aqa a level psychology topic essays · 2019-11-27 · aqa a level psychology topic essays: social...

AQA A Level Psychology

Topic EssaysSocial Influence

Joseph Sparks & Helen Lakin

AQA A LEVEL Psychology topic essays: Social influence

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permittedwww.tutor2u.net/psychology

Joseph and Kate are two newly qualified teachers who recently joined Christ the King College. Their colleagues are going on a one‐day strike due to pay and conditions. When Kate was asked why she went on strike, she said, “After sitting in the staff room and hearing the arguments from my colleagues, I realised they were right, and the conditions are definitely getting worse for teachers”. When Joseph was asked, he said, “I just fancied a day off and didn’t want to be the only one sitting in the office alone, so I thought I would join everyone else”. Discuss explanations of conformity. Refer to Joseph and Kate in your answer. (16 marks) Therearetwokeyexplanationsofconformity:informationalsocialinfluenceandnormativesocialinfluence.Normativesocialinfluence(NSI)iswhenapersonconformstobeacceptedandtofeelliketheybelongtoagroup.Hereapersonconformsbecauseitissociallyrewarding,ortoavoidsocialrejection;forexample,feelingliketheydon’t‘fitin’.Asch’s(1956)studyintoconformityprovidesresearchsupportforNSI.Hefoundthatmanyoftheparticipantswentalongwiththemajorityandprovidedanobviouslyincorrectansweronalinejudgementtask.WhenquestionedbyAschinpost‐experimentalinterviews,participantssaidthattheychangedtheiranswertoavoiddisapprovalfromtherestofthegroupwhichclearlyshowsthatNSIhadoccurred,astheparticipantsconformedtofitin.Furthermore,Aschdemonstratedthatwhenthepressuretopubliclyconformisremoved,byaskingparticipantstowritedowntheiranswersonapieceofpaperratherthansaythemaloud,theconformityratesfellto12.5%.ThisprovidesfurtherevidenceforNSIbecausethereductioninpublicpressurereducedtherateofconformity.JosephisdemonstratingNSIbecauseheisconformingsothatheisn’taloneandsoastojoininwitheveryoneelse.Theextractdoesn’tsuggestthathebelievesthestrikeisright,whichwouldbelinkedtoinformationalsocialinfluence,andthereforeheisconformingtobeacceptedandbelongtothegroup.Furthermore,Josephisalsodemonstratingcompliance,whereheisonlychanginghispublicbehaviour,butnothisprivatebelievesintheshort‐term.However,NSIisnottheonlyreasonthatpeopleconformandsomepeopleconformforinformationalreasons.InformationalSocialInfluence(ISI)iswhenapersonconformstogainknowledge,orbecausetheybelievethatsomeoneelseis‘right’.ISIisusuallyassociatedwithinternalisation,whereapersonchangesboththeirpublicbehaviourandtheirprivatebeliefs,onalong‐termbasis.This

Keyterminologydefinedfromtheoutsetwithanappropriateexampletoillustratetheexplanation.EffectiveuseoftworesearchvariationsconductedbyAschtoenhancetheevaluativediscussionforNSI.AppropriatereferencetothecontextandhowNSIexplainsJoseph’sbehaviour.Well‐detailedalternative

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology


semi‐permanentchangeinbehaviourandbeliefistheresultofapersonadoptinganewbeliefsystem,becausetheygenuinelybelievethattheirnewbeliefsare‘right’orthatthemajorityare‘experts’.Jenness(1932)providesresearchsupportfortheroleofISI.Participantswereaskedtoinitiallymakeindependentjudgementsaboutthenumberofjellybeanscontainedinajarandthendiscusstheirestimatesinagroup.Followingthediscussion,participantsthenmadeanotherindividualprivateestimate.Jennessfoundthatthissecondprivateestimatemovedclosertothegroupestimateandthatfemalestypicallyconformedmore.ThisshowsthatISIwilloccurinunfamiliar,ambiguoussituationsastheparticipantsbelievethattheygainknowledgefromthegroupandarenowmorelikelytoberight.KateisdemonstratingISIbecausesheisconformingbecauseshebelievessomeoneelse(hercolleagues)areright.Theextractstates:“Irealisedtheywereright,andtheconditionsaredefinitelygettingworseforteachers”.Furthermore,Kateisalsodemonstratinginternalisationasshehaschangedherpublicbehaviour(bygoingonstrike)andherprivatebeliefs(‘Ibelievetheyareright’)whichislikelytoresultinalong‐termsemi‐permanentchangeinbehaviour.[~525Words]

explanationforconformityispresentedhere,strikingagoodbalancebetweenNSIandISIdescriptions.ThesecondevaluationparagraphmakesexcellentuseofJenness’researchtosupporttheroleofISI.Finally,thediscussionistiedbacktothequestiontoexplainhowISIexplainsKate’sbehaviour,witheffectivereferencetothescenario.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisessaydemonstratesanexceptionallyclearunderstandingoftwoexplanationsofconformity–NSIandISI–withexplicitengagementwiththescenario.Theknowledgeandunderstandingconveyedisbothaccurateanddetailed,strikingabalancebetweenthetwoconceptsinequaldepth.Theevaluationcommentaryisthorough,effectiveandfocusedonthedemandsofthequestion.Theapplicationskillsdemonstratedhereareestablishedandconsistentthroughouttheresponse.



