1.1 The Nature of Obedience
Higher PsychologySocial Behaviour: Conformity & Obedience102870016954500”The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it is conformity” Rollo MayAssessment Standards and Mandatory content Outcome 1 Analyse topics relating to human social behaviour by:1.1 Explaining concepts and/or theories associated with a topic in social psychology1.2Evaluating psychological research evidence relating to the topic 1.3 Applying understanding of social psychology to everyday behaviourConformity and Obedience. Psychological concepts and/or theories which must include: ? Types of conformity which must include: identification; compliance; internalisation ? factors affecting conformity which must include: normative influence; informational influence; social influence; individual factors; situational factors; cultural factors ? factors affecting obedience which must include: types of authority; perceived legitimate authority; socialisation; authoritarian parenting; autonomous and agentic levels of behaviour; situational factors ? Strategies for resisting social pressure/coercion which must include: responsibility for own actions; moral reasoning and awareness of own values; questioning motives of others including advertisers and peer groups; disobedient models Studies The aims, methods, results and conclusions of at least two relevant psychological studies which must include: ? Mori, K, and Arai, M (2010) No need to fake it: Reproduction of the Asch experiment without confederates. International Journal of Psychology, 45 (5), 390–397. ? Milgram, S (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–78 and relevant knowledge from Milgram’s subsequent related studies. What is Conformity?Conformity is a form of social influence that results from exposure to the majority position. David Myers (1999) defines conformity as: ‘a change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure’. Zimbardo et al (1995) state that it is: “a tendency for people to adopt the behaviour, attitudes and values of other members of a reference group’. Our reference group are the people we refer to, our peers, friends and family. These people have more impact on us than strangers. 4010025889000We conform every dayWe take on the beliefs and behaviour of the society we live in, and change our behaviour in different situations to fit expectations. For example we:wear school uniform or ‘fashionable’ clothes ‘choose’ gendered hairstylesencourage girls to shave their legs and armpitsqueue at bus stops and cash machinesMany of these things are a result of socialisation or conditioning. Socialisation refers to the lifelong process of passing on norms, beliefs, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary to fit in to our society.So - why do we conform?Informational influence People conform because they believe the majority is right. This occurs especially in ambiguous situations and/or where the majority is known to have superior knowledge. There is a belief that others are better informed about a certain issue (e.g. music and fashion), and have made a better choice (better music/fashion taste) and that their choice is the correct one.Normative social influence People conform in order to be liked and accepted as part of a group, for example a pupil at school may want to fit in and be accepted by a group and go along with others to avoid ridicule/rejection. ClassworkDefine the term ‘Conformity’2) Give 2 examples from everyday life of how you conform due to informational influence and 2 examples of how you conform due to normative influence.1.1 Types of conformity1. Compliance - This is conforming to majority opinions and behaviour in public but privately maintaining your own attitudes e.g. agreeing with a parent that your bedroom is untidy just for a quiet life, wearing a tie to school even though you think they’re uncomfortable.2. Identification - An individual takes on the majority beliefs and behaviours both publicly and privately but this may only be temporary and will not be maintained when the individual leaves the group e.g. you join an animals right campaign group with your friends at college, but stop your subscription to the charity when the group disperses after the course ends.3. Internalisation - This occurs when an individual privately accepts the majority view. The new attitudes and behaviours become part of the individuals personal value system.54864006477000Some conformity is a good thing for society to run smoothlyStopping at a red light Telling a white lie to protect someone’s feelings e.g. ‘no your bum does NOT look big in that’Laughing at a bad joke told by the host of a partyNot attacking people in the street - behaving in an appropriate manner457200018605500Some conformity is a bad and abused by evil leadersThe Nazis believed that Jewish people were inferior and slaughtered 6 million people. Many people conformed with this idea.1.2 Research into conformity-2292353111500Aim: Jenness (1932) asked students to guess how many beans there were in a jar. They were then given an opportunity to discuss their estimates and, finally, to give their individual estimates again. Findings; Jenness found that individual estimates tended to converge to a group norm. Conclusion: It seems reasonable that, in an ambiguous situation, one looks to others to get some ideas about a reasonable answer. ClassworkCard Sort - put the statements under the correct heading:ComplianceIdentificationInternalisation Publically and privately agreeingPrivately disagreeing but outwardly going along with the groupTaking on the beliefs of a group, but requiring their presence to maintain the beliefs and behaviour An example is drinking water because all your friends do, when you are not around them you revert to lemonadeAn example is voting for a political party because you feel strongly that they are the best party. An example is going along with the request of your boss and apologising to a customer, even though your think you are not at fault.2. Give an example of each type on conformity – compliance, identification and internalisation. They can be from your own life, or things you’ve seen happen. 3. Give 1 example of conformity which is positive (pro-social) and one example of conformity that is negative (anti-social), other than the examples given above.1.1 Types of non-conformityIndependenceThis is when a person is truly independent of the group and is unresponsive to pressure. When their behaviour converges with the group it is because their views happen to coincide, not because they want to be liked (normative influence). These people are quite unusual, as most of us conform for a lot of our day for an easy life! Anti-conformityThis is when someone consistently opposes the group in order to be different. They choose to dress or wear their hair differently as a means of standing out. The behaviour of anti-conformists is actually defined by the group – if we say black, they say white!ClassworkIn pairs or groups decide whether the following people are independent in their views and behaviour or anti-conformists. They may of course be both, or neither! You decide.1. Katniss, Peeta and Gale 2. Miley Cyrus365760077470000149225003. Bella Swan and the vegetarian Cullens -104775169545004. Lady Gaga6991351651000Early experiments on group normsAim: Sheriff (1935) investigated responses to an ambiguous stimulus, using the autokinetic effect. This is an illusion, much like a disco lights, where a stationary point of light appears to move in a dark room. The light wasn’t actually moving at all. He wanted to see if people’s estimates would be change when they heard the estimates of other people. Method: Sherif told participants he was going to move the light and they had to estimate how far the light moved. When tested individually several times their answers fluctuated by settled down. There were wide differences between participant estimates though. They then heard the estimates of two others who had given quite different estimates of the light’s movement. After their discussion each was participant was asked to provide individual answers again. Results: A group norm emerged, where estimates become similar to the ones they had heard, so their answers had ‘converged’ / come closer. Conclusion: This demonstrates a tendency to conform to the group norm, especially in ambiguous situations where we are unsure of the correct answer. We look to others. Evaluation: This was one of the first studies to look at the power of the group, and prompted many other social psychologists to see if they could measure this phenomenon. The most notable research was conducted by was Solomon Asch, who hoped to improve on Sherif’s procedure by having real group members present and by introducing a situation where the answer was completely obvious. 