Psychology by specification point
4.1.1 Social Influence
Explanations for obedience: Obedience
agentic state and legitimacy of ● 40 US men volunteered and were introduced to confederate
authority, and situational variables ● Participant became the teacher with confederate being learner
affecting obedience including ● Aimed to assess obedience in situation where authority figure ordered participant to
proximity and location, as give learner electric (fake) shocks from a different room
investigated by Milgram, ● Every participant delivered al shocks up to 300V
and uniform. Dispositional ● 12.% stopped at 300V and 65% continued to highest level of 450V
explanation for obedience: the ● Participants showed signs of extreme stress
Authoritarian Personality ● All participants debriefed and 84% said glad to have participated
● Research support: Beauvois et al game show (The Game of Death) found 80% Ps
delivered 460V to ‘unconscious’ man and so supports findings
● Sheridan and King found all participants gave shocks to a real puppy with 54% men
giving ‘fatal’ shock and 100% women, suggests genuine behaviour
● Low internal validity: 75% participants believed genuine according to Milgram by Orne
and Holland said play acting, and Perry found ⅔ participants disobedient and only ½
believed shocks were real
● Participants did not obey the fourth prod where they were obey authority figure,
compared to continuing due to scientific aims of research
● Ethical issues; participants were deceived as shocks were told to be real which could
have led to trauma afterwards
Proximity
● When teacher and learner in same room obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
● When teacher forced learner’s hand onto shock plate obedience dropped to 30%
● Remote instruction by telephone saw obedience drop to 20%
● Decreased proximity allows psychological distance from consequences of actions
Location
● In run down office block obedience fell to 47.5%
● The university had given the study legitimacy and authority which was not as prevalent
in the office block
Uniform
● When role of experimenter taken over by public member, obedience fell to 20%
● Uniform encourages obedience due to being recognised symbols of authority
● Someone without uniform therefore has less right to expect obedience
● Research support: Bickman had confederates dress in uniforms, people 2x likely to
obey security guard than jacket and tie
● Cross cultural replication from Meeus and Raaijmakers and found 90% obeyed when
ordered to saw stressful things
● Smith and Bond found only 2 replications from 1968-85 which were from cultures
different to the USA so cannot be called fully generalisable
● Participants may have guessed the procedure was faked due to the extra variation
manipulation and so cannot be seen results were due to obedience
Agentic state
● Experiencing high anxiety but are powerless to disobey - acting for someone
● Opposite in being in an autonomous state - feeling responsible for own actions
● Agentic shift is the shift from autonomy to agency - occurs when someone else is
perceived as an authority figure with a greater hierarchical position
● People remain in agentic state due to binding factors that minimise damage
● Research support: Milgram demonstrated Ps were resistant until experimenter
explained that they were responsible
● Doesn’t explain findings of Rank and Jacobsen who found 16/18 nurses disobeyed
doctors when asked despite doctor being higher authority figure
Legitimacy of authority
● Authority is legitimate due to the fact it is agreed by society
● Authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others as this allows
society to function smoothly
● Legitimacy of authority means some are granted punishment ability
● Learn acceptance of it through childhood and parents
● Destructive authority arises from authority becoming too strong
, ● Explains cultural differences - Kilham and Mann found 16% Australian women went to
450V, but Mantell found German participants were 85%
● Cannot explain instances of disobedience in hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is
clear e.g. Rank and Jacobson study, Milgram’s Ps - innate tendencies
Authoritarian personality
● Dispositional - explanations highlighting importance of individual
● Belief high level of obedience was psychological disorder due to personality
● People with it show extreme respect for authority and view society as weaker than it
once was; need strong leaders
● More likely to obey orders from authority; show contempt for those of inferior social
status - inflexible outlook on the world
● Forms in childhood due to harsh parenting including strict discipline and high standards
with severe criticism - creates hostility and resentment but fear punishment
● Displace fears onto those they believe to be weaker (psychodynamic)
● Adorno et al studied 2000+ whites and used F scale, found those with authoritarian
leanings had high status conscious and showed extreme respect to those higher
● Have very fixed stereotypes on different groups and strong correlation between
authoritarianism and prejudice
● Research support: Elms and Milgram found obedient participants that had scored high
were much different to the lower scoring group and similar to authoritarianism
