1. Social Influence Assessment 1 feedback AS Psychology: Year 12

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. 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 ___________. normativeexpertscorrectapproval informationprivateinformationalpublicly

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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%.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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…

16. 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.