5076825-657225001.2 Study 1: Investigating the nature of conformity Solomon Asch, 1956AimsThe aim of this study was to find out how people would behave when given an unambiguous task where the answer is obvious. Would they be influenced by the behaviour of others, or would they stick firmly to what they knew to be right? How much conforming to majority influence would there be?41148009271000Method and procedure In total, 123 male American undergraduates were tested. Asch showed a series of lines (the standard line and the possible answers as shown here) to participants seated around a table. All but one of the participants was a confederate of the researcher. The 7-9 confederates were instructed to give the same incorrect answers on 12 ‘critical’ trials. In total there were 18 trials with each participant. The true participant (na?ve participant) was always the last of last but one to answer. ResultsOn the critical trials, an average of 36.8% of the responses made by the participants were incorrect. 13 out of 50 participants never conformed, which was 25%. The majority - 75% conformed at least once. This is surprising because the task was unambiguous. Asch conducted a control trial where no confederate gave a wrong answer, he found that people do make mistakes about 1% of the time.Conclusion4562475952500This shows a surprisingly strong tendency to conform to group pressures in a situation where the answer is clear. For Asch the important finding was that there was any conformity at all. However, Asch also noted that on two-thirds of the trials his participants had remained independent, which was clear evidence of how people could resist pressure to conform. This study is represented in most social psychology textbooks as resounding evidence of people’s tendency to conform when faced with a unanimous majority. It is also evidence of conditions under which people resist conformity. 1.2 Evaluation of the studyStrength:This study has generated huge amounts of further research in to conformity. It has been replicated in many time periods all over the world. Weaknesses:1. Lack of ecological validity. What does this study actually tell us about real life?Asking people to judge the length of lines is a rather insignificant task; people may be willing to conform to save face. On a more important conformity task, we would expect conformity levels to drop. The experiment used strangers, but conformity may be even higher when with people you know. The study had low ecological validity2. Is the study a “child of its time”?This was conducted in a highly conformist time in American society during the cold war - the era of McCarthyism where Senator McCarthy was pulling in people to answer charges of communism if they held any sympathy with left wing views of equality. Perrin and Spencer repeated Asch’s study in 1981 with British students. They found only 1 conformist answer out of 396 trials. The era of individualism did not take place until the 1960’s. There have been studies that support Asch’s results and others which suggest it’s an unpredictable phenomenon.3. Biased sampleAll participants were male and belonged to the same age group. These results cannot be generalised to women.4. Ethical issuesParticipants were not protected from psychological harm; participants were deceived and experienced some distress.3543300-34290000ClassworkStickmenIllustrate the Asch study using ONLY stickmen and speech bubbles. Swap your picture with a learning partner and get them to guess which is the aim, method, results, conclusion and evaluation. Let them know if they’re correct.Extension activity: If you feel comfortable at the remembering and understanding levels then feel free to skip straight to the higher levels of application, analysis etc.3493135338455003. Homework assignment: ‘Describe and evaluate the Asch study on conformity. 6 marks description and 4 marks evaluation. Total = 10 marksStudy 2: Arai and Mori (2010)AimAsch's finding was hugely confounded (made invalid) by the fact that some confederates would have been more convincing than others. To solve these problems Kazuo Mori and Miho Arai adapted the MORI technique (Manipulation of Overlapping Rivalrous Images by polarizing filters), used previously in eye-witness research. By wearing filter glasses similar to those used for watching 3-D movies, participants can view the same display and yet see different things.Method and Procedure37814255461000Mori and Arai replicated Asch's line comparison task with 104 participants tested in groups of four at a time (on successive trials participants said aloud which of three comparison lines matched a single target line). In each group, three participants wore identical glasses, with one participant wearing a different set, thereby causing them to observe that a different comparison line matched the target line. As in Asch's studies, the participants stated their answers publicly, with the minority participant always going third. Whereas Asch used male participants only, the new study involved both men and women. ResultsFor women only, the new findings closely matched the Asch research, with the minority participant being swayed by the majority on an average of 4.41 times out of 12 key trials (compared with 3.44 times in the original). However, the male participants in the new study were not swayed by the majority view.Discussion and ConclusionThere are many possible reasons why men in the new study were not swayed by the majority as they were in Asch's studies, including cultural differences (the current study was conducted in Japan) and generational changes. Mori and Arai highlighted another reason - the fact that the minority and majority participants in their study knew each other, whereas participants in Asch's study did not.EvaluationStrength: The researchers argue that using familiar people is a strength of their new approach: 'Conforming behaviour among acquaintances is more important as a psychological research topic than conforming among strangers,' they said. 'Conformity generally takes place among acquainted persons, such as family members, friends or colleagues, and in daily life we seldom experience a situation like the Asch experiment in which we make decisions among total strangers.'Weakness: The Mori and Arai study was only conducted in Japan so the results cannot be generalised to other cultures. Overall: Looking ahead, Mori and Arai believe their approach will provide a powerful means of re-examining Asch's classic work, including in situations (e.g. young children) in which the use of confederates would not be practical. Mori, K., and Arai, M. (2010). No need to fake it: Reproduction of the Asch experiment without confederates. International Journal of Psychology, 45 (5), 390-397 ) For each study identify which type of conformity was demonstrated by the participants – informational or normative.StudyType of conformityJenness (1932) jar of beansSherif (1935) autokinetic effectAsch (1951) standard line experimentMori and Arai (2010) conformity in Japan2) Discuss the questions below as a small group and then write them up individually; this can be completed as homework.Describe Mori and Arai’s study in no more than four action-packed sentences (4)Paragraph 1 describes a problem with Asch’s original study; outline this problem choosing terminology from the research methods unit. (3)Compare the procedures used by Asch (1951) and Mori And Arai (2010); find as many similarities and differences as you can (6)Compare the findings of Asch (1951) and Mori and Arai (2010); is there anything surprising or unexpected about the findings? (3)Based on these new findings, what are your thoughts about whether demand characteristics and the low ecological validity of the laboratory setting were responsible for the lower levels of conformity in Asch’s original study? (2)Can you think of any alternative strategies for researching conformity using qualitative methods and data analysis techniques? Pick a method and say how you would use it.