers were asked to rate the babies’ separation anxiety and stranger anxiety

• They found that anxiety was highest from 4-8 months

Outline 1st stage of attachment with name and length

Stage 1: Asocial stage (0-3 weeks)

• Infant produces similar responses to all objects, regardless of animation

• During this stage, reciprocity and interactional synchrony are important in establishing infant’s relationships with others

Outline 2nd stage of attachment name and length

Stage 2: Beginnings of Attachment (4 months)

• Infants now prefer humans over inanimate objects and can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people.

• However, they will seek comfort from anyone

• This means they show no stranger anxiety

Outline 3rd stage of attachment name, length and duration

Stage 3: Discriminate Attachment (6-7 months)

• Infant develops a preference for one adult

• This is a primary attachment - it is usually the mother

• When put down by this person, they displayed separation anxiety

• At this stage, they also start showing stranger anxiety

Outline 4th stage of attachment name, length and duration

Stage 4: Multiple Attachments

• Not long after, infant starts forming secondary attachments.

• Infants will also show separation anxiety from these people (not the mother)

Strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment study and theory

• High ecological validity

- The families were visited at their homes

- Reduces demand characteristics and increases internal validity

- CA - The data collected could have been affected by social des bias, as it relied on the mother’s assessment of the infants behaviour.

- Some mothers are less sensitive to their infant’s behaviour, but others may not want to portray their child negatively

Weaknesses of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment study and theory

• The sample is biased

- The sample was taken from Glasgow working-class families in the 1960s

- More women work and more fathers now stay and home and become the primary carer

- Not generalisable to other populations in terms of location and wealth

• It is a stage theory

- S+E suggest attachment happens in stages, this is problematic as it holds families to a standard

- It does not suggest flexibility due to individual differences in infants

- This can cause babies that do not adhere to these stages as abnormal, which is distressing

• Cultural differences (use as elab for other 2 weaknesses)

- In individualistic cultures, people are more concerned with their welfare

- In collectivist cultures, people focus on the needs of the group, rather than individuals.

- Research has shown that in collectivist cultures, babies form multiple attachments from the outset

- This goes against the monotropic attachment theory

What is the role of the father?

Grossman did a longitudinal study examining both parents’ behaviour and how this affected quality of attachment into their teens.

• Only the quality of attachment with the mother was related to attachment in adolescence

- This could be because women produce oestrogen, which underlies care

- Oxytocin peaks for nurture from mum

• Only the quality of fathers’ play with infants was related to attachment in adolescence

- Oxytocin peaks when playing with dad

It is possible that fathers do not form primary attachments with their child as they lack emotional sensitivity that women offer.

However, men can be primary attachment figures, in both one-parent and two-parent families, but biological and social factors may discourage this.

What are the 2 animal studies?

• Lorenz

• Harlow

Harlow study

This study showed that food was not the base of attachment behaviour.

He created 2 wire ‘mother’ monkeys and wrapped one of them in a soft cloth. He then found a sample of 8 baby monkeys and split them into two groups.

• 4 of them had the milk bottle on the wire mother

• the other 4 had the milk bottom on the cloth mother.

• All of them were scared by a mechanical bear, and their reactions were tested.

They found that all of the babies spent most of their time with the cloth mother. Those who had the milk with the wire mother, spent a small amount of time feeding there before returning to the cloth mother. When frightened, all of the monkeys clung to the cloth mother. The findings suggest an infant does not form attachments with a carer that feeds, but actually with a more caring and sensitive carer.

Long-term effects:

• The monkeys experienced later social and sexual difficulties

- They would flee/freeze when another monkey approached them and would not cradle their babies.

Lorenz study

Lorenz took some gosling eggs and divided them into two groups.

• One group was left with their natural mother

• The others were placed in an incubator and when they hatched, the first living thing they saw was Lorenz

This experiment tested ‘imprinting’. The incubator group goslings then started following him around as they had imprinted Lorenz and developed a strong bond with him during the first moments of birth.

Lorenz noted that this behaviour is restricted to a limited time after birth. This is called the critical period and only lasted about a few hours after birth in the goslings (according to Lorenz).

Long term effects:

• Imprinting is irreversible and long-lasting

  • Animals would also mate with the same object that they imprinted on

Strengths of animal studies

Strengths:

• Green states that, on a biological level at least, all mammals have the same brain structure as humans

- Therefore, the studies may provide some insight into human attachment

- Animal studies like Harlow or Lorenz can therefore be generalised to humans

- CA - it can be argued that it is unethical to experiment on animals. These studies caused long-term effects in the animals that were irreversible.

