psya2: social influence - · pdf filehow might this be used in the exam? possible exam...

PSYA2:

Social Influence

Including:

Social influence

Social influence in everyday life

Topics include: Social influence:

Types of conformity, including internalisation and compliance

Explanations of why people conform, including informational and normative social influence

Obedience, including Milgram’s work and explanations of why people obey

Social influence in everyday life:

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

pressures to obey authority

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

Implications for social change of research into social influence

Exam hint: (Remember to traffic-light these topics to prioritise your revision)

Key Study Title Relates to:

Sherif (1935) Explanations of why people conform (ISI)

Asch (1951) Explanations of why people conform (NSI)

Milgram (1974) Obedience

Variations on Milgram (1974) Explanations of why people obey

Bickman (1974) Obedience and pressures to obey authority.

Conformity is a change in behaviour or attitudes as a result of real or imagined group pressure or

norms. Kelman (1958) suggested that there are 3 kinds of conformity:

Task: Using your Cardwell textbook, and other sources, give an outline of the three types of conformity presented here, including for each, your own example of that type of conformity in action.

How might this be used in the exam? Possible exam questions January 2009 – Please see question at back of booklet January 2010 – Explain what is meant by internalisation in the context of conformity (2 marks) Explain what is meant by compliance in the context of conformity (2 marks) June 2010 – Please see question at back of booklet

Sherif (1935) – a research study to demonstrate why people conform (informational social influence) The first major study of conformity was carried out by Muzafer Sherif. He made use of what is

known as the autokinetic effect. If we look at a stationary spot of light in a darkened room, then

very small movements of the eyes make the light seem to move. In Sherif’s key condition, the

participants were first of all tested one at a time, and then in small groups of three. They were

asked to say how much the light seemed to move, and in what direction. Each participant rapidly

developed his or her own personal norm. This norm was stable, but it varied considerably between

individuals. When three individuals with very different personal norms were then put together into a

group, they tended to make judgements that were very close to each other. The fact that a group

norm rapidly replaced the personal norms of the members of the group indicates the influence of

social influence.

Sherif (1935) also used a condition in which individuals started the experiment in groups of three,

and then were tested on their own. Once again, a group norm tended to develop within the group.

When the members of the group were then tested on their own, their judgements concerning the

movement of the light continued to reflect the influence of the group.

Your task: Complete model answers for the 3 possible exam questions on this topic. Get them assessed to ensure they are correct!

There are two reasons why people are likely to conform;

Normative social influence (NSI) – the need to be liked (normal)

Informational social influence (ISI) – the need to be right (information!) Thinking back to what we have already learnt about conformity, whose work might you use to support the idea of informational social influence? Answer: _________________________

How might this be used in the exam? Possible exam questions

June 2009 – It is Ani’s first day in a new job and he spends a lot of

time watching to see what his colleagues are doing, so that he will fit

in with them and be liked. Explain Ani’s behaviour in terms of

compliance (2 marks)

Outline one method that psychologists have used to study

conformity (2 marks) Explain one limitation of this method ( 2marks)

Suggest an appropriate way of overcoming this limitation (2 marks)

January 2010 – Most research into conformity takes place in a laboratory. Outline one strength of

conducting research into conformity in a laboratory (2 marks)

June 2010 – Outline and evaluate explanations of conformity (8 marks)

What is normative social influence?

People want to be accepted by social groups and they fear rejection. This creates social pressure,

therefore, individuals seek to conform to the norms of that group. Normative social influence may have

greatest effect with groups of strangers and is likely to lead to compliance rather than internalisation.

An example of a piece of research that demonstrates this is the work of Solomon Asch.

What is informational social influence?

People like to be right and assume that if most people share a particular view, it must be right. The

majority are assumed to supply correct information. Informational social influence operates in

situations of ambiguity and may lead to internalisation. An example of a piece of research that

demonstrates this is the work of Muzafer Sherif.

Your task: Complete model answers for the possible exam questions on this topic. Get them assessed to ensure they are correct!

Asch (1951) – a research study to demonstrate why people conform (normative social influence)

Asch’s aim was to see if participants would yield to majority social influence and give incorrect

answers in a situation when the correct answers were always obvious.

Seven male, student participants looked at two cards: the test card showed one vertical line; the

other card showed three vertical lines of different length. The participants’ task was to call out, in

turn, which of these three lines was the same length as the test line. The correct answer was always

obvious. All participants, except one, were accomplices of the experimenter. The genuine

participants called out his answer last but one. Accomplices gave unanimous wrong answers on 12 of

the 18 trials. These 12 trials were called the critical trials. In total, Asch used 50 male college

students as naïve, genuine participants in this first study.