(4)Individual and situational factorsinfluencing conformityWe want to “fit in” with friends or groups and are brought up to believe stereotypical views about others as a quick way to understand the world e.g. girls are more interested in fashion and gossip than boys, boys are more aggressive than girls and better leaders. We are also shaped by religion, our parents, and the culture we live in. There are three ways to explain our conformist behaviour: 445770044450001. Individual factors2. Situational factors 3. Cultural factors.Individual factors are things such as self-esteem, confidence, intelligence, experience or gender. Situational and cultural factors are anything in the environment, including the behaviour of other people and social roles.Individual factorsGenderWe may be more likely to conform depending on our gender. It is thought that women tend to be more conformist than men (Eagly and Carli, 1981). This may be explained in terms of the fact that women are more concerned with social relationships than men and this means that, in the experimental condition, they have different short term goals. The result is that women appear to be more conformist than they are in the real world (Eagley, 1978).Self esteemOur self-esteem may affect how likely we are to conform. Asch suggested that people low in self-esteem are more likely to conform because they are more likely to fear rejection from the group.Desire for personal controlBurger and Cooper (1979) investigated another possible individual difference: the desire for personal control. Participants had to rate whether cartoons were funny or not in the presence of a confederate who was asked to do the same. Those participants who measured high on desire for personal control were less likely to rate the cartoons in the same way as a confederate.Parenting and life experience in previous situations is another individual difference. Adorno et al (1950) described the authoritarian personality - people who are more likely to conform because of the way in which they were brought up.Need for social approval - if an individual has a strong need for social approval they are more likely to conform to the groupSocial relationships - if an individual is concerned about social relationships they are more likely to conform (this tends to be women).Classwork1. Visit the following website and take a version of Adorno’s test for authoritarian personality. The F scale measures Fascist tendencies! . Make a mindmap, poster or presentation on keynote, powerpoint etc on individual factors which influence conformity.Situational factors which influence conformityGroup cohesiveness - In situations where a group of people know each other (unlike Asch’s experiment) conformity may be even higher, as shown in the study by Williams and Sogon.Importance of task - In situations where people have a strong moral basis for their beliefs they are less easily swayed by the opinions of others. Hornsey et al (2003) found that students who had strong beliefs about the recognition of gay couples in law were publicly and privately less likely to conform to majority opinion.-1143004254500Size of the majority - Asch (1956) found that the size of the opposing majority did affect conformity - up to a point. He found that as the size of the majority grew, so did the percentage of trials in which the na?ve participant conformed. There was a high percentage of conformity when a lone dissenter faced a unified majority of three people, but increasing the number of confederates beyond three did not raise conformity levels significantly. There is little change in conformity once the group reaches 4-5.Status of majority group - If the status of the majority group is high (eg: popular group of girls at school) then they will be more influential, and others will be more likely to want to be part of their group and therefore conform. Cultural factors4486275635000Individualist vs Collectivist025527000Compared with individualistic cultures such as the UK and USA, conformity appears to be higher in societies where group harmony is a priority. These cultures are called collectivist cultures, examples of these are China, Korea and Japan. Conformity may be seen as a positive feature in cultures where interdependence is more highly valued than independence. In collectivist cultures family and work group goals are emphasized above individual needs or desires. This is what Smith and Bond (1993) found in a review of 31 studies of conformity.Time period356870024066500Many psychologists argue that Western culture in the 1950s encouraged conformity, but these strict norms were subverted in the 1960s and 70s by the black civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the contraceptive pill and the sexual revolution that resulted. Many people cite Rock and roll music as a major turning point, where people no longer felt they had to do things in the old ways. ClassworkAdd situational and cultural factors to your mindmap or presentation.Card sort - put the factors under the correct headings.Individual FactorsSituational FactorsCultural factorsSize of the majorityGenderGroup cohesivenessTrivial taskNeed for social approvalSelf esteemTime periodIndividualist cultureSocial relationshipsCollectivist cultureParenting and life experienceStatus of majority groupMinority influence4419600508000So far we have focused on majority influence (the power of the majority). However it has been suggested that this preoccupation with the majority does not fit with historical reality. Serge Moscovici is the foremost of critics with this preoccupation. If the only form of social influence was majority influence then we would all think and behave in the same way, and this would be unchanging from generation to generation.There are several examples where minority groups have had a powerful impact on society. The suffragette movement of the 1920’s gradually changed public opinion and political opinion so that eventually women were given the vote. The suffragettes, like other minority groups, tend not to have had much power or status and may have been dismissed as troublemakers, extremists or weirdos.How can they have influence over the majority? Moscovici suggests that the answer to this question lies in their behavioural style – the way that they get their point across. The success of the suffragette movement lies in the fact that they were consistent in their views. This consistency created a considerable degree of social influence. Minorities that are active and organised who advocate and defend their position consistently can create social conflict, doubt and uncertainty among members of the majority, and this can lead to social change. Without the influence of minorities, we would have no innovation, no social change.026670000Case study – Rosa ParksRosa Parks was an activist in the African–American civil rights movement. She is now regarded as the ‘first lady of civil rights’ thanks to her arrest on December 1st. This day (and her birthday) are commemorated as ‘Rosa Parks day’ in California and Ohio. “I'd see the bus pass every day... But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world”Her Wikipedia page states: On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Parks was not the first person to resist bus segregation. Others had taken similar steps, including Irene Morgan in 1946, Sarah Louise Keys in 1955, and the members of the Browder v. Gayle lawsuit (Claudette Colvin, Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith) who were arrested in Montgomery months before Parks. NAACP organizers believed that Parks was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws, although eventually her case became bogged down in the state courts while the Browder v. Gayle case succeeded.Parks' act of defiance and the Montgomery Bus Boycott became important symbols of the modern Civil Rights Movement. She became an international icon of resistance to racial segregation. She organized and collaborated with civil rights leaders, including Edgar Nixon, president of the local chapter of the NAACP; and Martin Luther King, Jr., a new minister in town who gained national prominence in the civil rights movement.Although widely honored in later years, she also suffered for her act; she was fired from her job as a seamstress in a local department store, and received death threats for years afterwards. After retirement, Parks wrote her autobiography and lived a largely private life in Detroit. In her final years, she suffered from dementia. Parks received national recognition, including the NAACP's 1979 Spingarn Medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and a posthumous statue in the United States Capitol's National Statuary Hall. Upon her death in 2005, she was the first woman and second non-U.S. government official to lie in honor at the Capitol Rotunda. (Source: )The difference between majority and minority influenceThere are several key differences between these two types of influence:377190042545001. Numbers Minority influence is exerted by a minority of one or more people. What’s important is the number of people doing the influencing not the number of people being influenced. 