• Research support for imprinting

- Guiton demonstrated that leghorn chicks became imprinted on yellow rubber gloves while being fed during their first few weeks.

- Male chickens also tried to mate with the gloves.

- These findings suggest that animals become attached to the first moving thing they see, not specific things (so no predisposition). Also that imprinting links to later reproductive behaviour.

- CA - There is some dispute over the characteristics of imprinting. It is now understood as a more ‘plastic and forgiving mechanism’. Guiton found that he could reverse imprinting in the chickens by making them spend time with their own species, which let them engage in normal sexual behaviour later.

Weaknesses of animal studies

Weaknesses:

• Animal studies may not apply to humans

• Ethics of the studies

- CA - it could be argued that since animals do not have the autonomy to refuse taking part in a study, experimenting on animals is tolerable, as their autonomy cannot be violated in the same way that a human’s can

What are the explanations of attachment?

• learning theory

• bowlby’s theory

What is learning theory?

A theory put forward by behaviourists to explain how infants learn and behave during the early stages of life. They suggest that all behaviour is learned rather than innate, and that we are all born as ‘blank slates’. They suggest this behaviour is learned through:

• classical conditioning

• operant conditioning

• SLT

Classical conditioning (learning theory)

CC in infants occurs through associations with food. Food is an unconditioned stimulus that produces an unconditioned response (pleasure).

From the outset, the caregivers are neutral stimuli that produce no response.

As the caregiver provides the baby with food (US), the baby associates food with the caregiver and the caregiver now becomes a conditioned stimulus.

The caregiver now produces a conditioned response of pleasure by themselves and without the presence of food.

Operant conditioning (learning theory)

Dollard and Miller proposed an explanation for learning through OC and ‘drive reduction’. A ‘drive’ is something that motivates behaviour.

A child that is uncomfortable due to hunger is motivated to reduce discomfort. When they are fed, they are relieved of this by their carer. This is negative reinforcement.

The food is rewarding; it is a primary reinforcer. The person providing the food becomes a secondary reinforcer.

This means attachment is a secondary drive. As caregivers give food, they are able to satisfy the primary drive (hunger).

SLT (learning theory of attachment)

Closely linked to imitation in interactional synchrony.

Also imitating affectionate behaviour.

Strengths of the learning theory

• Learning theory has some explanatory power

- Infants do learn through association and reinforcement,

- CA - but food may not be the primary reinforcer

- It may be the attention and responsiveness from a caregiver that attaches the baby to parents.

- This responsiveness is something infants might imitate and thus learn about to conduct future relationships.

- This was shown by Harlow et al.

• The theory is based on objective, scientific theories

- CC, OC and SLT have studies that back those theories up

Weaknesses of the learning theory

• Attachment is not based on food

- Strong evidence has shown that attachment may not be based on food, and so these associations and reinforcement are not with food, but with comfort provided by the parent

- Harlow’s study with monkeys showed that the monkeys were more attached to the wire ‘mother’ that could provide comfort rather than food

- Elab: Even though this is an animal study, the research is backed up by Schaffer and Emerson, which also shows babies form attachments through emotional responsiveness and interaction rather than just feeding

• Bowlby’s theory is much better

- Bowlby’s theory can explain why attachments form, whereas learning theory only explains how they form.

- Bowlby’s theory also explains the strengths of attachment, which are protection from harm (and thus increased chance of survival).

Bowlby’s theory of attachment (acronym)

Adaptive - A

Social Releasers - Snap

Critical period - Chat

Monotropy - Makes

Internal working model - Images

1st part of Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Adaptive:

Forming an attachment helps a child survive. It gives our species an ‘adaptive advantage’, as infants are given food, a safe home and care. It is important that this attachment forms both ways, so that the parents ensure the wellbeing and survival of the child. This makes the parents more likely to produce subsequent generations.

2nd part of Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Social releasers:

Babies have social releasers, which unlock an innate tendency in parents to care for them. These can be:

• physical - typical ‘baby face’ and small proportions

• behavioural - smiling, cooing, crying

3rd part of Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Critical period:

This is between birth and 2½ years old. Bowlby said that if a child doesn’t form an attachment during this time then the child would be damaged socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically.

4th part of Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Monotropy:

Bowlby believed that infants form one special attachment with their mother. This special, intense attachment is known as monotropy. If the mother isn’t available, the infant could bond with another ever-present adult mother-substitute (like a father).

5th part of Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Internal working model:

All of these features form an internal working model. This is important because it has future implications:

• short-term - the child is able to influence the caregiver’s behaviour and form a true partnership

• long term - it acts as a template for any future attachments that form.

