A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 1 COMPLETE NOTES
- SOCIAL INFLUENCE
- MEMORY
- ATTACHMENT
- PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
SOCIAL INFLUENCE REVISION:
TOPICS:
- CONFORMITY:
- TYPES AND EXPLANATION
- ASCHS Research
- ZIMBARDOS RESEARCH
- OBEDIENCE:
- MILGRAMS RESEARCH
- SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
- SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGY FACTORS
- DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS
- RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
- MINORITY INFLUENCE
- SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
,CONFORMITY- TYPES AND EXPLANATION
Conformity- Conforming means to act in accordance with accepted societal behavioural norms.
TYPES OF CONFORMITY- Kelman (1958) proposed and identified three types of Conformity:
- Internalisation-Occurs when a person genuinely believes in what they are public displaying
group norms). Deepest form of conformity. Change is permanent, opinions persist even in
the absence of others.
- Identification- Temporary/partial public change of behaviour where we value something
about a group so conform to the opinions and beliefs of the group as we want to be a part of
it, even if certain aspects of the group privately we don’t agree or stand for. Middle level of
conformity, stronger than compliance, weaker than internalisation.
- Compliance- Shallowest/weakest form of conformity whereby we change our
behaviour/opinions publicly but do not agree in private. Superficial change that will stop as
soon as group pressure stops.
Explanations:
2 explanations for conformity that Deutsch and Gerard (1955) proposed, as part of the Dual-
Processing Dependency Model
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
We conform to the majority as we perceive them to know more than we do about a particular
subject area- we conform to be correct. So, in a maths class if there is 3 people you perceive to be
better than you at maths you will most likely agree with their answer as you believe they are more
likely to be correct.
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
We conform to the majority out of fear of not being liked or accepted in the group if we do not
agree with them. Emotional process where people conform for social acceptance, most likely occurs
in stranger situations. {Asch pretty much}
Evaluation of Conformity :
- POSITIVE: Research support:
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy or more
difficult. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were more difficult
than easy, especially for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This study shows
that people conform more in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer, exactly
, what ISI explanation states; increasing the external validity of the theory as it is generalisable
to everyday settings such as classroom behaviour.
- NEGATIVE: Individual differences:
Research also shows that individual differences mean not everyone’s behaviour is affected in
the same way; people who are less concerned are less affected by NSI than those who are.
People who have a great need to be liked are called Naffillaitors. This is backed up by
Mcghee and Teevan who found that students in high need of affiliation were more likely to
conform. This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more
than others- the generalisability of the theory to wider society is therefore limited.
- POSITIVE- RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NSI
Normative social influence has strong real-world applicability. Garandeau and Cillissen
(2006) showed that groups with a low quality of interpersonal friendships can be
manipulated by a figurehead bully leader, so that the victimisation of another child provides
the group with a common purpose- which creates pressure on all group members to comply.
This is clearly a strength as it displays how the Normative social influence explanation that
people conform for group approval has strong validity- the need to conform to group
identity/ acceptance outweighs an individual’s moral code.
, ASCH’S RESEARCH
Aim: Asch (1951) conducted his study in order to see the how the level of conformity is affected by 3
variables: group size, unanimity, and task difficulty.
Original Study:
Procedure:
Tested conformity by showing participants two large white cards at a time. On one card there was a
standard line and on the other card there were 3 lines (A, B, C) one of which was clearly the same
length as the standard X line on the other card. The participant was asked which of the lines
matched the standard.
-123 American male undergraduate participants.
-Each participant was tested with a group of between 6-8 confederates, who all answered, after
initial correct answers, the same wrong answer of 12 of the 18 trials. 12 called critical trials.
Findings:
- Asch found that participants gave a conforming answer 36.8% of the time.
- 25% never conformed to the wrong answer,75% conformed at least once
- Participants interviewed after mostly said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
VARIATIONS of Asch’s Original study:
- Group size: Asch wanted to investigate how group size affected conformity. He found that 3
from 2 confederates made conformity rates rise to 31.8%. But the addition of further
confederates made little difference.
- UNANIMITY: Asch wanted to know if the presence of another non-conforming person would
affect the naïve participants conformity. To test this, he introduced a confederate who
disagreed with the others, sometimes with the correct answers and sometimes with another
wrong answer. The presence of a dissenter led to reduced conformity, around 5% compared
to the 36% previously, as it allowed the participant to behave more independent and break
free of the group. In the case of a different answer given by the dissenter, it still fell to 9%.
- Task difficulty:
Asch made the line judging task more difficult by making the standard and comparison lines
more similar in length and found that conformity increased under these conditions. ISI plays
a greater role when the task is harder as we look for other people for guidance who we
assume have greater intellect on a situation than ourselves.
EVALUATION:
- POSITIVE: HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY
A strength of Asch’s research comes in the form of its high control of extraneous variables.