2. Innovation or status quo? Majority influence is maintaining the status quo, it is resistant to social change. Majorities serve to promote uniformity among group members and exert pressure on those who deviate from social norms. Minority influence is associated with change and innovation. The views of a deviant minority generate a social conflict with mainstream ideas, values and norms.3. Imitation or originality?Minorities must work harder to get their point across, because of this arguments are thought to produce more cognitive effort in the minority than is the case with majority influence. Majority influence leads to restricted convergent thinking based simply on imitation, whereas minority influence leads to more divergent thinking and original thinking as alternatives are weighed up against each other in search of the best solution.4. Compliance or conversionIn order for minority influence to take place, there must be a conversion within individuals who were formerly part of the majority. This conversion involves a careful thinking through of the arguments of the minority and gradual acceptance of their point of view. This process is slow to take place. Majority influence, on the other hand, is a much more passive process, it doesn’t involve much thought. 5. Social approval versus information Majority influence represents the need for social approval and minority influence represents the need for information about reality.ClassworkDraw this table and find the missing contrasts between minority and majority influence. Clue – they’re on the previous page!Majority influenceMinority Influence1. Exerted by a majorityExerted by….. 2. Maintains the status quo3. Restricted thinking based on imitation4. Passive, without much thought5. Need for social approval2) What is minority influence?3) List examples of minority groups who have been successful in changing the views of the majority4) What would happen if there were no minority influence?5) How can the minority have an influence? Research on Minority influenceBehavioural styleMoscovici et al (1969) proposed that the minority must be consistent in their views and that this consistency will create conflict in others, leading them to question and possibly change their views, even when the stimulus is explicit. Researchers arranged for 4 participants plus 2 confederates to name the colour of 36 slides. The slides were arranged for 4 participants plus 2 confederates to name the colour of 36 slides. The slides were blue-coloured but both confederates consistently said that the slides were green. Overall, the participants agreed with the minority on 8.42% of the trials (ie they said that the slides were coloured green) 32% gave the same answer as the minority at least once. In a second experiment, where the participants had to write down their answer, this led to greater agreement with the confederates.Non-situational factorsMoscovici et al suggested that consistency was the key characteristic of successful minority influence. Nemeth et al (1974) suggested that confidence rather than consistency was the key factor. To test this they compared one condition where confederates were highly consistent (they said green to every slide) with another condition where confederates were inconsistent but this inconsistency was related to a property of the stimulus (they said green to the brighter slides and green-blue to the simmer slides). Such inconsistency led to greater agreement than the unrealistic consistency of the former condition. If confederates said green half the time and green-blue the other half (ie inconsistent and random) then there was no minority influence. Overall, this suggests that inconsistency only works when it is patterned and not just blind repetition.Flexibility rather than consistency has also been found to be important. Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) found that a minority of one who refused to change his position (when arguing in a mock-jury situation for the amount of compensation to be paid to someone in a skiing accident) had no effect on others. However, a minority member who was willing to shift his opinion slightly in the direction of the majority did exert an influence on majority opinion. Situational factorsMoscovici and Nemeth (1974) demonstrated that seating position can affect minority influence. In his study, five people sat around a rectangular table; one of the five was a confederate who expressed a minority opinion. When the confederate was assigned a seat, position did not matter but if the confederate chose to sit at the head of the table they exerted more influence. Classwork Explain the main findings of 2 pieces of research into minority influence.How does minority influence work?Conflict rethinking - Moscovici proposed that the confidence and consistency of a deviant minority challenges the way the majority thinks and causes them to rethink their position, thus bringing about internalised attitude change rather than superficial compliance.Social Cryptoamnesia - There is a point in any group, where, after some members have started to agree with the minority, the minority then turns into a majority. Van Avermaet (1996) calls this the snowball effect. We should also remember that minority influence generally shows itself in private rather than public, so how does this snowball effect take place?349567539179500The answer may lie in social cryptoamnesia. It has been observed that major attitude changes (conversion) take place only when the spirit of the times has changed. In the case of the suffragettes, it was years after they started campaigning for the right to vote that public opinion actually changed. So, opinion change was not a direct result of minority influence. What probably happened was that the minority influence changed private attitudes and these views gradually became the “spirit of the times”. When change occurred (women were given the vote) this was in accordance with majority opinion. Perez et al (1995) coined the phrase social cryptoamnesia - by the time change occurs people have forgotten the original source of opinion change, but innovation was actually due to minority influence.Classwork1) What is meant by conflict re-thinking?2) Explain social cryptoamnesia in relation to minority influence4286250-45720000Talking points – bringing it all togetherConformity and Rebellion in the moviesIn Hollywood movies conformity is a common theme. We love to see a hero or heroine vanquish a tyrannical leader. Think of films that you have watched which show one person as anti-conformist, breaking ranks with others who are being compliant. The main character usually has to get over many obstacles and huge social pressure, but then recruits more people to their side. Task - make a list of all the films that you can think of that have this theme.Online learning: watch the 1957 film ‘12 Angry Men’ on youtube as a classic example of minority influence of ResponsibilityAre we responsible for what we do as individuals OR if there are a more of us involved in something, are we less responsible? For example: A group of teenagers mug an old lady at night as she walks back from the shops. When questioned by the police - one of the boys says he was just going along with what his friends wanted to do.Is this acceptable?010223500This often happens at football matches. People behave in ways which they wouldn’t on their own, shouting out sexist or racist chants etc. There is a kind of “group mentality” and people get carried along with the behaviour and even attitudes of others. This is sometimes known as ‘diffusion of responsibility’. The responsibility is shared out or “diffused” between the larger group of people, so that each person individually feels less responsible. This trend was illustrated in the above experiments. If a big group of people behave in a certain way, individuals think that this is the right way to behave and follow the crowd. If everyone agrees and we don’t we doubt ourselves rather than everyone else. We are also more likely to follow people who we view as having more authority than us. 3. Task – discuss what you have learned about yourself from studying this unit. Are you less likely to go along with the crowd, or just as likely?5026660-73406000Examples of everyday behavioursClasswork This booklet has given you lots of examples of conformity in everyday situations. 