This forms something called the continuity hypothesis. This proposes that individuals who are strongly attached in infancy will grow to be socially and emotionally competent, whereas those who are not will have more difficulties. (i.e there is a continuity from childhood to adulthood in terms of emotional type).

Studies supporting Bowlby’s theory (strengths)

• Lorenz study shows proof of a ‘critical period’ and ‘monotropy’

- The goslings in the incubator group hatched and the first moving thing they saw was Lorenz.

- They imprinted onto Lorenz, forming a monotropic attachment and started following him around everywhere.

- Evidence of a critical period in animals. Lorenz said this was about a few hours in goslings, but Bowlby says its 2.5 years in humans.

- CA - animal study

• Hazer and Shaver showed proof of an internal working model

- Used a questionnaire called "The Love Quiz” to examine current attachment experiences and attachment history.

- They found a positive correlation between attachment type and later love experiences

- This supports Bowlby’s theory of the internal working model.

- CA - this study was self-report, and had population validity as it took a volunteer sample from US

Weakness of Bowlby’s theory

• Rutter et al.

- Carried out research on orphans adopted by US/UK families. They did not form an attachment in Bowlby’s ‘critical period’

- The adoptees were still able to form attachments outside the ‘critical period’

- However, the later adoption took place, the longer it took to form attachments

- Rutter said the ‘critical period’ should instead be called a ‘sensitive period’

Ainsworth’s ‘strange situation’ study

Ainsworth assessed 100 American infants and observed their behaviour with a stranger and/or their caregiver. They observed 4 responses:

• separation from caregiver (separation anxiety)

• reunion with caregiver (reunion behaviour)

• response to stranger (stranger anxiety)

• willingness to explore (secure base behaviour)

She found 3 types of attachment:

• secure

• insecure-avoidant

• insecure-resistant

Describe the secure attachment

Those that are cooperative with their carers. They show moderate separation and stranger anxiety..

They seek close contact with a carer and are easily soothed on reunion.

They use their caregiver as a secure base to explore and thus function independently.

They are associated with sensitive and responsive caregiving.

Describe the insecure-avoidant attachment

These infants avoid social interaction and intimacy. They show little separation anxiety and stranger anxiety.

When picked up, they show little resistance and little clinginess.

They are also happy to explore, but do not use mother as a secure base.

They are linked to unresponsive or uncaring caregiving.

What is the insecure-resistant attachment?

These kinds of infants both seek and resist social behaviour/ intimacy. They show high levels of separation and stranger anxiety.

On reunion, they show conflicting desires for and against contact. This is described as ‘hot and cold behaviour’.

They explore less and stay close to the caregiver.

They are linked to inconsistent caregiving.

Strengths of Ainsworths ‘Strange Situation’ study and types of attachment

• Observations had high reliability

- The observations between multiple observers were compared. Ainsworth found that the agreement was almost perfect when they were rating behaviour.

- They found 94% agreement.

- The observations had inter-observer reliability, suggesting the observations can be accepted as reliable

- CA - However, they used time sampling, they recorded behaviour every 15 seconds. This means that important behaviours may have been missed

- Furthermore, there is reduced detail about the dynamics of the behaviour.

• Practical application

The study:

- Helped identify attachment problems early.

- Influenced childcare practices and parenting advice.

- This means that interventions can be made to improve outcomes

Studies against Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ study and types of attachment (weaknesses)

• 4th type of attachment - Main and Solomon

- There may be a 4th type of attachment that Ainsworth missed - insecure-disorganised.

- This is characterised by a lack of consistency with their type of attachment.

- For example, they show show very strong attachment behaviour, which is then followed by avoidance or fearfulness.

- This suggests Ainsworth’s behaviours were oversimplified.

• Low internal vallidity

- Is the study really testing attachment type, or is it testing the quality of one particular relationship?

- Main and Weston found that infants behave differently when interacting with different carers

- This suggests the study was measuring one relationship rather than a personal characteristic lodged in the individual.

- CA - However, Bowlby’s views on monotropy suggest that attachment type is linked to that one specific attachment.

- Main later found that attachment is chiefly influenced by the mother.

Cultural variations in attachment - name and outline study

van Ijzendoorn

They did a meta-analysis of 32 studies that replicated the ‘strange situation’ in different countries. They were interested in seeing whether there would be any inter-cultural differences AND any intra-cultural differences.

They found:

• secure attachments were the most common in all of the countries

• In collectivist cultures (like in Japan and China) a significantly higher percentage of infants were insecure-resistant

• The German studies show a high percentage of avoidant behaviour.