Participants conformed to the unanimous incorrect answer on 32% of the critical trials. This might

not strike you as a very high figure but remember the correct answer was always obvious. 74% of

participants conformed at least once. 26% of participants never conformed. Some of these

‘independent’ participants were confident in their judgements. More often, however, they

experienced tension and doubt but managed to resist the pressure exerted by the unanimous

majority. During post-experimental interviews, some conforming participants claimed to have

actually seen the line identified by the majority as the correct answer. Others yielded because they

could not bear to be in a minority of one and risk being ridiculed or excluded by the group. Most

participants who had conformed, however, experienced a distortion of judgement: they thought

that their perception of the lines must be inaccurate and for that reason they yielded to the majority

view.

Even in unambiguous situations, there may be a strong group pressure to conform, especially if the

group is a unanimous majority. However, after interviewing the participants, Asch concluded that

people go along with the views of other for different reasons. Some people experience normative

social influence and feel compelled to accept the mistaken majority’s norms or standards of

behaviour to avoid being rejected. Others experience informational social influence and doubt their

own judgements – they want to be seen as correct.

Evaluation of Asch (1951)

All the participants were male college students and so a very limited sample.

The time and place when the research was carried out might have affected the

findings. In the 1950s the USA was very conservative, involved in an anti-

Communist witch-hunt against anyone who was thought to hold left-wing views

(this became known as ‘McCarthyism’, named after the senator who spearheaded

the witch-hunt) and its educational institutions were more hierarchal than they are

today.

Since all the participants were male and college students, it might not be valid to

generalise the findings to a wider population. The way to check this is to rerun the

study using different types of participants. Do you think that male college students

are typical, or more or less conformist than the general population?

TASK:

With a learning partner, find two strengths and two limitations of Asch’s method.

State, explain and apply every point (say why it is good or bad). Furthermore,

explain in your limitations how Asch’s experiment could have been improved.

Other factors include uncertainty (people are most likely to conform when they are uncertain), group membership (people conform most to groups they identify with) and deindividuation (anonymity increases conformity)

There were features of both Sherif’s and Asch’s research that were artificial:

Demand characteristics = Participants behave in certain ways because features of the experiment

‘demand’ a typical response.

Anxiety = This encourages conformity. Is it ethically right to cause anxiety in a participant?

Paid volunteers = Participants may feel they have entered into a social contract and should obey

norms about behaviour in experiment.

Experiments are social situations = In Asch’s study the participants expressed how much like

outsiders they felt by dissenting. Belonging to a group is more important than correctness.

ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY = ALARM BELLS!!

To what extent do the results of 2 research studies generalise to other situation and to real life?

In real life people sometimes have the option to do nothing, which may not be possible in an

experiment. People are forced to be reactive, when in fact they may be passive.

Reductionist = Many of the experimental situations were oversimplified.

All of the experiments involved strangers. We behave differently with people who know us, and we

behave differently for different people.

Cultural differences = This research is mainly from Western society, where people may actually be

less conformist (due to our individualistic culture). Collectivist societies are more conformist e.g.

China.

Child of the times (Zeitgeist) = Social norms are always changing. Perrin & Spencer (1980) replicated

Asch’s study using British students and did not obtain evidence of conformity, concluding that

people may have now learned to be more self-reliant. (Note: Perrin & Spencer used science and

engineering students – how could this have affected the results?)

Obedience, including Milgram’s work and explanations of why people obey

Milgram (1974)

Stanley Milgram (1974) advertised in a local paper for men to take part in an experiment concerning

memory and learning, to be conducted at the prestigious Yale University in America. 40 men, aged

between 20 and 50 volunteered. They were paid $4.50 simply for turning up; payment did not

depend on staying the study. When participants arrived they were told that there would be two

participants, a “learner” and a “teacher”. The experimenter drew lots to see which participant would

take which part. At this point you should know that this experiment was “single blind”. The

participant was not told the true details of the research. The truth was that the other participant was

in fact a confederate of the experimenter, and the “experimenter” was also a confederate. The true

participant always ended up being given the role of the “teacher”.