1). In groups make a list of all the ways that we conform in the situations below. Present your findings to the rest of the class in a form of your choosing e.g. drawing app, keynote, poster, mindmap, stickmen, comic strip, puppet show, table etc:Everyday lifeExampleSchoolWorkplaceHomeCinemaRelationshipsShopping mallPartiesMusic tastesOnline bullying2. The producers of the X-Factor (or if, like me you prefer Strictly Come Dancing) have approached you, in your capacity as an expert in Social Psychologist, specializing in Social Influence, as they are concerned that the panel of judges might be conforming to each other’s judgments of contestants rather than judging them independently. Explain why this might happen. Refer to types and explanations of conformity that you have already learnt about.3. People use conformity every day to try and get people to do what they want (sometimes without those people even knowing!). One particular group of people who do this are politicians. You have recently been appointed campaign manager for an up and coming politician and they want your help in swaying the opinions of other politicians and the public. Write a report (a concise piece of writing broken up into sub-sections) advising on the best way your boss can go about influencing people. Make sure you make reference to studies and/or theories from Psychology.4. Imagine you are a researcher and you want to compare conformity levels of students taking different courses. Design a simple study which could test and compare levels of conformity of science and PE students.1.1 The Nature of Obedience-20193017399000Obedience is a form of compliance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority. It does not necessarily mean that private opinions have been changed. It is important to be able to distinguish obedience from conformity. Conformity is about yielding to a group pressure, while obedience means complying with the demands of a figure in authority. With conformity, behaviour is affected by people’s examples, while, with obedience, behaviour is affected because of direct instructions – usually from someone ‘above’ us who has power over us. Factors affecting ObedienceMilgram (1963): To investigate how far people will go in obeying an authority figure. What makes someone in authority have the ability to put pressure on others? Stanley Milgram, a famous social psychologist whose work we will look at shortly, identified several factors. 1. One of the most important of these factors was that the authority figure concerned must be perceived as credible. Otherwise, it is likely that we will disregard their requests. A second important factor identified by Milgram is the fact that we are all highly socialised to obey authorities. How many times have you heard it stated in society that ‘you should always respect your elders/teachers/parents’; and also that we should all ‘obey the law and those who enforce it’? A third important factor identified by Milgram in his studies is that authorities command our attention because of their ability to use several sources of social power – for example, specialist knowledge (expertise), ability to impose sanctions, emotional binations of these, and other, sources of social power are used. One typical example is the parent who says ‘do me a favour and help me clean out the garage’. He/she is using their position of authority and their power source as a nurturer/carer to bring out the action required. A boss who says ‘do what I say or else you will be fired’ is using their status as employer as well as their power source as expert/specialist to force an employee to do things his/her way.5177155-62992001.2 Milgram’s studyStanley Milgram was a Professor of Psychology at the prestigious Yale University in Connecticut. Aim: He was interested in the question of why so many ordinary German people in the 1930s and 1940s had followed instructions (eg when working in concentration camps) which involved causing pain or even killing other innocent human beings. Was it because Germans had a character flaw that made them especially likely to obey ‘authority’ without question? Milgram showed quite conclusively that this was not the case, defying all expectations to the contrary. 40767003683000Method: Lab experiment. What he did was he placed an advertisement in the local newspaper asking for ‘persons needed for a study of memory’. Paid volunteers from all walks of life were invited to ‘help us complete a scientific study of memory and learning’. This was not true at all – it was obedience, not memory that was the subject of the experiment!In the psychology department at Yale University, everything looked very academic, scientific, and even daunting if you were just an ordinary member of the public. Volunteers were introduced by a serious looking man in a starched white lab coat to a person whom they believed to be another volunteer, but who was really an actor. This person appeared to be very ordinary – he was in his late 50s, slightly overweight and as far as everyone was concerned he was about to undergo some simple memory tests. This man was told he was to be the ‘learner’ in the experiment, while the other volunteers present were his ‘teachers’.5842043815000The man, ‘Mr Wallace’ – we will now call him the learner (remember he was really an actor) was then put into a contraption resembling an electric chair, linked to a generator. The volunteer, now called the teacher, was put in the next room and was given control of a set of levers, each of which was clearly marked slight shock (15-60V), moderate shock (75-120V), strong shock (135-180V) up to a level of severe shock (375-420V). The severe shock lever was clearly marked ‘danger’.108204089471500Whenever the learner made mistakes, the ‘teacher’ was told by the experimenter in the white lab coat to inflict a shock, going up by 15 volts each time. In the basic experiment, the learner was heard to pound loudly on the wall at 300 volts and after 315 volts no further answers were given and no more pounding was heard. Results: Sixty-five per cent of ‘teachers’ went on obeying instructions and giving shocks right up to and including 450 volts. Every single subject went up to at least 300 volts. Those who got as high as 375 volts went right on up to 450 volts.Variations on the original: There were several different variations of this experiment, each of which was designed to find out exactly why the level of obedience was so astoundingly high. In one variation the teacher would be able to hear the learner shout out at different stages, eg ‘Please stop. I can’t stand the pain.’ In another variation, the teacher and the learner would be in the same room with the teacher having to force the learner to keep his hand on the shock plate! In yet another scenario, the white coats of the experimenters were changed to grey coats. Finally, the teacher would be a room with two other ‘teachers’, really actors, one of whom would announce at 150 volts that he was not going to continue. The other then did the same thing at 210 volts.7112045529500All of these variations did have an effect on the rate of obedience shown by the ‘teachers’. Of them all, the last variation, ie where others present refused to continue, had the most marked effect. It seemed that when fellow teachers were dropping out it became much easier for the participants to do likewise. Nevertheless, ten per cent of the real ‘teachers’ continued to administer electric shocks in excess of 400 volts, knowing that these levels were lethal.Ethics: However they performed, it is clear that the volunteers for this experiment underwent considerable stress. Individual conscience battled against the need to obey, and few took any pleasure from what they believed to be the inflicting of pain. It was not just the ‘learner’ who appeared to be in distress during this experiment. Individual teachers were seen to be trembling and groaning. Some of them cried, others verbally attacked the experimenter. Three participants had full-blown stress attacks.Conclusion: Despite ethical issues, the basic result of this experiment needs to be re-emphasised. Large numbers of people were shown to be prepared to continue obeying instruction even when (for all they knew) another human being was in extreme pain or even dying as a result. They chose to do this rather than challenge the experimenter and drop out of the experiment.Evaluation: Strengths: this was a ground breaking and influential study which was highly controlled in a laboratory situation. To investigate cultural differences there have been replications of Milgram’s study at different times and carried out in different countries e.g Mantell (1971) used a German sample, Kilham and Mann (1974) used an Australian sample. The study has also been used to investigate gender differences e.g. Sheridan and King (1972).Weaknesses: the main criticisms concern the many ethical breaches – deception, distress, failure to protect participants from emotional harm, and the lack of a right to withdraw by using the four prods. Orne and Holland (1968) criticised Milgram’s experiment for; A) lacking internal validity and B) lacking ecological validity.The did not believe that participants were really distressed, and said they were just playing along with the experiment. Milgram disputed this and cited evidence from film footage and post experimental interviews to show that the participants thought this was very real.They claimed this was a false situation and could not be generalised to the real world. However many field experiments have supported the real life validity of Asch’s work, such as Hofling et al (1966) as we will see below.ActivityCreate an academic poster featuring an electric shock machine. If you’re doing this digitally feel free to use internet pictures. Include: 31438854558800AimsMethodsResultsConclusions Evaluation of Milgram’s study. 