Explanation:

Japanese children are very rarely left by their mother. So the distress they show when their mothers leave could be the result of shock and not an ‘insecure attachment’. The distress they show when left alone with a stranger is also likely to be due to the absence of the mother.

The results in the German studies is not surprising given that Grossmann et al say that German parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants, who do not make demands on parents, but obey their commands.’

Strength of cultural variations study of attachment

• representative sample

- As van Ijzendoorn incorporated a large sample of babies AND primary attachment figures, the sample may be more representative

- The results are generally less affected by anomalous results.

- This increases the external validity of the results and makes the findings more generalisable.

Weaknesses of cultural variations study of attachment

• use of secondary data

- The problem with using secondary data is that the researchers cannot fully control all of the variables in the study and they place a lot of trust in the original researchers’ methodology.

- There may have been some methodological issues in the studies which have not been recognised in the publication of their research.

- This will affect the validity of the final meta-analysis conclusions.

• ethnocentric study

- This study uses a Western method of measuring attachment types, designed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) and based on a British theory (Bowlby)

- It may be that this method lacks cultural relativism and so should not be used in cultures where the same values in caregiving are not as important.

- For instance, in Germany, independence is valued more highly and so this could explain why the children were less anxious in the separation stage.

- Furthermore, in Japan mothers typically carry their children with them a lot of the time. The study does not account for this, and the separation stage would be a situation which the infants will be very unfamiliar with.

Outline Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation

Bowlby argued that children need a “warm, intimate and continuous relationship with a mother” to ensure continuing normal mental health. If not provided, this can cause protest, despair and then detachment in children (a stage theory). (P diddy)

• Protest: The immediate, high-anxiety reaction. The child screams, cries, kicks, and tries to cling to or find the caregiver, aiming to get them to return.

• Despair: Active protest ceases, replaced by a quiet, depressed, and hopeless state. The child is withdrawn, and refuses comfort, as trust in the caregiver's return diminishes.

• Detachment: The child appears to recover, becoming more socially engaged with others. However, this is a defense mechanism; they remain detached and may reject or act indifferent to the caregiver upon reunion, showing deep emotional trauma.

Bowlby used the term maternal deprivation to refer to the long-term separation or loss of emotional care from the mother or mother-substitute. (remember this is different to privation, where love was never provided in the first place).

If the attachment is broken or disrupted during the critical period (up to around 2 ½ years - 5 years) the child will suffer irreversible long-term consequences of this maternal deprivation. (continuity hypothesis)

These consequences are reduced emotional, physical, social and intellectual development. Bowlby identified affectionless psychopathy, which is the inability to experience guilt or strong emotion for others, which prevents the person from developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality.

Affectionless psychopathy study

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study

44 teens accused of stealing were interviewed for signs of AP (affectionless psychopathy). A control group of 44 non-criminal, but mentally disturbed teens was also interviewed to see how often deprivation occurred in them.

17/44 of the experimental group had experienced MD, and 12/17 of them were APs

None of the control group were APs

Strengths of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory

• real-life application

- His theory helped shape approaches to childcare + therapy for young children

• research support

- 44 thieves study suggests that early separations are linked to affectionless psychopathy.

- This supports the continuity hypothesis and the critical period

- CA - interviewer bias - expectations of interviewer affected participant responses

- CA - correlational link between AP and MD

Weaknesses of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory

• Privation or deprivation?

- Rutter claimed that Bowlby studied privation (no attachment formed) rather than deprivation (loss of attachment)

- So the long term damage (affectionless psychopathy) is actually a result of privation

- He should have distinguished between the two and compared them

• Correlational research

- Maternal ‘deprivation’ cannot be proved to cause AP.

- It is possible these people had innate biological predispositions for AP

- Furthermore, his sample was relatively small and concentrated

- If he interviewed more thieves (maybe even from other cultures), we could ensure/disprove his ideas better

What are the effects of institutionalisation?

• Physical underdevelopment - these kids are usually physically small

• Intellectual underfunctioning - IQ is also significantly affected by severe deprivation

• Disinhibited attachment - an extreme form of insecure attachment, where a child is over-friendly + attention-seeking

• Poor parenting later in life - research has shown they demonstrate poor parenting skills as an adult

• Irregular behaviour - such as self-stimulating (hand-flapping and head-swaying)

Outline Romanian orphan study

Rutter and Sonuga-Barke

They studied the effect of institutionalisation on later cognitive, physical and social development. They used adoptees from Romania and England. All of the English adoptees had been adopted before the age of 6 months, whereas all of the Romanian adoptees had been adopted at various points throughout the ages of 0 and 4. 