The “teacher” was told to give electric shocks to the “learner” every time the wrong answer was

given, and the shock intensity was increased each time. In fact, the apparatus was arranged so that

the learner never actually received any shocks, but the teacher did not realise this. At 180 volts, the

learner yelled “I can’t stand the pain”, and by 270 volts the response had become an agonised

scream. The maximum intensity of shock was 450 volts. If the teacher was unwilling to give shocks,

the experimenter urged him to continue, saying such things as “it is absolutely essential that you

should continue.”

Milgram (1974) asked 14 psychology students to predict what participants would do. They

estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would go up to 450 volts. In fact, about 65% of

Milgram’s participants gave the maximum shock. One of the most striking cases of total obedience

was that of Pasqual Gino, a 43-year-old water inspector. Towards the end of the experiment, he

found himself thinking, “Good God, he’s dead. Well, here we go, we’ll finish him. And I just

continued all the way through to 450 volts”. Other participants found the experience very

distressing. They were seen to “sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their finger-

nails into their flesh”. Milgram reported that three participants had “full-blown uncontrollable

seizures”.

At the end of the experiment all participants were debriefed by being told the actual nature of the

study. They were introduced to the “learner” and assured they he had experienced no actual shocks.

They were told that their behaviour was entirely normal and, when interviewed later by

questionnaire, 74% said they had learned something of personal importance. Only one person

expressed regret about having taken part.

Variations on Milgram (1974)

Milgram (1974) carried out several variations on his basic experiment. He found that there were two

main ways in which obedience to authority could be reduced:

1. Increasing the obviousness of the learner’s plight. This was studied by comparing

obedience in 4 situations differing in the obviousness of the learner’s plight (the % of

participants who were totally obedient is shown in brackets):

Remote feedback: the victim could not be heard or seen (66%)

Voice feedback: the victim could be heard but not seen (62%)

Proximity: the victim was only 1 metre away from the participant (40%)

Touch-proximity: this was like the proximity condition; expect that the participant had to

force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate (30%)

Evaluation of Milgram (1974)

The main text offers a discussion of some of the key criticisms made of this study. The main issues

relate to experimental and ecological validity, and the ethical concerns raised by the study. Criticism

can also be positive, and the findings of this research have had a powerful influence on subsequent

empirical research and psychological theory.

A key feature of the experiment was that the authority, in this case, was “unjust”. The fact that

participants obeyed during the initial stages is neither surprising nor objectionable. The fact that they

continued to obey is surprising. Milgram (1974) said that authority-agent relations are the simple

machinery of social routine. What is significant about some situations, such as his experiment, is that

sometimes authority makes unreasonable requests and then people ought not to obey.

Evaluation of Milgram’s variations

These variations give us greater insight into the conditions under which people will

obey unjust requests. They also show us something about independent behaviour

because in many situations the majority of participants behaved independently.

There were ethical criticisms made of the original study by Milgram. One of

Milgram’s defences was that he could not anticipate how many participants would

obey and therefore suffer the stress associated with knowing what they did. In

these later variations Milgram could not use this defence

2. Reducing the authority or influence of the experimenter:

Staging the experiment in a run-down office building rather than at Yale University (48%)

Orders by telephone rather than having experimenter sitting close to the participant

(20.5%). The effect of distance may help to explain why it is less stressful to kill people by

dropping bombs from a plane than by shooting them at close range.

The experimenter was an ordinary member of the public rather than a white-coated

scientist (20%)

Giving the participant a confederate who refused to give shocks (10%)

Bickman (1974) – a field experiment. Would people obey in real life?

Leonard Bickman (1974) tested the ecological validity of Milgram’s work by conducting an

experiment in a more realistic setting. In this study three male experimenters gave orders to 153

randomly selected pedestrians in Brooklyn, New York. The experimenters were dressed in one of

three ways: a sports coat and tie, a milkman’s uniform, or guard’s uniform that made them look like

a police officer. The experimenter gave 1 of 3 orders:

Pointing to a bag on the street, “Pick up this bag for me.”

Nodding in the direction of a confederate “This fellow is over parked at the meter but

doesn’t have any change. Give him a dime.”

Approaching the participant at a bus stop, “Don’t you know you have to stand on the other

side of the pole? This signs says ‘No standing’”.

Bickman found that participants were most likely to obey the experimenter dressed as a guard than

the milkman or civilian. This supports one of the variations of Milgram’s findings, that obedience can

be related to the amount of perceived authority.

Who would you obey?