Outline and evaluate research examining conformity. (16 marks) Therearetwokeyexplanationsofconformity:informationalsocialinfluenceandnormativesocialinfluence.Normativesocialinfluence(NSI)iswhenapersonconformstobeacceptedandtofeelliketheybelongtoagroup.Hereapersonconformsbecauseitissociallyrewarding,ortoavoidsocialrejection;forexample,feelingliketheydon’t‘fitin’.Asch’s(1956)studyintoconformityprovidesresearchsupportforNSI.Hefoundthatmanyoftheparticipantswentalongwiththemajorityandprovidedanobviouslyincorrectansweronalinejudgementtask.WhenquestionedbyAschinpost‐experimentalinterviews,participantssaidthattheychangedtheiranswertoavoiddisapprovalfromtherestofthegroupwhichclearlyshowsthatNSIhadoccurred,astheparticipantsconformedtofitin.Furthermore,Aschdemonstratedthatwhenthepressuretopubliclyconformisremoved,byaskingparticipantstowritedowntheiranswersonapieceofpaperratherthansaythemaloud,theconformityratesfellto12.5%.ThisprovidesfurtherevidenceforNSIbecausethereductioninpublicpressurereducedtherateofconformity.WhiletheAschstudyprovidessupportforthenotionofNSI,morerecentresearchhasyieldeddifferentresults.Forexample,PerrinandSpencer(1980)conductedanAsch‐styleexperimentandfoundaconformitylevelof0.25%.Therefore,itcouldbearguedthattheresultsofAscharetheresultsofadifferenteraanddonotrepresentconformityandtheideaofNSIin2017.However,itmustbenotedthatPerrinandSpencerusedaverydifferentsampletoAsch,consistingofengineeringandmathematicstudents.Therefore,itcouldbethatthelowerlevelsofconformitywerealsoinfluencedbytheparticipant’sexpertiseinproblemsolvingtasks.However,NSIisnottheonlyreasonthatpeopleconformandsomepeopleconformtoforinformationalreasons.InformationalSocialInfluence(ISI)iswhenapersonconformstogainknowledge,orbecausetheybelievethatsomeoneelseis‘right’.ISIisusuallyassociatedwithinternalisation,whereapersonchangesboththeirpublicbehaviourandtheirprivatebeliefs,onalong‐termbasis.Thissemi‐permanentchangeinbehaviourandbeliefistheresultofapersonadoptinganewbeliefsystembecausetheygenuinelybelievethattheirnewbeliefsare‘right’orthatthemajorityare‘experts’.

Astrongstarttotheessayusingspecialistvocabulary.Effectiveuseofresearchevidencetocreateelaboratedevaluativecommentary.Aninterestingcounter‐argumenttobalancethediscussionwithfurtherdiscussionprovided.Well‐detailedoutlineofasecondexplanationofconformity,againusingspecialistvocabularyinanexemplarymanner.



Jenness(1932)providesresearchsupportfortheroleofinformationalsocialinfluence.Participantswereaskedtoinitiallymakeindependentjudgementsaboutthenumberofjellybeanscontainedinajarandthendiscusstheirestimatesinagroup.Followingthediscussion,participantsthenmadeanotherindividualprivateestimate.Jennessfoundthatthissecondprivateestimatemovedclosertothegroupestimateandthatfemalestypicallyconformedmore.ThisshowsthatISIwilloccurinunfamiliar,ambiguoussituationsastheparticipantsbelievethattheygainknowledgefromthegroupandarenowmorelikelytoberight.WhileJennessprovidesconvincingevidencefortheroleofISI,itmustbenotedthathisexperimenthasbeencriticisedforlackingecologicalvalidity.Providinganestimateofthenumberofbeansinajarisarathermundanetaskwithnosocialconsequences.Consequently,itislegitimatetoquestionwhetherwewoulddisplaysuchlevelsofISIintasksthathavemoresignificantsocialconsequences,forexample,hearingevidenceinacourtcasefroman‘expert’barrister.Therefore,untilfurtherresearchexaminingISIisconductedinthereal‐world,theseresultsremainconfinedtothelaboratory.[~575Words]

ResearchsupportfortheroleofISIiswell‐detailedandaccurate.LimitationofJennessstudycreatesabalanceinthediscussionfortheroleofISIinconformity.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisisawell‐structuredessaywhichevidentlyfollowedaclearplantooutlineandevaluateNSIandthenrepeatthisformulaforISI.Thishasprovedeffectivetocreatearesponsewhicheffectivelydealswithseveralpiecesofresearchexaminingconformityasaformofsocialinfluence.Theuseofspecialistterminologyisconsistentthroughout.



Discuss factors that can affect conformity. Refer to variations of Asch’s experiment in your answer. (16 marks) Therearethreemainfactorsthataffectwhetherapersonconforms:groupsize,unanimityandtaskdifficulty.Firstly,itislogicaltoassumethatalargergroupwillincreasetherateofconformity,becausethesizeofthesocialpressureincreases.However,researchbyAschhasfoundthattheeffectofgroupsizeisnotsostraightforward.InAsch’soriginalexperiment,onerealparticipantwasplacedamongsixtoeightconfederates.Aschfoundthattheaverageconformityratewas32%.Aschfoundthatwhentherewasonlyoneconfederate,conformitydroppedtojust3%andwhenthereweretwo,conformitydroppedto12.8%.However,withthreeconfederates,Aschfoundthatconformityremainedthesameataround32%.Increasingthegroupsizehaslimitations.WhenAschincreasedthesizeofthemajorityto15confederateshefoundthatconformitystartedtodrop.Thismaybebecausethesituationisseenasbizarreandtheparticipantsstartedtobecomesuspicious,leadingtodemandcharacteristics.Theseresultsshowthatgroupsizehasasignificantimpactonconformityandthatwhenagrouphasthreeormorepeople,conformityreachesitshighestlevelatapproximately32%.Anotherfactorthataffectsconformityisunanimity,whichistheextenttowhichthemajorityagreeintheirviewsorbehaviour.Ifamajorityifunanimousintheiropinion,thentheyaremorelikelytohaveasignificantimpact.Aschexaminedtheideaofunanimityinavariationwhereoneoftheconfederateswasinstructedtogivethecorrectanswerthroughout.Inthisvariation,theaverageconformityratedroppedtojust5%.Thisshowsthatwhenamajorityisbroken,peoplearemorelikelytoresistthepressuretoconform.Thisisbecausetheydonotfeelasthoughtheyarealoneandtheydonothavetogoalongwiththegroup.Thefinalfactorthataffectsconformityistaskdifficulty.IntheoriginalAschexperimentthecorrectanswerwasalwaysobvious;therefore,theparticipantswereconformingduetonormativesocialinfluenceandadesiretofitin.However,inoneofthevariations,Aschmadethelengthoflinessignificantlysmallerandmoredifficulttojudge.Inthisvariation,Aschfoundthattherateofconformityincreased.