They found that at the time of adoption, the Romanian adoptees were behind in terms of their cognitive, physical and social development. They were smaller, had intellectual disability disorder and were classified as mentally retarded. (scroll down)

Later, they found that many of the orphans adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited attachments and struggled to make friends

At the age of 11, a lower number of children had disinhibited attachment, which shows that the long-term effects of institutionalisation are not as severe as Bowlby had theorised. (i.e. the damage may be irreversible)

Other study of Romanian orphanages

Zeanah et al.

They used the ‘strange situation’ to compare the attachment types of Romanian orphans to a control grp (also from Romania)

The institutionalised children were less likely to be securely attached. They were also more likely to show disinhibited attachment

Strengths of Romanian orphan studies

• Longitudinal study

- Rutter and Sonuga-Barke’s study showed change over time, rather than just recording snapshot data.

- Therefore we could find out if differences persist over time, or if the adopted group slowly recovers

- This also means that the study has high ecological validity, which increases the internal validity of the findings

• Useful applications

- The research from both Bowlby and Rutter changed how children were looked after

- Children were looked after better in hospitals, and a stronger influence on early adoption was establlished

- In the past, women who were putting up their babies for adoption were encouraged to nurse the baby for a significant period of time

- This meant that when they were separated, the baby experienced maternal deprivation, leading to the effects of institutionalisation

- Now babies are adopted in the first week of birth, and research shows they are usually securely attached after adoption

Weaknesses of Romanian orphan studies

• individual differences

- not all institutionalised children show the same level of harmful effects

- This could be due to differing levels of care in institutions OR after adoption

- Rutter suggested this may have been due to better coping methods (e.g. smiling more)

- This means we cannot conclude institutionalisation will always lead to difficulties with attachment

• results are likely to be ungeneralisable

- The conditions in Romanian institutions at the time were so unusual and the care was abysmally poor

- Other examples of institutions probably don’t suffer these situational variables

- arguably, these studies may not tell us much about attachment in normal situations

- limits the applications of this research

Behaviours influenced by internal working model

• childhood friendships - individuals classed as securely attached were more socially competent, less isolated and more empathetic

• poor parenting - supported by Harlow et al.

• romantic relationships - support by Hazen and Shaver, individuals who were securely attached had longer-lasting romantic relationships

• mental health - a condition called attachment disorder has been identified in the DSM, caused by severe, early disruptions in the bond between a child and their primary caregiver, usually within the first 5 years of life

what are the types of conformity

• Compliance

• Identification

• Internalisation

what is compliance

this is when conformity brings about a public change of beliefs, but not private. They do this to gain their approval / avoid their disapproval. (i.e. to fit in) Usually a short-term change

what is internalisation

this is when exposure to a group’s views leads to an individual convincing themselves that their views are wrong and the group’s is right. This causes an internal change in belief, leading to acceptance of their beliefs in public and in private. Usually a long-term change.

what is identification

the middle level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour AND their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group they are identifying with. This is a short-term change.

what are the explanations for conformity

• Normative social influence (NSI)

• Informative social influence (ISI)

what is normative social influence

Conforming to be accepted and belonging to a group. We do this because it is socially rewarding and may help us avoid embarrassment

what is informative social influence

Conforming to gain knowledge and be ‘right’. We do this to act appropriately and avoid standing out.

strengths of explanations of conformity

1. Research support for NSI (Linkenbach and Perkins)

Linkenbach and Perkins found that teenagers exposed to the message that their peers did not smoke were subsequently less likely to smoke. They believed that "not smoking" was normal for their social group so they wanted to gain social approval by not smoking themselves.

CA - self-report study

2. Research support for ISI (Asch)

weaknesses of explanations of conformity

• determinist

- not everybody will conform to a majority influence

- these explanations fail to explain why people do not always conform

- e.g. ppl in Asch’s study (describe study) did not always conform to the majority of confederates

- This suggests that there are individual differences, and certain people may not always conform to norms or to be right

- CA - the Asch study had low ecological validity

• A third explanation for conformity

- Abrams found that people are more likely to be influenced by members of their own group than outsiders.

Turner argued that this is because sometimes people conform because they want to identify and belong to a certain group so that we can feel like true members of that group.

- He called this referent social influence (RSI).