Evaluation of Bickman

Field experiments may have increased ecological validity and mundane realism but the cost is

decreased control. They also raise more ethical concerns because informed consent cannot be

sought and it is difficult to debrief participants without alerting others to the experiment. Bickman’s

study differs from Milgram’s in one important way. The orders were not quite so unreasonable;

therefore obedience was more understandable.

Milgram’s research has been heavily criticised. The 3 main reasons are listed below:

Internal validity – did the participants actually believe in what they were being asked to do, or did

they just go along with giving the shocks to please the experimenter? How ‘real’ did they think the

study was?

The p’s were seen to sweat, tremble and bite their lips. This suggests they did believe in the task.

Milgram suggested several reasons why obedience was so high, such as the prestigious environment

(Yale University), and that the participant believed the experimenter is earnest in pursuit of

knowledge and, therefore, obedience is important. In short, features of the experiment actually

enhanced the tendency to obey (demand characteristics).

Ecological (external) validity - Laboratory experiments are contrived and so they are low in

ecological validity. However, in Milgram’s experiment, the contrived setting was appropriate – it was

an authority-subordinate task used to measure what Milgram wanted to measure, i.e. obedience to

authority.

Replication generally supports Milgram’s findings – those he conducted himself and those conducted

by other people. This suggests that the study has ecological validity (i.e. it can be generalised to

other settings). It could be argued, however that other explanations have been overlooked and that

German behaviour in the Second World War can be better explained in terms of anti-Semitism

(prejudice). Cross-cultural support also suggests that Milgram’s findings apply to human nature, not

just certain situations or certain groups of people.

Ethical considerations – Baumrind argued that Milgram’s experiment caused psychological damage

to participants that cannot be justified. Milgram defended himself by raising the following points:

Participants did agree to take part in an experiment which involved shocking a fellow participant so,

in a sense, they did give informed consent. Milgram also gained a form of presumptive consent by

asking people to predict how participants would behave – he could, therefore, argue that he had no

reason to expect such high levels of obedience. Milgram did thoroughly debrief participants and

most of them said they were glad they took part. However, participants would still have experienced

psychological effects and even if change was for the good, it was still change. It is not clear whether

the participants did have the right to withdraw. They were told they could leave at any time and

some participants did, however, the ‘prods’ throughout the experiment made this very difficult.

How might this be used in the exam?

Possible exam questions

Specimen paper – Milgram carried out an experiment investigating obedience. One criticism of this

study is that it was unethical. Discuss one ethical issue raised by this research (4 marks)

January 2009 – Milgram’s work can be criticised for being unethical. Describe one way in which his

work is unethical (2 marks) Apart from ethical issues; give one strength and one limitation of

Milgram’s methodology (2 + 2 marks)

June 2010 – Milgram’s experiments into obedience can be criticised as being unethical. Describe two

ethical issues that can be illustrated by Milgram’s research. (4 marks) Choose one of the ethical

issues identified in your answer and explain a way of dealing with it (2 marks)

There are 2 opposing explanations as to why people

obey an authority figure. There are situational

explanations (bad barrel) and dispositional

explanations (bad apple).

Socialisation – We are taught that is the norm to obey

authority. Individuals have past experience of being

rewarded for obedience, so we obey because that is

what we have learned to do (through operant conditioning).

Graduated commitment – A person may be unaware of the level of their obedience before they

have gone further than they intended. In Milgram’s study the shocks increased by only 15 volts each

time – what does one more step matter? Having obeyed initially, to a small request, binding factors

ensure continued obedience.

The agentic state – Milgram proposed that the participant becomes an ‘agent’ of the person in

authority. They have merely become a cog in a large machine of obedience. When an individual is in

an agentic state, they cease to act according to their own conscience and they lack a sense of

responsibility for their own actions. (Think back to the original video of the experiment, when the

participants ask “Well, who’s going to take responsibility for that gentleman?”)

The role of buffers – People are more prepared

to obey when they are ’buffered’ from the

consequences of their actions e.g. giving shocks

to someone in another room. This explains why

soldiers are more obedient when they do not

have to face an enemy.

Stretch and Challenge:

Modern warfare and machinery makes the

role of buffers much easier – Is there an

argument here to suggest that modern

soldiers have become more obedient?

Socialisation – Some people have experiences that

enable them to resist the pressures to obey unjust authority. One of Milgram’s later participants,

Gretchen Brandt, had been in Germany during the Second World War and said she had seen too

much pain. She refused to go further because, she said, “We are here of our own free will”.