Aswiftintroduction,namingthekeyfactorsthatcanaffectconformity.Groupsizeasafactorisclearlyexplained.Well‐detailedandhighlyaccurateknowledgeofgroupsizeandAsch’svariationsispresented.Thisdiscussionislinkedtothequestionandconsidersthepossibleimpactofdemandcharacteristics.Theideaofunanimityiswell‐explainedandaccurate.AppropriatereferencetoAsch’svariationwhichdemonstratessupportforthenotionofunanimityaffectingconformityrates.Thethird,andfinal,factoroftaskdifficultiswellexplained.



Thisislikelytobetheresultofinformationalsocialinfluence,asindividualslooktoanotherforguidancewhencompletingthetask,suggestingthatastasksbecomemoredifficult,peoplearemorelikelytoconform.Furthermore,Jenness(1932)alsoprovidesresearchsupportfortheideaoftaskdifficultly.InJenness’study,participantswereaskedtoinitiallymakeindependentjudgementsaboutthenumberofjellybeanscontainedinajarandthendiscusstheirestimatesinagroup.Followingthediscussion,participantsthenmadeanotherindividualprivateestimate.Jennessfoundthatthissecondprivateestimatemovedclosertowardsthegroupestimate.Jennessconcludedthatthisshiftinjudgementwasduetotheambiguityofthetaskandthereforethedifficultofthetaskledpeopletoconformforinformationalreasons,astheybelievedthatthegroupweremorelikelytobecorrect.[~525Words]

Theevaluativecommentaryisclearanddrawsontwosupportingstudiesthatarelinkedtoinformationalsocialinfluence.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisisawell‐detailedanswerwhichaccuratelyoutlinesthethreefactorswhicharenamedonthespecificationthatcanaffectconformity,namely:groupsize,unanimityandtaskdifficulty.Eachsectionoutlinesthefactor,drawsonsupportingresearchbyAschandprovidesathoroughandeffectivediscussionlinkedbacktothequestion.Furthermore,theanswerintegratesspecialistterminologythroughout,includingreferencestonormativeandinformationalsocialinfluence.



Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles. (16 marks) Zimbardo(1973)conductedastudyonconformitytosocialroles,calledtheStanfordPrisonExperiment.Theaimofhisexperimentwastoexaminewhetherpeoplewouldconformtogivensocialroleswhenplacedinamockprisonenvironment.Hissampleconsistedofmaleuniversitystudentswhowererandomlyassignedtooneoftwosocialroles:prisonerorguard.The‘prisoners’werearrestedbylocalpolice,givenanumberedsmockedtowear,andchainswereplacedaroundtheirankles.Theguardsweregivenuniforms,sunglasses,handcuffsandatruncheonandwereinstructedtoruntheprisonwithoutusingphysicalviolence.Theexperimentwassettorunfortwoweeks,althoughitwasterminatedafteronlysixdays.Zimbardofoundthatboththeprisonersandguardsquicklyidentifiedwiththeirsocialroles.Withindaystheprisonersrebelled,whichwasquicklycrushedbytheguards,whothengrewincreasinglyabusivetowardsthem.Theguardsdehumanisedtheprisoners,wakingthemduringthenightandforcingthemtocleantoiletswiththeirbarehands;theprisonersbecameincreasinglysubmissive,identifyingfurtherwiththeirsubordinaterole.ArecentreplicationoftheStanfordPrisonExperiment,carriedoutbyReicherandHaslam(2006),contradictsthefindingsofZimbardo.Inthisreplication,theparticipantsdidnotconformtotheirsocialrolesautomatically.Forexample,theguardsdidnotidentifywiththeirstatusandrefusedtoimposetheirauthority;theprisonersidentifiedasagrouptochallengetheguard’sauthority,whichresultedinashiftofpowerandacollapseoftheprisonsystem.TheseresultsclearlycontradictthefindingsofZimbardoandsuggestthatconformitytosocialrolesmaynotbeautomatic,asZimbardooriginallyimplied.Furthermore,individualdifferencesandpersonalityalsodeterminetheextenttowhichapersonconformstosocialroles.InZimbardo’soriginalexperiment,thebehaviouroftheguardsvarieddramatically,fromextremelysadisticbehaviourdisplayedbyaroundonethirdoftheparticipantsinthatrole,toafewguardswhoactuallyhelpedtheprisonersbyofferingsupportandsympathy,givingcigarettesandreinstatinglostprivileges.Thissuggeststhatsituationalfactorsarenottheonlycauseofconformitytosocialroles,anddispositionalfactorssuchaspersonalityalsoplayarole,implyingthatZimbardo’sconclusioncouldhavebeenover‐stated.

Atimelyintroductionnamingappropriateresearchintoconformitytosocialrolesfromtheoffset.AccurateanddetaileddescriptionofZimbardo’sprocedureinassigningsocialrolestotheparticipants.ClearknowledgeofthekeyfindingsfromtheStanfordPrisonExperimentarepresented.Aneffectiveevaluationpointdrawingattentiontocontradictoryresearchonthesametopic.Aninterestingfactortoconsider.



Zimbardo’sexperimenthasbeenheavilycriticisedforbreakingmanyethicalguidelines,especiallyprotectionfromharm.Fiveoftheprisonerslefttheexperimentearlybecauseoftheiradversereactionstothephysicalandmentaltorment.Furthermore,someoftheguardsreportedfeelingsofanxietyandguiltasaresultoftheiractionsduringtheStanfordPrisonExperiment.AlthoughZimbardofollowedtheethicalguidelinesofStanfordUniversityanddebriefedhisparticipantsafterwards,heacknowledgedthatthestudyshouldhavebeenstoppedearlier.Ithasbeensuggestedthathewasrespondingmoreintheroleofsuperintendentoftheprisonratherthanastheresearcherwithresponsibilityforhisparticipants.Furthermore,thefactthatZimbardoonlyusedmaleparticipantsinhissampleshowsabetabias,ashisresearchmayhaveignoredorminimisedthedifferencesbetweenmenandwomeninrelationtoconformitytosocialrolesandthereforeweareunabletoconcludewhetherfemalesconformtosocialrolesinasimilarway.[~525Words]

Effectiveevaluativecommentaryincludingreferencetoethicalissuesandtheadditionalissueofbetabias.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisisawell‐detailedandaccurateaccountofZimbardo’sStanfordPrisonExperimentinvestigatingconformitytosocialroles.Theoutlineisconcise,yetthorough.Theevaluationcommentaryiseffectiveinmostplaceswiththefinalparagraphhighlightingthecontroversialnatureofthestudy,culminatingthehigh‐leveldiscussionofZimbardo’swork.



