Could you please mark this, It's Social Influence
Question Paper: http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects...2-QP-JAN13.PDF
Mark Scheme: http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects...W-MS-JAN13.PDF
Research into conformity. The first experiment is by Asch (1951). The aim of the experiment was to see if people conformed to the majority even if the answer was obvious. He did this by having 8 participants, only the last one was the true participant. There were 2 different sets of lines. The first set contained 3 lines of different lengths, and the second set only contained one line. The objective of the participants to see which line (from the first set) corresponded to the second set of line. All the previous participants before the true participants would purposely give their answer wrong, and the test was to see if the last person would conform to them and go with the incorrect answer.
The results of this experiment was that when an experiment was taken when the participants were on their own, compliance was at under 1%. When a new set of participants were within the group the compliance raised to an overall of 35% and 75% of which conformed at least once.
The conclusion that Asch gave was that Compliance increases when group size increases even if the answer was obvious. The results above showed that.
Now on to the evaluation of this research into compliance (conformity). The research lacked validity. The first validity it lacked was ecological validity. Meaning that this does not correspond to a real-life situation. The second one is demand characteristics, and participants could have known what the aim of the task was and just went along with it, however this is later on backed up by other research in 1995, however compliance was lower, this could be due to the fact that people have changed their opinions more freely and are more confident. This experiment was also gender bias, it was only men within the experiment and the answers could have been different if women were involved, this then leads to the population bias because the real world doesn't contain 100% men. Participants also could have had psychological stress for being under pressure answering the questions because they were mostly going along with the group and not their own answer.
8. Social influence research helps us to understand social change many ways. Social change is usually done by the minority influence, examples being protests have led to gay marriage being accepted within the UK. Minority influence is done by three ways. Flexibility, consistency and commitment. By allowing research into social influence we'd be able to understand why the majority finally conforms, and how it affects the wider population. It allows psychologists to explore why the human body becomes persuaded and conform to the wider population in a snow ball effect. It only takes persuasion of one powerful person who will then make other people comply through obedience. Not everyone in the UK supports gay marriage, however that's how it is, we are obedient towards the minority social roles.
7. The difference between a passenger and the ticket collector is that the ticket collector works for the train you are currently on, so he is a social role within that society. The reason why you will most like move if he asked is that because you are obedient to him, he has more power. Example being he could kick you off the train. Even if you think it is wrong to move out of your seat, because he is within that 'social authority' there could be consequences. However there is a slight amount of people who wouldn't move out the seat in either situation, because they could be under informative influence, where they think it isn't the right to move off the seat, because they've paid for a ticket, they have the right to sit wherever they want, or normative influence, where they've seen their friends not listen to people and they want to be just like them. Why it is less likely you move if a passenger asked could be the same thing (for normative and informative influence), however there is no obedience. Unless the passenger was a high social status, this could be the things they wear, the way they speak. However they have no social authority within the train.
Ethical issues. The test caused a lot of psychological harm, two of the participants had seizures, and participants went through deception, because they weren't aware that the participant in the other room getting shock, really wasn't. This leads back to psychological harm because you are thinking you're hurting the person within the other room when you're not, and this could stay within your consequences even after the experiment is over.
Ecological issues. The test doesn't refer to real life because it is very unlikely you will have to shock someone in real life all the way to 450V. This also leads to demand characteristics where people may have known people weren't being shocked and still went along with it, however this is countered because two people had seizures and all participants looked scared and were sweating during the experiment.