The authoritarian personality – Adorno et al (1950) proposed that some individuals are more likely

to be obedient (and conformist) because of the way they were brought up. Their parents tended to

give conditional love, strict discipline, expected unquestioning loyalty and were insensitive to the

child’s needs. Such experiences create an insecure adult who respects authority and power and who

may increase their self-esteem through in-group favouritism, which leads to prejudice.

Social identity theory – Haslam & Reicher (2008) suggest that people obey unjust authority because

they identify with the group. They argue that Milgram’s participants did not mindlessly obey, but

wrestled with their conscience about what they were doing and found some justification , such as

doing it for the sake of science.


Possible questions:

Specimen paper – When a teacher tells you to do something

it is usual for you to obey. Using your knowledge of the

factors that have been found to affect obedience, explain

why you might obey in this situation (6 marks)

January 2009 – “Milgram’s work into obedience provided us

with valuable insights into why people obey, even though it

was carried out in a laboratory.” Outline 2 explanations of

why people obey (2 + 2 marks)

June 2009 – Outline and evaluate one or more explanations

of why people obey (12 marks)

Your task: Complete model answers for the 3 possible exam questions on this topic. Ensure they are in a revisable format. Get them assessed to ensure they are correct!


Possible questions:

January 2009 – When we are in a large group of friends, it is very easy to agree with them and

simply go along with their views. However, sometimes we are able to resist the pressure to conform.

Using what you have learned from studying conformity, outline one reason why we might resist the

pressure to conform (2 marks)

January 2010 –Three students, George, Petra and Dan, have just started in 6th form. Dan is a

confident person who thinks his fate lies firmly in his hands. By the end of the first week, Dan has

put himself forward to be nominated as the class representative. Petra has also put her name

forward to be nominated. She believes it is just luck whether or not she will be selected and feels

there is not much she can do about it. George did not put his name forward as his father told him

not to. Which one of the three students is most likely to resist the pressure to conform? Use your

knowledge of psychology to explain your choice. (4 marks)

Exposure to dissent:

Seeing other people resist a majority makes people realise that there is an alternative minority view, and this can reduce the likelihood of conforming behaviour. Asch (1956)

Reactance: People can react against the majority view simply because that is the view most people hold. This might be a personality variable, since some people are more reactive than others

Group size: Conformity increases with group size levelling off at 6 or 7 and disappearing at 15 or 16. A large majority has greatest impact in instances of informational social influence (where there is not objectively correct answer).

Group unanimity: If the opinion of the majority group is not unanimous, it is easier to resist conformity. .Asch found that just 1 other person in the group agreeing with the judgement of the true participant was enough to reduce conformity significantly

Technique Explanation Take responsibility Disobedience becomes more likely as people

begin to take responsibility for their actions. Become more autonomous Moving from an agentic state to a more

autonomous state means that we are operating more autonomously, not as ‘agents’ of others. This means we can behave more disobediently

Remove legitimate authority If legitimate authority figures, such as the police or even the army, are removed it becomes easier for people to disobey as they become self-regulated.

Consider immediacy, strength and number Immediacy, strength and number are the three factors influencing obedience as described by social impact theory. Separating ourselves from those who may try to make us obey, and surrounding ourselves with lots of like-minded disobedient people who we do not see as authority figures, will improve a person’s ability to disobey.


Possible questions:

Specimen paper – When a teacher tells you to do something, it is usual for you to obey. In what

ways would the situation have to change in order for you to resist the command? (2 marks)

January 2009 – In a hospital, you are very likely to obey a nurse. However, if you meet her outside

the hospital, for example in a shop, you are much less likely to obey. Using you knowledge of how

people resist pressures to obey, explain why you are less likely to obey the nurse outside the

hospital (4 marks)


Personality is an individual difference. Experience also creates individual differences, and is an

important factor. Other key differences are gender, culture and locus of control.

WARNING: You could be asked an exam question on locus of control – you MUST learn this

individual difference!

Gender - Eagly & Carli (1981) found that women are more easily influenced than men. However,

Eagly (1978) analysed numerous studies and

concluded that this gender difference only

occurs where the task involves group pressure,

rather than persuasion. It is suggested that

women may sometimes appear to be more

conformist because they are more oriented

towards interpersonal goals, and so they

conform on group pressure tasks.