- The strength of this theory is that it helps to explain why social influence can last even after the group is disbanded - because those norms have become part of their self-identity.

describe Asch’s study

Asch asked 123 male US college students to take part in a task where they were asked to look at 3 lines of different lengths, and call out which line was the same length as a separate ‘standard’ line. In each group, only one of them was a real participant and the others were confederates, who had been instructed to give a wrong answer for most of the trials. He also carried out variations of this study to identify how different factors affect conformity.

findings of Asch’s study

he found that in 12/18 trials (in which confederates purposefully gave the wrong answer), conformity rate was 33% by the real participant.

He also discovered individual differences. Some participants conformed in more trials than others.

He interviewed the participants afterwards, and found out that participants were indeed changing their public behaviour, even if privately they disagreed, which is proof of compliance.

what were the factors affecting conformity

• Group size

• Difficulty of task

• Unanimity of the majority (presence of an ally)

effect of group size on conformity

Asch found that when there were only 1 or 2 confederates in his experiment. Conformity levels dropped to 3% and 13%. 

Further increase to amt of confederates had no impact. With 15 confederates, conformity dropped slightly to 29% from 33%.

effect of unanimity (of majority) on conformity

When the participant was given the support of an ally, who also gave the right answer. Conformity levels dropped from 33% to 5.5%.

  

When the ‘dissenter’ gave an answer that was different from the majority, but still incorrect, conformity dropped to 9%. This led Asch to conclude that unanimity was a major factor in conformity reduction.

effect of task difficulty on conformity

In this variation, the differences between line lengths were much smaller and the task was made harder. This increased conformity. 

Lucas et al. investigated this further. He found that individuals who were exposed to maths problems that were confident in their abilities (high self-efficacy) were more independent than those who weren’t (low self-efficacy). 

This means that there were individual differences at play that determined conformity.

strengths of research into conformity

Asch’s research

• controlled and standardised → high internal validity

- all participants saw the same line tasks,

- confederates behaved consistently,

- and extraneous variables were reduced.

• variations to allow for comparisons

CA - Androcentric sample, Ethics - psychological harm, low ecological validity

weaknesses of research into conformity

• Asch’s research may lack temporal validity 

- The research took place in the US during McCarthyism, a strong anti-communist period when people were afraid of going against the majority.

- Perin and Spencer repeated Asch’s research in the UK and found conformity in 1/396 trials, indicating that majority influence doesn’t really have much effect. 

- They then repeated the study with youths on probation as participants and probation officers as confederates, and found similar levels of conformity to Asch’s original research.

• Asch’s research is culturally biased

- Smith and Bond conducted a meta-analysis and found that in Fiji (a more collectivist culture, where loyalty and teamwork is valued) has higher conformity rates than the US at 58%.

- Whereas in Belgium (where people value independence more) conformity rates were only 14%.

outline the stanford prison experiment (including findings)

24 male volunteers who were judged to be mentally and physically healthy were randomly assigned the role of prisoner or guard so that there were 12 of each. The ‘prisoners’ were unexpectedly arrested by the police and handed over to the ‘guards’. 

They were then given a prisoner uniform and an ID number, which they were referred to for the rest of the experiment.

They found that the guards grew increasingly brutal and sadistic and that the prisoners grew more docile and passive. The guards started to force the prisoners to carry out degrading activities and the prisoners were subject to such bad psychological harm, that some had to withdraw after undergoing extreme reactions. 

The study was planned to run for 2 weeks, but was terminated after 6 days as it was getting too out of hand.

strengths of the stanford prison experiment (i.e research into conformity to roles)

• High degree of control

- Participant screening - health of participants was checked to prevent individual psychological differences from affecting results.

- Random allocation - participants were randomly assigned to their role, ensuring that individual characteristics were distributed equally among the groups to eliminate behavioural differences 

• High mundane realism

The experiment was designed to be realistic. Prisoners were arrested at home and discussed prison life with the other prisoners. Guards discussed the prisoners, even when on breaks.

These factors mean the study has high ecological and internal validity.

weaknesses of the stanford prison experiment (i.e research into conformity to roles)

• Unethical 

There was a lack of informed consent. The prisoners could not have known that they were going to be arrested at home and would be subject to such brutal treatment from the guards. This led to them undergoing serious psychological harm. Even though the signs of this harm were visible, they were still not immediately released.

• Androcentric sample

outline Milgram’s study on situational factors affecting obedience (as well as findings)

He had 40 participants over a series of conditions. Participants were deceived and told it was an experiment about the effect of punishment on learning.

There were 2 confederates, one experimenter and one learner. The real participant was always the teacher. They would have to test the learner’s ability to remember word pairs. Every time they got one wrong, they were shocked and for each wrong answer the voltage was increased from 15 - 450.