Discuss research into obedience as investigated by Milgram. (16 marks) Milgraminvestigatedwhetherordinarypeoplewouldobeyanordertoinflictpainonaninnocentperson.Hissampleof40maleAmericanvolunteerswenttoYaleUniversity,wheretheymettheexperimenterandanotherparticipant(aconfederate).Itwasfixedsothattherealparticipantwasassignedtheroleof‘teacher’andinstructedtogiveanelectricshockofincreasingstrength(from15–450volts)tothe‘learner’everytimehemadeamistakeonalistofwordpairs.At300voltsthelearnercouldbeheardcomplaining,butafterthattherewerenofurtherresponses.Theexperimentcontinueduntileithertheparticipantrefusedtocontinue,orthemaximumof450voltswasreached.Iftheytriedtostop,theexperimenterwouldofferaverbalprod,e.g.‘Theexperimentrequiresthatyoucontinue’.Milgramfoundthatallparticipantswentto300voltsand65%administeredthefull450volts.Inaddition,qualitativeobservationsreportparticipantsshowingsignsofdistressandtension:sweating,stutteringandtrembling.OnecriticismofMilgram’sstudyisthatitbrokeseveralethicalguidelines.Milgramdeceivedhisparticipantsastheybelievedthattheyweretakingpartinastudyonhowpunishmentaffectslearning,ratherthanonobedience.Theywerealsodeceivedbytheriggingoftheroleallocationthatwasinfactpre‐determined.Duetothenatureofthetask,Milgramdidnotprotecttheparticipantsfrompsychologicalharm,sincemanyofthemshowedsignsofrealdistressduringtheexperimentandmayhavecontinuedtofeelguiltyfollowingtheexperiment,knowingthattheycouldhaveharmedanotherhumanbeing.SomecriticsofMilgrambelievedthatthesebreachescouldservetodamagethereputationofpsychologyandjeopardisefutureresearch.AnothercriticismofMilgram’sstudyisthatitlacksecologicalvalidity.ThisisbecauseMilgramconductedalaboratorystudy,whichisverydifferentfromreal‐lifesituationsofobedience.Ineverydaylife,weoftenobeyfarmoreharmlessinstructions,ratherthangivingpeopleelectricshocks.Asaresult,weareunabletogeneralisehisfindingstoreallifesituationsofobedienceandcannotconcludethatpeoplewouldobeylesssevereinstructionstothesamedegree.However,Milgramcountersthisclaim,statingthatthelaboratorycanreflectwiderauthorityrelationshipsseeninreal‐lifesituations.Forexample,Hoflingetal.(1966)foundthatnursesweresurprisinglyobedienttounjustifiedinstructionsfromadoctorinahospitalsettingandthis

Milgram’saimisclearlystatedattheoffset.AnaccurateoverviewofMilgram’sprocedureispresented.ThoroughknowledgeofMilgram’sfindingsisevident.Aninterestingstarttotheevaluativecommentaryconsideringthelastingimpactofthisinfamousstudy.Anotherwell‐measuredlimitationofMilgram’sresearchonobedienceisconsideredinthesecondevaluationparagraph.However,theansweralsoprovidesaneffectivecounter‐



suggeststhatMilgram’sfindingsdoapplyoutsidethelaboratory.AnothermethodologicalcriticismofMilgram’sstudyisthatitlackspopulationvalidity.ThisisbecauseMilgramusedabiasedsampleof40maleAmericanvolunteersfromabroadlyindividualisticsociety.Therefore,weareunabletogeneralisetheresultstootherpopulations,particularlycollectivistcultures,ortoexplainthebehaviouroffemalessinceitcannotbeconcludedthatthosewithotherculturalexperiences,orfemaleparticipants,wouldrespondinasimilarwaytothatobservedoriginallybyMilgram.ThefactthatMilgramonlyusedmaleparticipantsinhisoriginalsampleshowsabetabias,ashisresearchmayhaveignoredorminimisedthedifferencesbetweenmenandwomeninrelationtotheconclusionsdrawnregardingobediencetoauthority.Itcanalsobecriticisedasbeingandrocentric,sincetheresultscannotbegeneralisedtofemales.[~550Words]

criticismtodevelopthispointfurther.Thefinaldiscussioncommentconsiderstheissuesofculturalbiasandbetabiasappropriately,relatingbacktheevaluationbacktothequestion.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisisanexcellentresponsetothisexamquestion.TheanswershowssoundknowledgeandunderstandingofMilgram’soriginalstudyinvestigatingobediencetoauthority.Thediscussioniscanteredonthreelimitationsandprovidesanin‐depthcommentarythatisthoroughandeffective,embeddingissuesanddebates, withconsistentuseofspecialistterminology.



