AS Psychology: AS Psychology: Unit 2 PSYA2 (May exam)Unit 2 PSYA2 (May exam)

Social Psychology - Social InfluenceSocial Psychology - Social Influence

Unit 2 (Booklet 2): SUnit 2 (Booklet 2): Social Influence in Everyday Lifeocial Influence in Everyday Life

1

What Key Skills will I cover in this booklet? C2.1a C2.3 IT2.1 C3.1a C3.2

Specification:

• Explanations of independent behaviour, including how people resist pressures to conform and pressures to obey authority

• The influence of individual differences on independent behaviour, including locus of control

• Implications for social change of research into social influence

Explanations of Independent Behaviour

Independent Behaviour: This takes place when the individual does not respond to group norms. Although they can see how others are behaving, they do not pay attention to this and are not influenced by it.

Factors in disobedience and non-conformity

Recap on some of the reasons why people conform and obey:Why do people conform? Why do people obey?

Now think of reasons why people might not conform or resist obedience:

Why might people not conform? Why might people resist obedience?

2

How people resist pressure to conform

How people resist pressure to obey

Resisting pressure to ‘conform’

1. The role of Allies:

Conformity is at its most powerful when there is ‘unanimity’ from the group. A dissenter (i.e. someone going against the crowd) provides the participant with moral support – this then ‘frees’ the participant to give the correct answer and go against the majority. E.g. In Asch’s study, when a naïve participant heard a dissenter (i.e. a confederate going against the crowd), the conformity rate dropped sharply (only 5% conformed compared to 32% with no dissenters). This was true even when the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer to the majority – it still provided an escape from unanimity.

2. Moral considerations:

Asch’s experiments involved judging the length of a line (a fairly insignificant judgment about physical reality). Therefore the costs of conforming are low (misjudging the length of a line is not important) and the rewards are high (fitting in with the group and being liked). Hornsey et al (2003) found that conformity rates were low if agreeing with the majority would have an affect on a person’s integrity. Hornsey found that a person was less likely to go along with a group who were in favour of cheating (i.e. something immoral) than something with no moral consequences. The conformity rates were low even when it involved public (rather than just private) behaviours. Therefore, an individual is less concerned about being the odd one out if it means maintaining their moral integrity.

3. Ambiguity of the task:

If the majority are giving a clearly wrong answer (unambiguous) then a naïve participant is less likely to go along with them than if the answer is unclear (ambiguous). This was shown in Asch’s study as when the lines were made more similar in length the level of conformity increased. This suggests that people are more willing to go along with the group if the correct answer is unclear. When the correct answer is obvious then going along with the group may make the participant look foolish.

Draw diagrams in the boxes below of the different variations of the Asch experiment:

3

Ambiguous condition Unambiguous condition

With reference to psychological research, discuss the view that people will not always conform to others in group situations. (12 marks)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4

Asch’s study is a ‘child of it’s time’

Methodological issues Other points??

AO2: Evaluation of the research:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Resisting pressure to ‘obey’

Resistance to obedience: The act of defying an order from an authority figure despite pressures to obey. This includes factors such as presence of authority figure and presence of allies.

In Milgram’s study, a high proportion of participants gave the maximum 450 volts, yet others defied the experimenters instructions and withdrew before this point.

1. Humanisation – the role of buffers:

We are less likely to obey an order which involves inflicting harm on to someone if we cannot distance ourselves (the buffering effect) from the person who we are causing pain to. Milgram found that when the learner was progressively moved closer to the teacher (i.e. into the same room) the obedience rate dropped. The obedience levels were at the lowest when the teacher had to push the learners hand on to the shock plate to punish him. This suggests that physical presence and contact made teachers empathise more strongly with the learner’s suffering and therefore made it easier to disobey such an unjust order.

2. Illegitimacy of authority:If the authority figure is not viewed as legitimate (as not having social power) then people will be less likely to obey. Society is structured in a hierarchical way meaning that some members have more authority over others.

Can you think of examples within Milgram’s research which show the idea of legitimate authority?

3. Presence of allies:

5

It may be difficult to resist authority alone, but the presence of other “rebels” (others who refuse to obey) may help the person to see disobedience as legitimate, and formulate strategies for resistance. During one of Milgram’s variations, when two (confederate) teachers refused to carry on, almost all “real” participants also withdrew their co-operation. Only 4 out of 40 proceeded to 450 volts. This suggests that it is much easier to say no if you are not alone in making this decision.

With reference to psychological research, discuss the view that people will not always obey. (12 marks)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6

Methodological issues Ethical issues Other points??

AO2: Evaluation of the research:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

When a teacher tells you to do something, it is usual for you to obey.(a) Using your knowledge of factors that have been found to affect obedience, explain why you might obey in this situation. (2 marks)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(b) In what ways would the situation have to change in order for you to resist the command? (4 marks)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The influence of individual differences on independent behaviour, including locus of control

7

1. Locus of control : This refers to a person’s perception of personal control over their own behaviour. It is measured along a dimension of ‘high internal’ (where people take responsibility for control over their behaviour) to ‘high external’ (where people believe their behaviour is controlled by luck or external influences).

High internals perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour and are therefore more likely to take personal responsibility for it (e.g. that happened because I made it happen).

High externals perceive their behaviour as being caused more by external influences or luck (e.g. that happened because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time).