5257800-571500001.2 A real life study of Obedience to support MilgramHofling et al (1966): An experimental study in the nurse-physician relationshipAim: In 1966 Charles K. Hofling et al carried out a real-life study of obedience set in a hospital to see if nurses would obey a request to administer an overdose from an anonymous Dr over the telephone.Procedure: A staff nurse on night duty would be telephoned by somebody claiming to be a Doctor Smith responsible for a particular patient. The nurse was first asked to check the medicine cabinet to see if a particular drug was there; then asked to administer a dose of the drug which was twice the maximum allowed. The label stated very clearly that this was dangerous.Results: 21 out of 22 nurses - ninety-five per cent measured out the medication and were about to administer it to the patient when a hidden observer stopped them.Predictions of the results: None of the investigators, and only one experienced nurse who examined the protocol in advance, correctly guessed the experimental results. He also found that 21 of 22 nurses to whom he had given the questionnaire had said they would not obey the orders of the doctor, and that 10 out of the 22 nurses had done this before, with a different drug.Discussion: When the nurses were interviewed later, they pointed out that many doctors were in the habit of giving orders by telephone and became seriously annoyed if they were not obeyed. Although such obedience was against regulations, the unequal power relations between doctors and nurses meant life would be very difficult if nurses did not do what they were told. Conclusion: Hofling’s study showed how the social pressure brought about by the imbalance of power could lead to a nurse actually putting a patient at risk, rather than disobeying orders.Activity This study shows that Milgram‘s results are applicable to real life situations. Add Hofling’s results to your academic poster of Milgram under the ‘evaluation - strengths’ section. Create a plan for a field experiment to test obedience in real life1.2 Zimbardo et al (1973): Stanford Prison experiment473759598026700Aim: In the USA, Zimbardo (1973) decided to investigate what was going on in prisons. There were reports of brutality, bullying and killings by the prison guards. With these allegations, he wanted to find out whether it was the situation which caused such behaviours, or whether it was the guards’ personalities. 3918585232802500Procedure: He gathered together 21 male volunteers who would be paid 15 dollars per day to take part in this two-week study of prison life. Subjects were tested to ensure they were physically and mentally stable. At the toss of a coin it was decided who would act the role of prisoner or guard. Local police were involved and prisoners were arrested from their homes without knowing when this would happen. They were blindfolded and taken to a simulated prison set up in the basement of Stanford University. When they arrived they were stripped, deloused, given a prison uniform with an ID number and an ankle chain. From that moment they were referred to only by their prison number.The guards wore uniforms, carried long wooden batons, handcuffs, whistles and dark glasses (to prevent eye contact). These uniforms encouraged deindividuation. Results: After six days the study had to end because the subjects had become too involved in the roles they were playing. The guards would wake prisoners during the night. They would lock them in cupboards and get them to clean toilet facilities with their bare hands.One prisoner refused to eat, some asked for parole (rather than to stop the experiment), others broke down and constantly cried. There were signs of depression.335661079565500374652095500Discussion: How can this be explained? They show how easy it is to change the way we act when placed in a new situation and role. The norms showed what actions were appropriate for the roles (normative social influence). It is probably true to say that the subjects obeyed rather than conformed because they did not actually change their personal beliefs.It is possible that the subjects were trying to do what they thought the researcher wanted and so played their parts to the full (demand characteristics). In real-life situations people tend to find a role which suits their own beliefs.Evaluation:There have been many criticisms of the study:The subjects were caused emotional distress. Could it not have been possible to foresee this? Although subjects signed an agreement to be volunteers, they did not realise that they would be arrested at home.The process of initiation served to make them feel less human on their arrival.Perhaps the study became too realistic for those involved and should not have taken place?Zimbardo tried to answer his critics by claiming that the real issue was that people did not want to admit that they may have behaved in exactly the same way. He attempted to get away from the high controls which Milgram had. Conclusion: Given this could not be conducted in a real prison, Zimbardo showed how valuable role play can be. While subjects knew that this was an experiment the fact that there was such a change in their behaviour showed the importance of a situation. It showed that the personality of the individuals did not really influence actions in this obedience set-up.This study has inspired many replications and has been made in to films. Zimbardo travels the world discussing the implications of the findings and the ethical problems it threw up for him as a researcher. It took a student (his future wife) to point out that he had got too involved in huis dual role as experimenter and ‘superintendent’ which was blinding him to abuses happening. He finally agreed that the experiment had to be terminated. 1.1 Why do People Obey?Autonomous and Agentic Levels of BehaviourMilgram (1973) proposed that people operate on two levels:As autonomous individuals where they act according to their own values and beliefs.On an agentic level where individuals see themselves as acting as agents on behalf of somebody else and therefore not responsible for their own actions.It is possible for an individual to move from an autonomous state into an agentic state (agentic shift). One important consequence of this shift is that the individual no longer feels responsible for their actions, instead they can blame those in higher authority.Individual factorsTheodore Adorno found that people with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey - you can complete his F scale (Fascism) questionnaire on the internet. As with conformity, Santee and Maslach (1982) found that people with low self-esteem are more likely to yield to group pressure. Likewise Burger (1992) found that people who value control over their decisions are less likely to conform.Legitimate authority Authority figures generally have high status with their roles being defined by society and therefore have legitimate social power.Types of Power:Coercive Power–The ability to administer punishment (eg teacher)Reward Power–The ability to administer reward (eg parent)Expert Power–Superior knowledge (eg teacher)Referent Power–Someone you look up to (eg parent/celebrity)Legitimate Power– Official post held (eg Principal)Accordingly, this gives the authority figure the right to exert control over the behaviour of others. This is particularly evident when the authority figure is in uniform. (Ref: Bickman, 1974)4010025-31369000LocationWhen Milgram moved his study from prestigious Yale