Asch’s study was a lab study meaning it can be fully controlled and therefore extraneous
- SOCIAL INFLUENCE
- MEMORY
- ATTACHMENT
- PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
SOCIAL INFLUENCE REVISION:
TOPICS:
- CONFORMITY:
- TYPES AND EXPLANATION
- ASCHS Research
- ZIMBARDOS RESEARCH
- OBEDIENCE:
- MILGRAMS RESEARCH
- SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
- SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGY FACTORS
- DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATIONS
- RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
- MINORITY INFLUENCE
- SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
,CONFORMITY- TYPES AND EXPLANATION
Conformity- Conforming means to act in accordance with accepted societal behavioural norms.
TYPES OF CONFORMITY- Kelman (1958) proposed and identified three types of Conformity:
- Internalisation-Occurs when a person genuinely believes in what they are public displaying
group norms). Deepest form of conformity. Change is permanent, opinions persist even in
the absence of others.
- Identification- Temporary/partial public change of behaviour where we value something
about a group so conform to the opinions and beliefs of the group as we want to be a part of
it, even if certain aspects of the group privately we don’t agree or stand for. Middle level of
conformity, stronger than compliance, weaker than internalisation.
- Compliance- Shallowest/weakest form of conformity whereby we change our
behaviour/opinions publicly but do not agree in private. Superficial change that will stop as
soon as group pressure stops.
Explanations:
2 explanations for conformity that Deutsch and Gerard (1955) proposed, as part of the Dual-
Processing Dependency Model
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
We conform to the majority as we perceive them to know more than we do about a particular
subject area- we conform to be correct. So, in a maths class if there is 3 people you perceive to be
better than you at maths you will most likely agree with their answer as you believe they are more
likely to be correct.
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
We conform to the majority out of fear of not being liked or accepted in the group if we do not
agree with them. Emotional process where people conform for social acceptance, most likely occurs
in stranger situations. {Asch pretty much}
Evaluation of Conformity :
- POSITIVE: Research support:
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy or more
difficult. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were more difficult
than easy, especially for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This study shows
that people conform more in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer, exactly
, what ISI explanation states; increasing the external validity of the theory as it is generalisable
to everyday settings such as classroom behaviour.
- NEGATIVE: Individual differences:
Research also shows that individual differences mean not everyone’s behaviour is affected in
the same way; people who are less concerned are less affected by NSI than those who are.
People who have a great need to be liked are called Naffillaitors. This is backed up by
Mcghee and Teevan who found that students in high need of affiliation were more likely to
conform. This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more
than others- the generalisability of the theory to wider society is therefore limited.
- POSITIVE- RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NSI
Normative social influence has strong real-world applicability. Garandeau and Cillissen
(2006) showed that groups with a low quality of interpersonal friendships can be
manipulated by a figurehead bully leader, so that the victimisation of another child provides
the group with a common purpose- which creates pressure on all group members to comply.
This is clearly a strength as it displays how the Normative social influence explanation that
people conform for group approval has strong validity- the need to conform to group
identity/ acceptance outweighs an individual’s moral code.
, ASCH’S RESEARCH
Aim: Asch (1951) conducted his study in order to see the how the level of conformity is affected by 3
variables: group size, unanimity, and task difficulty.
Original Study:
Procedure:
Tested conformity by showing participants two large white cards at a time. On one card there was a
standard line and on the other card there were 3 lines (A, B, C) one of which was clearly the same
length as the standard X line on the other card. The participant was asked which of the lines
matched the standard.
-123 American male undergraduate participants.
-Each participant was tested with a group of between 6-8 confederates, who all answered, after
initial correct answers, the same wrong answer of 12 of the 18 trials. 12 called critical trials.
Findings:
- Asch found that participants gave a conforming answer 36.8% of the time.
- 25% never conformed to the wrong answer,75% conformed at least once
- Participants interviewed after mostly said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
VARIATIONS of Asch’s Original study:
- Group size: Asch wanted to investigate how group size affected conformity. He found that 3
from 2 confederates made conformity rates rise to 31.8%. But the addition of further
confederates made little difference.
- UNANIMITY: Asch wanted to know if the presence of another non-conforming person would
affect the naïve participants conformity. To test this, he introduced a confederate who
disagreed with the others, sometimes with the correct answers and sometimes with another
wrong answer. The presence of a dissenter led to reduced conformity, around 5% compared
to the 36% previously, as it allowed the participant to behave more independent and break
free of the group. In the case of a different answer given by the dissenter, it still fell to 9%.
- Task difficulty:
Asch made the line judging task more difficult by making the standard and comparison lines
more similar in length and found that conformity increased under these conditions. ISI plays
a greater role when the task is harder as we look for other people for guidance who we
assume have greater intellect on a situation than ourselves.
EVALUATION:
- POSITIVE: HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY
A strength of Asch’s research comes in the form of its high control of extraneous variables.
Asch’s study was a lab study meaning it can be fully controlled and therefore extraneous