AO2: Evidence to support:Atgis (1998) who carried out a meta-analysis of studies which considered the relationship between locus of control and conformity. He found that those who scored higher on external locus of control were more easily persuaded and likely to conform than those with a low score. (Plot the relationship in the graph below)

The relationship between locus of control and conformity was 0.37 suggesting that there are genuinely higher rates of conformity in ‘externals’ than ‘internals’

However: Williams and Warchal (1981) studied 30 University students who were given a range of conformity tasks based on Asch’s experimental paradigm. Each student was also tested using Rotter’s locus of control scale. Williams found that those that conformed did not score differently on the locus of control scale BUT they did get a low score on an assertiveness scale. This implies that assertion may be more important than locus of control to conformity behaviour.

Therefore the relationship between locus of control and independent behaviour is not clear.

2. Personal experience or personality: Crutchfield found that in his conformity experiments, non-conformists had higher levels of self-esteem. It may have been this that gave them the confidence to go against the majority and be independent. Also, people who have had first hand experience of the repercussions of blind obedience/going along with the crowd are more likely to show independent behaviour. Therefore someone with high self

8

esteem or with first hand knowledge of the effects is more likely to speak out and resist the pressures to obey or conform.

AO2 Evidence to support: Oliner and Oliner found that people who had gone against the majority and

protected Jews during the holocaust tended to have an internal locus of control. This means that they tended to believe they had influence over events in their life including successes and failures and maybe it was this that made them independent.

Elms and Milgram backed this up by finding that disobedient people scored high for internal locus of control and for social responsibility.

In one of Milgram’s experiments a participant refused to go beyond the 210 volts level. Her explanation of her resistance was the she had been raised in Nazi Germany and had first hand experience of the consequences of blindly and unquestioningly obeying an authority figure. A minister refused to go further than 150V saying ‘I don’t understand why this

experiment is placed above this person’s life…if he doesn’t want to continue, I’m taking orders from him. During the debrief he said ‘if one has as one’s ultimate authority God, it trivialises human authority’. The minister’s ability to resist is due to a strong sense of moral responsibility.

Exam-style Questions:

Q.1: Identify whether each of the statements below represents internal or external locus of control. (4 marks)

A Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.B People’s misfortunes are the result of the mistakes they make.C In the long run, people get the respect they deserve in this world.D No matter how hard you try, some people just don’t like you.

Locus of control Letter (A,B,C or D):Internal

External

Q.2: Individual differences have been shown to exert an influence on independent behaviour. (a) Explain what is meant by locus of control (4 marks)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

9

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(b) Explain how locus of control can influence independent behaviour (4 marks)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q.3: Discuss the influence of individual differences on independent behaviour. (8 marks)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

10

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Implications for social change of research into social influence

If the social identity or status of a group that an individual belongs to is unsatisfactory and is seen by others in a negative light (e.g. asylum seekers have been portrayed in a negative light by the British press), then they can attempt to increase their status using ‘social change’.

Social Change: This has been defined as the idea that ‘a lower status individual can improve their social identity by challenging the legitimacy of the higher status group’s position’ (Hogg and Vaughan, 2000)

‘Minority influence’ research can lead to social change:

11

Consistency: Moscovici (1976) found that when a minority group consistently said that a series of green coloured slides were blue then they were more likely to persuade the majority to say blue than if they were inconsistent (i.e. sometimes said green sometimes said blue). Therefore, for a minority group to create social change they need to be consistent in their views. This leads to doubt amongst the majority and it is this doubt which can lead to innovation and social change.

‘Obedience’ research can lead to social change:

Zimbardo (2007) suggested that despite the dangers of a drift into destructive obedience, research also supports the possibility of a reverse ‘drift into goodness’.

Gradual commitment: this is known as the ‘foot in the door’ technique and can lead to pro-social behaviour. Researchers have found that merely signing a petition leads to increased monetary support for a charity and that filling out a short questionnaire increases the willingness of people to sign up as organ donors.

Allies/social models: Milgram showed how important a role model could be in influencing a person’s behavior. Social role models have been shown to influence positive social change causing an increase, for example, in donations to the Salvation Army and a willingness to share resources with others.

The individual who belongs to a lower status social group has two main choices:

Social Mobility: This involves the individual attempting to leave their own social group and join a group that has higher social status. This is often seen as the most legitimate strategy in the Western democratic world where group boundaries are relatively permeable. For example, a young asylum seeker may seek to achieve positive social status by training for a professional job and becoming a lawyer or doctor. By migrating to a higher status group, a more positive social identity can be achieved.

Social Action : This involves trying to improve the status of an existing group and is often the only available strategy in cultures where group boundaries are inflexible E.g. in India the caste system makes it difficult to move to a different social group.

12

Social Mobility Social Action

It is also used by group members who have a strong emotional attachment to their group. One method of social action is for the minority group to enter into direct competition with the powerful majority to challenge the existing ideas about them. E.g. radical feminist and gay/lesbian organisations have systematically campaigned for equal rights in the workplace and in civil law, such as campaigning for civil marriages and for an end to discrimination. Research into minority influence suggests that the minority should be consistent and persistent in their views in order to change the views of the majority.

AO2 Evaluation Points?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Exam-style Question:

Q.1: Explain what social influence research can tell us about social change (4 marks) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Recap questions:

1. Give two factors involved in resisting conformity

2. For each of the above outline a piece of research which illustrates the factor

13

3. Outline 2 criticisms of Asch’s study

4. Give two factors involved in resisting obedience

5. For each of the above outline a piece of research which illustrates the factor

6. What is meant by the term locus of control?

7. Describe how locus of control can affect conformity or obedience

8. Give a piece of research which supports the idea of a link between conformity and locus of control

14

9. Give a piece of research which goes against the idea of a link between conformity and locus of control

10.Other than locus of control, what other factors might result in independent behaviour? Give examples…

11.What is meant by social change?

12.How can minority influence lead to social change?

13.How can obedience research lead to social change?

15

14. In what two ways is social change most likely to happen?

16