Culture – Bond and Smith (1996) analysed

conformity studies carried out between 1952

and 1994 that had used the same (or similar)

procedures as Asch’s original study. They found that collectivist cultures tended to show higher

levels of conformity than individualist countries. Smith and Bond (1993) surveyed studies that

replicated Milgram’s baseline study and found differences. For example, Australians were less

obedient (40%), and in Spain there was higher obedience (90% for a sample of students);

What is meant by locus of control? (MUST KNOW) Rotter (1966) suggested that the term locus of control is a person’s perception of personal control over their own behaviour. It is measured along a dimension of ‘high internal’ to ‘high external’. High internals perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour, and are therefore more likely to take personal responsibility for it (e.g. ‘That happened because I made it happen’). What happens to a person is therefore seen as a product of their own ability and effort. In contrast, high externals perceive their behaviour a being caused more by external influences or luck (e.g. ‘That happened because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time’). Locus of control research has uncovered a number of characteristics of internals and externals that have relevance for the study of independent behaviour. These include the following:

1.) High internals are active seekers of information that is useful to them, and so are less likely to rely on the opinions of others. (less likely to conform)

2.) High internals tend to be more achievement-oriented and consequently are more likely to become leaders and entrepreneurs. (may bring about social change)

3.) High internals are better able to resist coercion from others. (less likely to obey)


Possible questions:

Specimen paper – “People do not always conform or obey; sometimes they are able to resist

such pressures.” Discuss research into the influence that individual differences have on

independent behaviour (12 marks)

June 2009 – Explain what is meant by locus of control (4 marks)

January 2010 - Three students, George, Petra and Dan, have just started in 6th form. Dan is a

confident person who thinks his fate lies firmly in his hands. By the end of the first week, Dan

has put himself forward to be nominated as the class representative. Petra has also put her

name forward to be nominated. She believes it is just luck whether or not she will be selected

and feels there is not much she can do about it. George did not put his name forward as his

father told him not to. What type of locus of control does Petra’s behaviour show? (1 mark)

What type of locus of control does Dan’s behaviour show? (1 mark) George did not put his name

forward as the class representative. Use your knowledge of social influence research to explain

this ( 2 marks)

June 2010 – Explain how locus of control influences

independent behaviour (4 marks)

Task: Access and print Rotter’s locus of control scale at the

following web link. Are you an internal or an external?

http://www.ballarat.edu.au/ard/bssh/psych/RotterLOC.pdf


Social change refers to a shift in the status quo of a

group or society. Research into social influence has

largely been concerned with the factors that

maintain the status quo, e.g. conformity to the

majority or obeying an authority. However, the

findings can be turned around to suggest how social

change may be achieved

Quick formulae

Obedience = No social change or negative social

change.

Conformity to the majority = No social change or negative social change.

Example: Nazism in World War 2 Germany

Civil disobedience and non-conformity = Social change, often positive.

Examples: Civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King. Rosa Parks not giving up her seat on the bus

and the Suffragette movement in the UK.

Minority influence: Minority views that are consistent and persistent lead individuals to question their own thinking and change their views. Such change may initially be private, for fear of being ridiculed by the majority, but gradually the minority position becomes the majority opinion (the snowball effect). This suggests that attitudes can be changed by a few who feel strongly about their views and are prepared to speak out repeatedly. An example would be the

Suffragette movement in the UK.

Disobedient role models: One of the variations conducted by Milgram involved two further ‘teachers’ (confederates) who defied the experimenter and refused to punish the ‘learner’. In this case, obedience fell to 10%. This suggests the importance of disobedient role models, such as Rosa Parks’ refusal to obey segregation laws in the Southern US in the 1950s, an act which sparked off the American civil rights movement.

Importance of moral principles & internal locus of control: Social influence research shows that people with strong moral convictions and those who have an internal locus of control are less likely to be influenced by others. This suggests that children should be encouraged to act on moral principles (rather than blindly obeying or disobeying) and to develop a sense of responsibility for their own behaviour in order to resist unjust influence.


Possible questions:

January 2009 – What are the implications for social change of research into social influence?

(6 marks)

January 2010 – Describe how social influence research has contributed to our understanding of

social change (6 marks)

June 2010 – For many years, smoking in public places such as trains, pubs and restaurants was quite

acceptable. People could smoke wherever they wanted and non-smokers had to put up with smoky

atmospheres. However, in 2007, the Government finally introduced a law banning smoking in public

places and those who smoke are limited in where they can smoke. Using your knowledge of the

psychology of social change, explain how this social change has occurred, (4 marks)

psya2: social influence - · pdf filehow might this be used in the exam? possible exam...

Documents