university to an office in the city centre, obedience dropped to 52%.Presence of an authority figureIn one variation of Milgram’s experiment the experimenter gave initial instructions then left the room and delivered instructions by telephone. Obedience dropped to 20.5% when the authority figure was absent. ProximityIt is easier to do harm to people if you don't need to get close to them. For example in the case of murder it is psychologically easier to shoot a person from a distance than to stab them with a knife, which is one of the reasons why gun crime is so high in America. Milgram felt that the wall between the confederate and Mr Wallace acted as a buffer, making it easier to deliver a shock. In one variation Milgram put the teacher and learner in the same room which resulted in a drop in obedience, but only to 40% (from 65%). When the teacher had to hold Mr Wallace’s hand on a shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%, which is still surprisingly high. This tells us that proximity is not the only factor. Peers – the effect of allies and dissenters In another variation Milgram arranged for two confederate teachers to dissent at 150 volts and 210 volts. When these teachers refused to continue, obedience dropped to 10%. This would seem very positive. However when the na?ve participant simply read the words and a fellow teacher threw the switches, obedience was at its highest – 92.5%. This shows us that when we are one step removed from being ‘fully responsible’, we can perpetrate acts of real cruelty to others. GenderIt has been suggested that women comply/conform/obey more readily than men. (Ref: Crutchfield, 1955). It is possible that the reason for females being apparently more susceptible to social pressure is that, generally, females tend to hold lower status than males. However, recent studies (Eagly and Carli, 1981) suggest that there are no significant differences between males and females. A reason for the disagreement between early and more recent studies involves major shifts in gender roles and gender stereotypes during the last thirty years or so. An increasing number of women have moved into jobs and professions that were once occupied mainly by men and this has resulted in a fading of any tendency to perceive females as being more susceptible to social pressure than males. SocialisationIn society there are many rules and regulations that exist to reinforce obedience. These are instilled in us from a very early age. For example, strong parental authority can result in an individual internalising the need for obedience (being in an agentic state), and never questioning what they are told to do either at home or in school and even later in life, at the workplace. Binding factors also help to keep an individual in an agentic state, for example:fear of disrupting a social situationfear of questioning an authority figure.ActivityLook at the past paper questions below related to ‘factors affecting conformity and obedience’. Write three paragraphs answering the 10 mark exemplar paper question on conformity, and then write two paragraphs on the specimen paper question on obedience. Swap your papers and peer mark using the SQA marking instructions. Explain why you gave the marks that you did.Exemplar paperPsychological research has shown a robust link between alcohol use in movies and binge drinking behaviour. Explain factors involved in conformity that could account for this link. 10Specimen PaperExplain two factors related to obedience that influence behaviour.6 ActivityUnscramble Milgram’s studyAimsThere was nothing peculiar about the Nazis. The majority of people will be highly obedient in the right circumstances.MethodsThere were ethical problems of deception, distress, right to withdraw and informed consent. It was an artificial task with low ecological validity.ResultsMilgram wanted to discover if Americans could be as aggressive and obedient as the Nazi soldiersConclusionEveryone went to 300 volts65% went to 450 voltsEvaluationLaboratory experiment conducted at Yale universityWhich are the individual and situational factors in our willingness to obey? Draw these boxes and insert the number of each statement in the correct column. Individual factorSituational factor1. The experimenter issues instructions by telephone. Only 20.5% of people obeyed in this variation.2. Two other confederates refuse to continue. Only 10% went to 450 volts in this condition. 3. Self-esteem – people with low self esteem are more likely to obey.4. Location - moving from Yale university to a downtown office reduced obedience.5. Adorno found people with personality traits like an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey.6. When the teacher and learner were in the same room obedience fell to 40%.7. People with a need for control over decisions conform less.8. The presence of a dissenter reduces obedience.1.3 Strategies for Resisting Social Pressure/CoercionThere are several ways that an individual can resist social pressure:Feeling of responsibilityTaking responsibility for our actions is led by two main emotions – empathy and guilt. Those who possess moral control feel empathy for others and anticipate feelings of guilt if they don't help. Milgram’s experiment showed that people fall in to an agentic state where they no longer see themselves as fully responsible for the welfare of others. Individuals who receive commands from authority figures can be reminded that they – not the authorities – are responsible for any harm produced. When this happens, there are real reductions in the tendency to obey. In Milgam’s study those who refused to go to 450v often said they felt responsible for the learner, rather than seeing the experimenter as responsible. One participant who refused to continue was Jan Rensaleer an electric engineer, who stated: ‘I know what shocks do to you’ (Milgram, 1974, p.52). Such participants were therefore in an autonomous state, not an agentic state. Disobedient role models 4410075698500Individuals can be given a clear indication that, in certain situations, unquestioning obedience to commands is inappropriate. A particularly effective way of making this point is to show individuals (either on video or using real-life examples) what kind of behaviour occurs when ‘disobedience’ takes place. Rosa Parks, featured earlier, is a good example of a disobedient role model. In this way a model makes it easier for individuals to follow on if they wish. Those who expose damaging practices of businesses and governments are called ‘whistle blowers’. Their role in protecting the public is so important that there are laws protecting whistle blowers from prosecution. Dissent versus Disobedience However dissent is different from disobeying. In Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments participants often dissented, but ultimately went along with the authority figure. During the Second World War Major Willhelm Trapp received orders that his battalion was to kill 1500 Jews in a Polish town. He told his men that if they ‘did not feel up to the task of killing Jews’ they could be assigned to others duties. This was repeated when the killings began, but 80% of men in the Reserve Police Battalion 101 continued to kill.Questioning motives (eg of advertisers, politicians, cults, and education)If individuals are able to question the expertise and motives of authority figures, they always find it easier to resist pressure from them to obey. Here the individual is reasoning out whether the authority figure is really in a better position to judge what is appropriate, and what is not, in this particular case. They are also considering what particular motives lie behind the commands – is the command designed to bring about socially beneficial goals or is it just for the own selfish gains of the authority figure? By asking such questions, individuals who might otherwise obey can find support for their own independent action rather than submission to the will and order of another.Moral reasoning and awareness of own values – Kohlberg (1969)020002500Harvard moral philosopher Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) found that individuals who were at an advanced stage of moral reasoning were more likely to show higher levels of disobedience. He identified six stages of moral reasoning that he grouped into three categories. In the pre-conventional level people judge morality by its direct consequences (will I get caught?). At the conventional level of reasoning people have develop and understanding of norms and social conventions which are need in order to maintain a stable society. In the post-conventional level individuals hold moral views that regard the life and welfare of people and animals as universal rights, regardless of the society that they have been brought up in. They base their morals on Humanitarian principles. Looking at interviews with Milgram’s participants, Kohlberg (1969) found that most of those who resisted the high voltage shocks reasoned at a higher stage or morality. These participants possessed their own moral code that overrode their fear of punishment or displeasing the experimenter.Rebellion in groupsGamson et al, (1982) found that a very high percentage (97%) of groups will show dissent and around 50% of groups will completely rebel to unfair requests from authority figures if they are given time to express and discuss their dissent. See the study overleaf. 