Transcript Social Influence Assessment 1 feedback

Social Influence
Assessment 1 feedback
AS Psychology: Year 12
Question 1
Josie, Hana and Caitlyn have just started new jobs and all three
are keen to do well. Josie laughs a lot at the jokes her colleagues
tell, even though she does not always find them very funny.
Hana observes her colleagues closely and makes sure that she
completes the work in the same way that they do, so that she
does not make any mistakes. Caitlyn prefers to learn through
trial and error. She believes that by trying and by making
mistakes, she will really understand what she is doing.
Which girl’s behaviour is being influenced by normative social
influence and which girl’s behaviour is being influenced by
informational social influence? Justify both choices. (6 marks)
Mark scheme
A02 – Application of psychological K&U to scenario
1 mark for correctly linking Josie with Normative Social
Influence and 1 mark for correctly linking Hana with
Informational Social Influence.
For each girl, a further 2 marks for justification/elaboration.
Caitlyn is not experiencing any social influence.
For full 6 marks candidates must engage with the scenario in
their answer.
Exemplar answer: Gap fill
Josie’s behaviour is being influenced by _____________ social
influence. This is because she is changing her public behaviour
but not her ___________attitude. She is doing something
(laughing at jokes) just to fit in, gain __________and be
accepted by the group (her new work colleagues), even though
privately she doesn’t find the jokes funny.
On the other hand, Hana’s behaviour is being influenced by
________________ social influence. This is because she is
changing her behaviour __________ and privately. She is using
her new work colleagues as a source of _____________ (she
observes her colleagues closely and completes her work in the
same way) as she sees them as __________. Therefore she
changes her behaviour in order to be ___________.
normative
experts
correct
approval
information
private
informational
publicly
Question 2
Discuss research into conformity. (8 marks)
Discuss = outline and evaluate.
A01 – 4 marks - outline (description) of relevant
research into conformity OR explanations.
A02 – 4 marks – evaluation (strengths and
weaknesses) of relevant research into conformity OR
supporting research for explanations.
A01
Research can include both theories and studies.
Creditworthy A01 includes…
Studies (APFC)
 Asch (1956) – conformity – ‘line’ study and variations.
 Sherif (1935) – conformity - autokinetic effect.
Explanations of why people conform
 Normative Social Influence (NSI) – compliance.
 Informational Social Influence (ISI) – internalisation.
A01: Mark scheme
0 marks – No creditworthy material.
1 mark – Very brief/flawed or inappropriate, demonstrating very little
knowledge.
2 marks – Basic – some relevant K&U but lacks detail and may be
muddled, little evidence of selection of material to address Q.
3 marks – Less detailed but generally accurate – demonstrates relevant
K&U, some evidence of selection of material to address Q.
4 marks – Accurate and reasonably detailed – demonstrates sound K&U
of research into conformity, appropriate selection of material.
Asch (1956)
 123 male American undergraduate volunteers.
 All but one PT (‘real’ PT) were really confederates.
 PTs seated around a table and shown 3 lines of different
lengths – asked which of the 3 lines was the same length as
a ‘standard’ line.
 PTs always answered in same order (real PT always
last/second to last).
 Confederates were instructed to all give the same incorrect
answer on 12/18 trials.
 On the 12 critical trials (when all of the confederates gave
the same wrong answer), 36.8% of the responses made by
the ‘real’ PTs were also incorrect.
 Suggests ‘real’ PTs had conformed to the pressure of the
majority.
Findings: Variations
Difficulty of task - If the differences between the line lengths
were much smaller (making task more difficult), the level of
conformity increased.
Size of the majority – Important up to a point – highest level of
conformity was when majority consisted of 3.
Unanimity of the majority - If the real PT was given social
support from another real PT or a confederate, conformity
levels dropped (32% to 5.5%). If another real PT/confederate
gave an answer different to the majority but also different to
the correct answer, conformity also dropped from 32% to 9%.
Sherif (1935)
 Autokinetic effect in laboratory - when a small spot of light
(projected onto a screen) in a dark room appears to move, even
though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).
 When PTs were individually tested their estimates on how far the
light moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm).
 PTs were then tested in groups of three - manipulated the
composition of the group by putting together two people whose
estimate of the light movement when alone was very similar, and
one person whose estimate was very different.
 Each PT in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the
light had moved.
 Over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the
group converged to a common estimate. The person whose
estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in
the group conformed to the view of the other two.
 Internalisation/ISI – used majority as a source of information.
Explanations -NSI
Normative social influence
 Involves compliance – public agreement but no private
attitude change.
 Individual changes behaviour to fit in with the majority
group.
 To gain acceptance/approval and to avoid disapproval.
 A majority may be able to control other group
members by making it difficult for them to deviate
from the majority point of view, thus exerting pressure
on them to conform due to fear of rejection.
Explanations - ISI
Informational social influence
 Involves internalisation – public and private attitude
change.
 Individuals go along with others because they
generally believe them to be right.
 Use others as a source of information especially if view
them as experts (and therefore more likely to know
what to do) or situation is ambiguous/in a crisis.
A02
Evaluation depends on whether studies or theories have
been used for A01.
If studies have been used as A01 (Asch/Sherif) then A02
can come from a consideration of the strengths and
weaknesses of the research.
If theories have been used as A01 (NSI/ISI) then A02 can
come from research studies to support the explanation.
A02: Mark scheme
0 marks – No creditworthy material.
1 mark – Rudimentary evaluation – very brief evaluation, expression of
ideas are poor, few specialist terms are used, errors of SPaG obscure
meaning.
2 marks – Basic evaluation – basic evaluation, superficial consideration of
a restricted range of issues/evidence, expression of ideas lack clarity, some
specialist terms used, errors of SPaG detract from clarity.
3 marks – Reasonable evaluation – material is not always used effectively
but produces reasonable evaluation, range of issues/evidence in limited
depth or a narrower range in greater depth, some errors of SPaG.
4 marks – Effective evaluation – effective use of material to address the
question, broad range of issues/evidence in reasonable depth or a
narrower range in greater depth, clear expression of ideas, good range of
specialist terms, few errors of SPaG.
A02: Exemplar structure
P.E.E
• P: The findings of Asch’s study on conformity can be
criticised due to ______________.
• Sample studied/laboratory experiment.
• E: This is because…
• All male so lacks population validity (gender bias)/all
American so lacks population validity (culture bias)/lacks
ecological validity due to artificial environment.
• E: Therefore…
• We must be cautious when generalising these findings on
conformity to…women/other cultures/real-life situations
because…
A02: Supporting evidence
for NSI/ISI
There is research to support NSI/ISI as an explanation of conformity…
Normative social influence
 Bullying behaviour.
 Smoking behaviour.
 Conservation behaviour – reusing towels in hotel.
Informational social influence
 Wittenbrink and Henly (1996) – social stereotypes
 Fein et al (2007) – political opinion.
 Jones et al (2000) – mass psychogenic illness.