They found that 65% of people delivered the full 450V shock and all of them went up to 300V.

what are the situational factors affecting obedience

• proximity

• location

• the power of uniform

Milgram’s proximity conditions

In one variation, both teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience fell to 40%.

In another, the teacher was instructed to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate. This caused obedience to drop even further to 30%. 

In the experimenter absent condition, the experimenter would leave the room and instruct the teacher through a telephone. Most participants started to defy the experimenter. Only 21% went to the maximum shock level. 

Milgram’s location conditions

The original study was conducted at Yale University. This is quite a sophisticated laboratory location, which gave the participants confidence in the integrity of the experiment. They claimed that changing the location would not have surprised them.

Milgram then carried out the study in a run-down office, a less prestigious location with no affiliation to Yale. He found that conformity levels dropped slightly to 48%, but this was not significant.

who researched the “power of uniform”? outline the experiment

Bushman et al. carried out a study where a female confederate dressed as either a:

• police officer - 72% obeyed

• businessman - 48% obeyed

• beggar - 52% obeyed

asked people in the street to give money to a male confederate for an expired parking meter.

The police officer had the highest compliance level as the uniform serves as a more powerful cue of legitimate authority.

strengths of research into situational factors affecting obedience

• Temporal validity

- Later research shows little to no differences in levels of obedience since Milgram’s research was published

- His research is still generalisable today.

• Research support for the power of uniform

- Bushman et al.

• Research support for location and proximity

- Milgram et al.

weaknesses of research into situational factors of obedience

• Lack of mundane realism —> low ecological validity

- Perry found out that many of Milgram’s participants had been sceptical of whether the shocks they were administering were real.

- The participants were divided up into those who believed the shocks were real (‘believers’) those who thought they were fake(‘doubters’). 

- They found that the believers were more likely to disobey the experimenter, which suggests that the reality of destructive obedience is more likely to cause disobedience

• Ethics

- It can be argued that the participants had not been protected from psychological harm due to the stress of the task in Milgram’s experiment

- Furthermore, the experimenter’s ‘prods’ may have prevented participants from their right to withdraw

- Milgram, however, denies both these arguments as 84% of people were glad to have taken part and some people did withdraw.

what is the autonomous state

we see ourselves acting according to our own values and are, therefore, morally responsible for our actions.

Milgram argued that in our everyday lives, we are usually in this state.

explain Milgram’s theory of agentic state. How do people stay in the agentic state?

We see ourselves as an agent and act according to others’ values. Therefore, only others are morally responsible for our actions. 

People in an agentic state feel powerless to disobey (moral strain)

Binding factors keep someone in an agentic state. These are strategies allowing the person to minimise/ignore the effects of their behaviour on the victim. e.g. shifting blame on them, or denying the damage dealt.

explain Milgram’s theory of legitimate authority and how it links to agentic state

For someone to shift towards the agentic state, they must first perceive the person they are being obedient towards to hold ‘legitimate authority’. 

Milgram believes that we learn acceptance of legitimacy of authority from an early age.

People are trained to be obedient to authority by parents and teachers and then by other people, like bosses, in society. 

Rules exist to reinforce obedience so eventually we tend to accept unquestioningly what we are told to do.

strengths of Milgram’s theory of agentic state and legitimate authority

• Real-world application - Adolf Eichmann

- Adolf Eichmann was on trial after WW2 as he had been in charge of concentration camps. His defence was that he had just been '‘obeying orders’. 

- This defence can be explained by the theory of agentic state.

• Use Milgram et al. and Bushman et al.

- Milgram - perceived experimenter to have legitimate authority

- Bushman - perceived woman in police officer condition to have legitimate authority

weaknesses of Milgram’s theory of agentic state and legitimate authority

• Ignores predispositional factors - reductionist explanation

- Adorno et al. claimed that some people have an authoritarian personality.

- They are more likely to be obedient and enter the agentic state easier

- Some have internal locus of control

traits of people with the authoritarian personality

• Rigid beliefs in conventional values

• Hostile towards less-powerful people

• Most likely prejudiced

• Submissive to authority figures

what can bring about the authoritarian personality in people

Harsh treatment at a young age causes children to have hostility towards parents.

This hostility remains unconscious, which is then displaced onto others usually as prejudice

what is used to measure the authoritarian personality

F-scale (fascism). People with the authoritarian personality may have a higher F-scale score on a scale from 1-7

Strengths of the authoritarian personality theory

• Elms and Milgram study - research support

- From Milgram’s original obedience experiment, 20 people that went all the way to 450V were selected and called the ‘obedient’ group and 20 people that stopped before 450V were selected and called the ‘defiant’ group.