Outline and evaluate how situational variables have been shown to affect obedience to authority. (16 marks) Situationalvariablesfocusonexternalfactorsthataffectthelikelihoodthatsomeonewillobeyorders,includingproximity,locationanduniform. MilgramconductedhisoriginalresearchinalaboratoryofYaleUniversity.Inordertotestthepowerofthelocation,MilgramconductedavariationinarundownbuildinginBridgeport,Connecticut.Inthisvariation,thepercentageofparticipantswhoadministeredthefull450voltsdroppedfrom65%to47.5%,highlightingtheimportanceoflocationincreatingaprestigiousatmospheregeneratingrespectandobedience.Likewise,Milgramdemonstratedthepowerofuniforminavariationwheretheexperimenterwascalledawayandreplacedbyanother‘participant’(confederate)innormalclothes,ratherthanalabcoat.Here,thepercentageofparticipantswhoadministeredthefullshockdroppedto20%.Whilethisvariationappearstosuggestthatuniformisanimportantfactorthataffectsobediencetoauthority,itisunclearfromthisvariationalonewhethertheuniformisthecontributingfactororwhethertheexperimenteralsoappearsmorelegitimateduetohissocialstatusandrole.However,thereisadditionalresearchsupportfortheroleofuniformaffectingobediencerates.Bickman(1974)conductedafieldexperimentinNewYorkCitywhereconfederatesstoodonthestreetandaskedmembersofthepublicwhowerepassingbytoperformasmalltasksuchaspickingupapieceoflitterorprovidingacoinfortheparkingmeter.Theoutfitthattheconfederatewaswearingvariedfromasmartsuit,jacketandtie,amilkman’soutfitorasecurityguard’suniform.Itwasfoundthatinthisfinalconditionthemembersofthepublicweretwiceaslikelytoobeytheordergivenbythe‘securityguard’,whichsupportsMilgram’sideathatauniformaddstothelegitimacyoftheauthorityfigureandisasituationalvariablewhichincreasesobediencelevels.Proximityreferstohowclosesomeoneorsomethingis.InavariationofMilgram’sexperimentwheretheteacherandlearnerwereinthesameroom,thepercentageofparticipantswhoadministeredthefull450voltsdroppedfrom65%to40%becausetheteachercouldunderstandthelearner’spainmoredirectly.Inanothervariation,theexperimenterlefttheroomandgavetheinstructionsoverthetelephone.Withthis

Thethreesituationalvariablesaffectingobediencenamedonthespecificationarenamedfromtheoutset.Well‐explainedimpactoflocationwithaccuratefindingspresented.Well‐detailedknowledgeofMilgram’svariationsisusedtosupportthenotionofuniform.EffectiveevaluationdrawingonrelevantresearchsupportfromBickmantoillustratethepoweroftheuniforminaffectingobedience.



variationtheobediencelevelsfellevenfurtherto20.5%.Thisshowsthatproximityaffectsobedienceintwoways:1)thecloserapersonistoanauthorityfigurethemorelikelytheyaretoobey;2)thecloserapersonistotheconsequencesoftheiractions,thelesslikelytheyaretoobey.Whilesituationalvariableslikeuniformandproximityareseentobeimportant,researchsuggeststhatotherfactors(e.g.culture)alsoplayanimportantrole.KilmanandMann(1974)replicatedMilgram’soriginalstudyproceduresinAustraliabutfoundthatonly16%oftheparticipantsshockedthelearneratthemaximumvoltagelevelof450VwhereasMantell(1971),ontheotherhand,showedthatitwas85%whenconductedinGermany.Thiscross‐culturalcomparisonshowsthatdifferentsocietiesfollowalternativehierarchicalstructuresandchildrenmaybesocialiseddifferentlyfromayoungagetobemore,orless,obedient.Thissuggeststhatwhilesituationalfactorslikeuniformandproximityareimportant,otherfactorsmayplayamoresignificantroleinobedientbehaviour.[~525Words]

ThenotionofproximityisdefinedandthendemonstratedwithtwoappropriatevariationsfromMilgram.Awell‐detailedandeffectiveevaluationpointdrawingoncross‐culturalresearchisusedtoexploreothercontributingfactors.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisresponseisofanappropriatelengthforaquestionwhichattemptstocoverallthreesituationalvariablesaffectingobediencenamedonthespecification.Theelusivebreadthanddepthtrade‐offhasbeenachievedthroughpreciseandaccuratedescriptionandinterestingandwell‐elaborateddiscussion.Theenmeshmentofissuesanddebatesintotheresponsedemonstratesahighlevelofknowledgeandunderstandingofthedemandsforthosewantingtosecureentryintothetopmarkband.



Outline and evaluate the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience. (16 marks) Dispositionalexplanationsforobediencefocusoninternal(personality)characteristicswithinhumansthatcontributetoobedience.OneparticularexplanationfocusesontheauthoritarianpersonalitywhichwasproposedbyAdorno.Adornoetal.(1950)believedthatthefoundationsforanauthoritarianpersonalitywerelaidinearlychildhoodbecauseofharshandstrictparenting.Thiscreatesresentmentwithinthechildastheygrowupand,sincetheycannotexpressitatthetime,thefeelingsaredisplacedontootherswhoareseenas‘weak’or‘inferior’.AccordingtoAdorno,thispersonalitytypeiscorrelatedwithprejudiceanddiscriminationaswellasobedience.Adornoetal.conductedastudyusing2000middle‐class,CaucasianAmericanstofindouttheirunconsciousviewstowardsotherracialgroupsbydevelopinganumberofquestionnairesincludingtheF‐scale,whichmeasuredfascisttendencies.ThosehighontheF‐scalewerestatus‐conscious,moreobedienttoauthorityfiguresandshowedanextremesubmissivenessandrespect.Theyalsobelievedthatsocietyrequiresstrongleadershiptoenforcerigid,traditionalvalues,hencetheirdispositionalpreferenceforobedientbehaviour.Thereisresearchsupportfortheauthoritarianpersonalityasanexplanationforobedience.MilgramandElms(1966)conductedpost‐experimentalinterviewswithparticipantswhowerefullyobedientinMilgram’soriginalstudy,toseeiftherewasalinkbetweenhighlevelsofobedienceandanauthoritarianpersonality.ItwasfoundthattheobedientparticipantsscoredhigherontheF‐scaleincomparisontothedisobedientparticipants.Furthermore,theobedientparticipantswerelessclosetotheirfathersduringchildhoodandadmiredtheexperimenterinMilgram’sstudy,whichwasquitetheoppositefordisobedientparticipants.ItwasconcludedthattheobedientparticipantsinMilgram’soriginalresearchdisplayedmorecharacteristicsoftheauthoritarianpersonality.Theremaybeindividualdifferencesthatcontributetothedevelopmentoftheauthoritarianpersonality.ResearchbyMiddendorpandMeleon(1990)hasfoundthatless‐educatedpeoplearemorelikelythanwell‐educatedpeopletodisplayauthoritarianpersonalitycharacteristics.Iftheseclaimsarecorrect,thenitispossiblethatitisnotauthoritarianpersonalitycharacteristicsalonethatleadtoobedience,but