1.2 Research into groups - Gamson et al (1982)AimsGamson et al (1982) wanted to investigate obedience to authority in a group situation. They wondered if groups were more likely to rebel against authority than individuals. Method and procedureParticipants were told that their task was to help a (fictitious) public relations company called MHRC to collect opinions on moral standards. Thirty three groups of participants met in groups of nine at a motel, and were paid $10 for two hours work. They were given a summary of a current legal case of Mr C whose franchise for running a petrol station had been ended because if his immoral behaviour. My C was suing the oil company. It emerged that he had previously spoken out on television against higher petrol prices. The participants were asked to discuss their opinions about Mr C’s lifestyle while being videotaped. A coordinator switched off the cameras at various times and instructed people to argue as if they were offended by Mr C’’s behaviour. Then cameras were switched back on. The groups realised that they were being manipulated to produce a tape supporting the oil company. But would they rebel?ResultsIn some groups participants threatened to expose the oil company and take the tapes. In all groups some rebellion did occur, but eight groups out of nine still signed an affidavit giving MHRC permission to use the tape in trial. ConclusionGroups do behave differently from individuals, and if one person rebelled the minority did sway the majority. However in some groups people were uncritical of authority and were used to conforming. Therefore despite resistance from individuals, the group opinion did not change. EvaluationEthical problems occurred in this study as participants were distressed. One participant described the experiment as ‘the most stressful experience I’ve had in the past year’. The researchers stopped the experiment after only nine groups. They were originally planning to run 80. Secondly the experiment used strangers which lacks ecological validity as we tend to make decisions with people we know in real life.Source: Adapted from Williamson, M., Cardwell, M., Flanagan, C. (2007) Higher Psychology Nelson Thornes.ActivitySummarise remember Gamson’s study by drawing the procedure and results using stick men and speech bubbles.Think about the following scenarios – which strategy would you use to resist social pressure, and why?A friend is trying to get you to come out at the weekend before your exam on Monday.A person that you do not like is messaging you regularly to talk about your best friend who they have fallen out with. They want you to a take sides with them. You do not want to wear a long dress/ kilt to the prom but all your friends are insisting that you dress the same.You are watching a fight between two boys and the crowd around them show no sign of intervening. One boy is being badly beaten and you feel distressed in the role of a passive bystander.You have recently started dating someone and they ask you to send them a ‘sexy’ picture of yourself. You know there is no guarantee that this picture will stay on their phone without being shared3. Create a way to remember the different ways to resist social pressure e.g. flashcards, powerpoint, mindmap, concept map or table. Give an example of how you have resisted social pressure using the following means. Below is an example table:Ways of resisting social pressureExplanationHow I have used this strategyFeeling of responsibilityDisobedient role modelsQuestioning motivesMoral reasoningRebelling in groups1.3 Applying our understanding of social psychology to everyday lifeWe can apply or knowledge of conformity and obedience to teach people strategies for resisting social pressure and to understand the influence of cults, the reasons why girls travel to Syria to become ‘Jihadi brides’ and the pressure on young people to engage in sexting. Activity – Online research on whistle blowersWork in groups to find examples of whistle blowers who have brought attention to an important issue, even though it has made them vulnerable to prosecution and exposed their own employer or government to criticism. Search for Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks, the hacking group Anonymous or the case of Abu Ghraib if you want a place to start. Present your chosen whistle blower to the others in the class on a poster or any digital format. Take notes on the following:07874000Issue exposedIdentity of Whistle BlowerSocietal reaction to the scandal and whistle blowerConsequences of the issue being exposedEvaluation - do you agree that this issue needed to be exposed or should the dissenter have kept quiet. What would you have done? 2. Higher order thinking: After you have heard from all the groups list the similarities and differences between the cases you have selected. Bringing it all together“Group conformity scares the pants off me because it's so often a prelude to cruelty towards anyone who doesn't want to - or can't - join the Big Parade”. Bette MidlerHigher Order thinking - AnalysisDraw a concept map. This is different from a traditional mindmap which would place your topic in the centre and ideas would come out from that. In a concept map you must draw arrows to show the relationships between concepts. Each person in the class might make different connections and draw an entirely different map. It depends on how you think concepts are connected. Fun pictures are very welcome. Your challenge is to draw a concept map for the following concepts to show how they connect to each other:1943100698500ConformityomplianceIdentificationInternalisation Individual factorsSituational factorsCultural factorsMinority social influenceMori and AraiObedienceMilgramHoflingResisting social pressureCultsHigher Past Paper questionsExemplar PaperSECTION 3 — SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR — 20 marksAttempt ALL questions5. Psychological research has shown a robust link between alcohol use in movies and binge drinking behaviour. Explain factors involved in conformity that could account for this link. 106. “Conformity and obedience” is one social psychology topic you have studied.Choose another social psychology topic, not ‘conformity and obedience’, and explain your chosen topic using theory and/or concepts and the results and conclusions of at least one research study. 10Specimen PaperSection 3 — SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR — 20 marksAttempt ALL questions 1. Explain two factors related to obedience that influence behaviour. 6 2. Describe three different types of conformity. 63. Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of Milgram’s studies of obedience. 82015 PaperSECTION 3 — SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR — 20 marksAttempt ALL questionsQuestion 3(a) Analyse one research study related to conformity. (b) Choose a Social Behaviour topic other than conformity and obedience.8Explain your chosen topic using two psychological concepts and/or theories. 12 ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- chapter 9 social influence
- the unconscious curriculum what is really learnt in school
- psya2 individual differences psychopathology
- assessment standard
- what is conformity american literature home
- social influence
- introduction to psychology
- unit two weebly
- 1 1 the nature of obedience
- stmaryspsyweb s weblog just another weblog
Related searches
- the nature of science answers
- the nature of the learner
- the nature of science worksheet
- the nature of science section 1 answers
- the nature of science worksheet answer key
- 1 2 the nature of science answer key
- chapter 1 the nature of science
- the nature of truth
- discuss the nature of philosophy
- the nature of virtue aristotle
- understanding the nature of evil
- the nature of sound waves