- Each group completed the F-scale and were interviewed about their childhood.

- They found that higher levels of authoritarianism among the obedient group for their F-scale scores. 

- The obedient group also claimed to have had more negative relationships with their fathers, indicating a tough childhood which can bring about the authoritarian personality.

Weaknesses of the authoritarian personality theory

• Importance of social context

- Although Milgram accepted that there may be a predisposition that causes the authoritarian personality, he thought that the evidence for this was weak

- His study showed how variations in the study’s context (location, proximity to victim) were the primary cause of changing obedience 

- He believed that the social situation people find themselves in causes them to obey/resist regardless of personality

• Differences between obedient and authoritarian participants in Elms and Milgram study

- When interviewing their participants, they found that many of the ‘obedient’ group had grown up in friendly family environments that weren’t overly strict.

- It also seems implausible that out of all of the ‘obedient’ participants in Milgram’s study, the vast majority of them would have grown up in harsh environments

what are the 2 things that can cause resistance to social influence

• social support

• locus of control

what is locus of control? Name and explain the different loci of control.

This term refers to a person’s perception of their control of their own behaviour and what happens to them. This is a personality trait and may be dispositional.

• Internal locus of control - People feel they have control over the events in their life. They tend to have more confidence and need little approval from others. These people are less likely to conform or obey.

• External locus of control - People feel they have little or no control over their lives and often believe in ‘luck’ or ‘fate’. They believe that what happens to them is determined by external factors and therefore these people are more likely to conform or obey.

what is social support (resistance to SI)

Social support is the presence of an ally that also disagrees with the views of the majority or authority.  This is a situational factor.

This is because the ally helps to break the unanimity of the majority. They act as role models for the individual, which then allows them to imitate the behaviour of the role model

Strengths of locus of control as an explanation of resistance of social influence

• Research support

- Locus of control - Oliner and Oliner interviews people who had rescued and protected Jews from concentration camps and people who didn’t and found that the former had a more internal locus of control.

• External locus of control is related to NSI but not ISI

- Spector found a correlation between external locus of control and predisposition to NSI, but not for ISI

Weaknesses of locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence

• Contrasting research

- A meta-analysis by Twenge found that from 1960-2002, children are becoming more external in their LoC, but also more resistant to obedience

- This is contradictory as externals should be less resistant to obedience

- It suggests LoC may not be a main factor in resistance and it could be situational reasons that cause this resistance

- However, meta-analyses can be affected by publication bias, his data set may have been biased toward studies showing changes in obedience, reducing validity.

• Viewing an internal LoC as desirable may be ethnocentric

- Certain cultures view an external LoC as desirable. For example, those with ‘karmic’ beliefs like Buddhists or Jains accept their helplessness to control their problems.

Strengths of social support as an explanation of resistance to social support

• Research support

- Social support - Asch found that the presence of an ally reduced conformity to 5.5% from 33%. Also in one of Milgram’s variations, the ‘teacher’ was part of a team of 3, who one after another, agreed to withdraw from the experiment. This reduced obedience to 10%

• Explanation of real life behaviour - Rosenstrasse protest

- In 1943, German women protested outside the Rosenstrasse in Berlin as the Nazi police were holding 2000 Jewish men

- Despite the police threatening to open fire, the women’s courage prevailed and the men were released

Weaknesses of social support as an explanation of resistance to social support

• Individual differences

- Not everyone resists when social support is present

- In Asch’s study, not everyone resisted conforming when an ally was present.

- This suggests dispositional/personality traits have an effect

- This suggests that individual diffs like LoC play a role

• Support must be genuine

- If the support is seen as fake or from a script, social support does not work

- this suggests that the credibility and authenticity of the support plays a part as well

- it also suggests that the theory is over-simplified and ignores perceptions of legitimacy

Features of successful minority arguments

Commitment

Consistency

Flexibility

Consistency in minority influence

If the minority adopt a consistent approach it reassures the majority that the minority is not an error. There must be a reason why the minority takes the position and is confident enough to maintain it over time. This causes the majority to reassess their position.

Commitment in minority influence

Commitment from a minority group suggests certainty, confidence and courage and may persuade the majority to take the minority more seriously – or even convert to the minority position. Minorities may engage in extreme activities to draw attention and show commitment to their views.

Flexibility in minority influence

Mugny (1982) suggests that flexibility is more effective at changing majority opinion than rigidity of argument. Minorities must negotiate their position with the majority rather than try to enforce it. A rigid minority could be viewed as narrow-minded whereas a minority which is too flexible may be viewed as inconsistent. Some degree of flexibility is better than none at all.