Strongintroductionidentifyingkeyresearchersintotheauthoritarianpersonalityfromtheoffset.Briefoverviewofthemethodologyusedtoassessauthoritarianpersonalitypresented.Keyfindingsrelateddirectlytothequestionofexplainingobedience.ResearchsupportfromMilgramandElmsusedeffectivelytobegintheevaluativecommentary.Aninterestingcounter‐argumentsuggestingthateducationisamediating



alsootherfactors,includinglevelsofeducation.Theremaybemethodologicalcriticismsassociatedwiththemeasuresusedtodetermineauthoritarianpersonalitytraits.ItispossiblethattheF‐scalesuffersfromresponsebiasorsocialdesirability,whereparticipantsprovideanswersthataresociallyacceptable.Forexample,participantsmayappearmoreauthoritarianbecausetheybelievethattheiranswersaresocially‘correct’andconsequentlytheyareincorrectlyclassifiedasauthoritarianwhentheyarenot.This,therefore,reducestheinternalvalidityofthequestionnaireresearchmethodusedindeterminingthedegreeofauthoritarianism,suggestingthatotherfactors/explanationsmayberesponsibleforobedientbehaviour.Adornoetal.cametobelievethatahighdegreeofauthoritarianismwassimilartosufferingfromapsychologicaldisorder,withthecauselyingwithinthepersonalityoftheindividual(nature)butoriginallycausedbythetreatmenttheyreceivedfromtheirparentsatayoungage(nurture).Obedientbehaviouris,therefore,determinedbyoursocialisationexperiencesandnotaresultoffreewill.However,somepsychologists(e.g.humanisticpsychologists)woulddismisstheseclaimsandarguethathumanshavethecapacityforfreewillandchangeandthatdispositionalexplanationsforobedienceareoverlydeterministic.[~525Words]

factor.Abalanceddiscussionisprovidedwithalimitationofthemethodsusedtoassessauthoritarianpersonality.Thefinalparagraphconcludestheessaywithappropriatereferencetoissuesanddebates.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisisawell‐structuredandessaywhichprovidesanaccurateandwell‐detailedoutlineofkeyresearchintotheauthoritarianpersonalityasadispositionalexplanationforobedience.Thefollowingevaluativecommentarycoversarangeofeffectivepointstosupportandcritiquethisconcept.Overall,theessayisclear,coherentandfocusedandspecialistterminologyisusedthroughout.



Two A level students were discussing the topic of social influence after their last psychology lesson. Louise: “It’s incredible how some people can resist social influence isn’t it, Matt? They must have a strong personality with lots of confidence”. Matt: “I don’t agree with you, Louise, I think people are more likely to resist social influence if the people they are with do so too”. Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence. In your answer, refer to the views expressed by Louise and Matt in the conversation above. (16 marks) TherearetwoexplanationsofresistancetosocialinfluencethatrelatetoLouiseandMatt’sconversation:socialsupportandlocusofcontrol.Louisesuggeststhata‘confidentpersonality’isthereasonwhypeopleresistsocialinfluenceandthereforesheisadvocatingadispositionalexplanation,linkedtotheideaoflocusofcontrol.Peoplewithaninternallocusofcontrolbelievethattheyhavecontrolovertheirlifeandarelessconcernedwithsocialapproval.Individualswithaninternallocusofcontrolare,therefore,moreindependentandfinditeasiertoresistsocialinfluence.Itcouldbeinferredthatapersonwitha‘strong’personalitywouldbemorelikelytodisplayaninternallocusofcontrolandthereforeresistsocialinfluence.Thereisresearchsupportfortheideathatindividualswithaninternallocusofcontrolarelesslikelytoconform.Spector(1983)usedRotter’slocusofcontrolscaletodeterminewhetherlocusofcontrolisassociatedwithconformity.From157students,Spectorfoundthatindividualswithahighinternallocusofcontrolwerelesslikelytoconformthanthosewithahighexternallocusofcontrol,butonlyinsituationsofnormativesocialinfluence,whereindividualsconformtobeaccepted.Therewasnodifferencebetweenthetwogroupsforinformationalsocialinfluence.Thissuggeststhatnormativesocialinfluence,thedesiretofitin,ismorepowerfulthaninformationalsocialinfluence,thedesiretoberight,whenconsideringlocusofcontrol.TheseresultssuggestthatLouise’sviewispartlycorrect:anindividualwitha‘strong’personality’(internalLOC)islikelytoresistsocialinfluence,inparticular,thepressuretoconform,especiallyinsituationsofnormativesocialinfluence.However,theresultsalsosuggestthatLouise’sviewisnotnecessarilycorrectincasesofinformationalsocialinfluence,whereapersonconformstobecorrect.

Aswiftintroductionsettingthescenefortherestoftheessay.Applicationtothecontextisembeddedeffectivelyfromtheoff‐set.Anaccuratedescriptionofinternallocusofcontrolandhowthisrelatestoresistance.EffectiveevaluativecommentarydrawingonrelevantresearchsupportfromSpector.Selectionofappropriatematerialfromthescenarioappropriatelydiscussedinthecontextofthisessay.



Matt,ontheotherhand,putsforwardasituationalexplanation.Mattsuggeststhatresistanceisbasedonthepresenceofotherswhichislinkedtotheideaofsocialsupport.Peoplearemorelikelytoresistsocialinfluenceiftheyhaveanally–someoneelsewhosupportstheirpointofview.Havinganallycanhelpanindividualtobuildconfidenceandremainindependentbecauseitbreakstheunanimityofthegroupandsuggeststhatanotherpointofviewispossible.Thereisevidencetosupporttheideathatsocialsupportcanreducesocialinfluence.InoneofAsch’s(1951)variations,oneoftheconfederateswasinstructedtogivethecorrectanswerthroughout.Inthisvariation,therateofconformitydroppedto5%.Thisdemonstratesthatiftherealparticipanthassupportfortheirbelief(socialsupport),thentheyaremorelikelytoresistthepressuretoconform.ThissuggeststhatMatt’sviewthatresistingsocialinfluencedependsonwhetherothers‘dosotoo’isalsosupportedbyresearch.Aschclearlydemonstratesthatsocialsupportlowersthepressureofthegroupmakingiteasiertodemonstrateindependentbehaviour.[~500Words]

Thesecondfactornamedattheoutsetisdescribedinsuitabledepthtoachievebalance.Evaluativecommentarycompletedwithanotherdiscussionofresearchsupport.Applicationtothescenarioisconsistentthroughouttheresponse.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisisanexcellentresponsetowhatcansometimesbeconsideredacomplexquestion,giventhefocusonresistance.Theresponsehascorrectlyidentifiedlocusofcontrolandsocialsupportasthenoteworthyfeaturesfromthenovelcontextprovided.ThesearebothaccuratelydescribedandappropriatelyappliedtotheconversationbetweenLouiseandMatt.Furthermore,thediscussionisofanappropriatelengthgiventhedivisionofmarksacrossthethreeassessmentobjectives.



Outline and evaluate research into minority influence. (16 marks) Differentfactorscanenhancetheeffectivenessofaminority,including:commitment,flexibilityandconsistency.Consistencyreferstothewayinwhichminorityinfluenceismorelikelytooccurwhenthememberssharethesamebeliefandretainitovertime.Moscovici(1969)conductedastudytoseeifaconsistentminoritycouldinfluenceamajoritytogiveanincorrectanswer,inacolourperceptiontask.Hissampleof172femaleparticipantswereplacedingroupsofsixandshown36slides,allvaryingshadesofblue.Theparticipantshadtostateoutloudthecolourofeachslide.Twoofthesixparticipantswereconfederates.Intheconsistentcondition,thetwoconfederatessaidthatall36slidesweregreen;intheinconsistentcondition,theconfederatessaidthat24oftheslidesweregreenand12wereblue.Moscovicifoundthatintheconsistentcondition,theparticipantsagreedon8.2%ofthetrials,whereasintheinconsistentcondition,theparticipantsonlyagreedon1.25%ofthetrials.Moscoviciusedabiasedsampleof172femaleparticipantsfromAmerica.Asaresult,weareunabletogeneralisetheresultstootherpopulations,forexamplemaleparticipants,andwecannotconcludethatmaleparticipantswouldrespondtominorityinfluenceinthesameway.Moscovici’sresearchcanbecriticisedasbeinggynocentricashisresearchtakesanexclusivefocusontheconformingbehaviouroffemaleparticipantstoaminorityinfluence.Furthermore,researchoftensuggeststhatfemalesaremorelikelythanmalestoconformandthereforefurtherresearchisrequiredtodeterminetheeffectofminorityinfluenceonmaleparticipantstoimprovethelowpopulationvalidityofthisexperiment.Moscovicihasbeencriticisedforbreachingethicalguidelinesduringhisstudy.Hedeceivedhisparticipants,astheyweretoldthattheyweretakingpartinacolourperceptiontestwheninfactitwasanexperimentonminorityinfluence.ThisalsomeansthatMoscovicididnotgainfullyinformedconsent.Althoughitisseenasunethicaltodeceiveparticipants,Moscovici’sexperimentrequireddeceptioninordertoachievevalidresults,asiftheparticipantswereawareofthetrueaim,theymighthavedisplayeddemandcharacteristicsandacteddifferently.Thus,acost‐benefitanalysiswoulddeemthattheinsightgainedfromsuchresearchwasworththeshort‐termcosttotheparticipantswhichcouldbedealt

Severalfactorsidentifiedatthebeginning.Theessaycontinuestoconsiderresearchintoconsistencyinrelationtominorityinfluence.AccurateanddetailedoutlineofMoscovici’sresearchstudy.Soundknowledgeofthekeyfindingsfromtheinvestigationarepresented.Theevaluativecommentaryiskick‐startedwithavalidcriticismoftheresearchsample,withanissueembeddedseamlessly.Theevaluationisdevelopedwithanotherlimitationconsideringtheethical



withbymeansofadebrieffollowingthestudy.Therearemethodologicalissueswithresearchintominorityinfluence.Judgingthecolourofaslideisanartificialtaskandthereforelacksmundanerealism,sinceitisnotsomethingthatoccurseveryday.Researchconditionsarecriticisedasbeingtoofarremovedfromcasesofreal‐worldminorityinfluencesuchaspoliticalcampaigning.Theimplicationsofreal‐worldcasesarealsogrosslydisproportionatetothoseseeninalabsettingastheycanforsomepeopleliterallybecasesoflifeordeathandassuchMoscovici’sresearchlacksexternalvalidity.[~485Words]

implications.TheessayconcludeswithathirddrawbackofMoscovici’sresearchintominorityinfluence.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4ThisisadetailedandaccurateaccountofMoscovici’sstudyonminorityinfluenceinvestigatingtheimpactofconsistency.Theoutlineprovidessufficientbalancebetweentheprocedureandfindings.Theevaluationconsidersthreelimitationsofhisresearchwiththefirstparagraphembeddingareferencetoissuesanddebatesintheformofgynocentricbias.Allinall,anexcellentessay.



Outline and evaluate the role of social influence processes in social change. (16 marks) Socialchangereferstohow,overtime,beliefs,attitudesandbehavioursofasocietyarereplacedwithnewnormsandexpectations.Therearemanyprocessesthatareinvolved,thefirstofwhichisconsistency.Displayingaconsistentviewpointisbeneficialinbringingaboutsocialchange,asthemessageappearsmorecredibleandcanhelptoconvinceamajority.AnotherprocessistheAugmentationPrinciple.Whenthemajoritypaysattentiontoselflessandriskyactionsbeingtakenbytheminoritygroup,itismorelikelytointegratethegroup’sopinionintotheirownpersonalviewpointsduetothepersonalsacrificemadebytheminority.Oncetheminorityviewpointhasgottheattentionofsomeofthemajoritygroupmembers,moreandmorepeoplebeginpayingattentionandtheminorityviewpointgathersmomentum,whichiscalledthesnowballeffect.Finally,NormativeSocialInfluencecanencouragesocialchangebyreportingthebehaviourorattitudesofthemajority,tourgeotherstofollowsuittofitinwiththegroup.Minorityinfluencecanoftenactasabarriertosocialchange.Bashiretal.(2013)wereinterestedininvestigatingwhysomanypeopleresistsocialchangeevenwhentheybelieveittobeneeded.Itwasfoundthatsomeminoritygroups,suchasenvironmentalactivistsorfeminists,oftenliveuptothestereotypesassociatedwiththosegroups,whichcanbeoff‐puttingforoutsiders.Thismeansthatthemajorityoftendoesnotwanttobeassociatedwithaminorityforfearofbeingstereotypicallylabelled.Thereisresearchsupportfortheroleofnormativesocialinfluenceasaprocessforsocialchange.Nolanetal.(2008)conductedastudywhichspannedonemonthinCaliforniaandinvolvedhangingmessagesonthefrontdoorsofpeople’shousesinSanDiego,encouragingthemtoreduceenergyconsumptionbyindicatingthatmostotherresidentsintheneighbourhoodwerealreadydoingthis.Asameansofcontrol,somehousesreceivedamessageaboutenergyusagebutwithnoreferencetothebehaviourofotherpeopleinthearea.Itwasfoundthattheexperimentalgroupsignificantlyloweredtheirenergyconsumption,showingthatconformitycanleadtopositivesocialchange.Minorityinfluenceandmajorityinfluencemayinvolve

Keyterminologyisoutlined,settingthescenefortherestoftheessaytoflow.Asecondprocessinvolvedinsocialchangeisaccuratelydescribed.Specialistvocabularyisusedeffectively.Afourthconceptcompletestheoutlineelementofthequestion.Aninterestingargumentispresentedtobegintheevaluativecommentary.Effectiveuseofresearchstudiesisusedtosupportthepointbeingdiscussed.



differentlevelsofcognitiveprocessing.Moscovicibelievesthataminorityviewpointforcesindividualstothinkmoredeeplyabouttheissue.However,Mackie(1987)countersthis,suggestingtheoppositetobetrue.Shesuggeststhatwhenamajoritygroupisthinkingoractinginawaythatisdifferentfromourselvesweareforcedtothinkevenmoredeeplyabouttheirreasons.This,therefore,castsdoubtonthevalidityofMoscovici’sminorityinfluencetheory,suggestingitmaybeanincorrectexplanationofsocialchange.Reportsofsocialchangewithinsocietycaninvolveconceptsthathavenotbeen,orcannotbe,testedempirically,whichmeansthattheylackscientificcredibility.Furthermore,manyexamplesofsocialchangerestonisolatedcasestudies(e.g.MartinLutherKing)andtherefore,anidiographicapproachisoftentaken.Consequently,thereisalargeamountofsubjectiveinterpretationinvolvedinexplainingtheoccurrencesofsocialnormsandsuchevidenceshouldbetreatedwithcaution.However,thereisalsoalargequantityofresearchthatsupportstheprocessesinvolvedinsocialchange,suchasthatofAsch,MilgramandMoscoviciwhichtakeanomotheticapproach,astheyhaveeachcreateduniversallawstoexplainhumanbehaviourundercertainsocialcircumstances.Takentogether,theseisolatedcasestudiesandrelativelylargescalestudiesprovidecredibilitytotheunderlyingprocessesinvolvedinsocialchange.[~537Words]

Aneffectivecounter‐argumentispresentedtocreatebalanceintheresponse.Theessayisroundedoffwithknowledgeablediscussionofrelevantissuesanddebates.

ExaminerStyleComments: MarkBand4Thisquestioncanoftenactasastumblingblockformanystudents.However,thisresponsenavigatesfourkeyconceptsinvolvedasprocessesinsocialchangewithrelativeease.Keyterminologyisusedeffectivelyandconsistentlythroughouttheanswer.Theevaluativecommentaryiswell‐supportedwithrelevantresearchdrawntoelaboratethediscussionpoints.Asuperbeffort.



NOTES

More Psychology revision and support at:

www.tutor2u.net/psychology

@tutor2uPsych ALevelPsychStudentGroup tutor2uPsych


AQA A LEVEL Psychology topic Essays: SOCIAL INFLUENCE

1. Joseph and Kate are two newly qualified teachers who recently joined Christ the King College. Their colleagues are going on a one-day strike due to pay and conditions. When Kate was asked why she went on strike, she said, “After sitting in the staff room and hearing the arguments from my colleagues, I realised they were right, and the conditions are definitely getting worse for teachers”. When Joseph was asked, he said, “I just fancied a day off and didn’t want to be the only one sitting in the office alone, so I thought I would join everyone else”.

Discuss explanations of conformity. Refer to Joseph and Kate in your answer. (16 marks)

2. Outline and evaluate research examining conformity. (16 marks)

3. Discuss factors that can affect conformity. Refer to variations of Asch’s experiment in your answer. (16 marks)

4. Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles. (16 marks)

5. Discuss research into obedience as investigated by Milgram. (16 marks)

6. Outline and evaluate how situational variables have been shown to affect obedience to authority. (16 marks)

7. Outline and evaluate the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience. (16 marks)

8. Two A level students were discussing the topic of social influence after their last psychology lesson. Louise: “It’s incredible how some people can resist social influence isn’t it, Matt? They must have a strong personality with lots of confidence”. Matt: “I don’t agree with you, Louise, I think people are more likely to resist social influence if the people they are with do so too”.

Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence. In your answer, refer to the views expressed by Louise and Matt in the conversation above. (16 marks)

9. Outline and evaluate research into minority influence. (16 marks)

10. Outline and evaluate the role of social influence processes in social change. (16 marks)

social influence essays

aqa a level psychology topic essays · 2019-11-27 · aqa a level psychology topic essays: social...

Documents