● Found obedient participants had characteristics unusual for authoritarians and so the
link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex
● Cannot explain across a whole country e.g. German antisemetic views WW2
● F scale only measured tendency towards right wing ideology and is politically biased so
is not a complete comprehensive explanation across the political spectrum
Explanations of resistance to Social support
social influence, including social ● Resisting conformity can be done if there are others not conforming e.g. Asch
support and locus of control. ● The fact someone else isn’t following allows participant to be free to follow conscience
● Dissent gives rise to further dissent
● Resisting obedience increases if someone else disobey - Milgram variation obedience
dropped 65% to 10% when someone else objected
● Disobedient model challenges legitimacy of authority so others disobey
● Real world support: Albrecht et al saw with a smoking programme social support made
people much less likely to smoke than those that didn’t have social support
● Support for dissent: Gamson et al found high levels of resistance due to the fact groups
were made and so discussion could be had. 88% groups rebelled
Locus of control
● Rotter proposed it as a concept relating to internal vs external control
● Internal LOC believes things that happen happen due to themselves
● External LOC believe things that happen are outside their control
● LOC is a continuum ad individuals vary across the scale
● High LOC = more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey as decisions based on
own opinions
● Research support: Holland repeated Milgram study and measured if internal/external
LOC, found 37% internals did not continue but 23% externals did not continue
● Contradictory research: Twenge et al analysed LOC data which showed people
became more resistant but more external which is contradictory
Minority influence including Minority influence
reference to consistency, ● Small group influences beliefs of majority of other people
commitment and flexibility. ● Minority influence leads to internalisation with pub and private beliefs changed
● Consistency - can be synchronic (all same thing) or diachronic (saying same thing for
long time)
● Commitment - engagement in extreme activities that engage the majority group -
augmentation principle
● Flexibility - members of minority have to be prepared to adapt their POV
● Deeper processing is key in conversion process with people switching in increasing
numbers - snowball effect
● Research support: Moscovici et al showed consistent minority opinion had greater
effect. Wood et al found minorities seen as consistent were most influential
● Research support: Martin et al found people less willing to change opinions if had
listened to minority than majority as suggests deeper processing
● Martin et al showed clear distinctions, but in the real world much more complex.
Limited in the real world application
● Tasks were artificial; Moscovici et al is far removed from how minorities attempt to
change behaviour of majorities in real life
, 4.1.2 Memory
The multi-store model of memory:
sensory register, short-term
memory and long-term memory.
Features of each store: coding,
capacity and duration.
● Atkinson and Shiffrin model
● Sensory register is where stimuli from environment passes, and it comprises several
register for each of the senses
● Coding in each ahowrea depends on the sense - visual information is iconic memory
and acoustical is echoic memory
● Duration is less than half a second and they have very high capacity
● Attention is the key process
● Short term memory is coded acoustically and lasts 18 seconds without rehearsal
● Capacity is around 7 (+/- 2) but can be lower
● Maintenance rehearsal occurs when we repeat information, if if done enough it passes
to long term memory
● LTM is coded semantically with duration up to a lifetime.
● Capacity is unlimited
● In order to retrieve information it had to be transferred back to the STM by retrieval
● Baddeley found we mix up similar sounding words in ST but similar meaning in LTM
showing they are separate stores
● Memories are often formed to memories, and MSM studies didn’t use real life materials
- used digits and letters (e.g. Jacobs) so may not be valid in everyday life
● May be more than one STM store - Shallice and Warrington, could not recall when
read to him but better when read to himself
● Prolonged rehearsal not needed - Craik and Watkins found type of rehearsal more
important than amount; elaborative rehearsal needed for LTM so MSM does not
explain how LTM storage is achieved
The working memory model:
central executive, phonological
loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad
and episodic buffer. Features of
the model: coding and capacity.
● WMM consists for four main components
● Central executive monitors incoming data and focuses and divides subsystems to be
allocated tasks
● Limited processing capacity and does not store information
● Phonological loop deals with auditory info (acoustic) and includes phonological store
(words you hear) and articulatory loop (allows maintenance rehearsal, capacity of 2s)
● Visuospatial sketchpad stores visual and spatial information, limited capacity of ¾
objected, and split into visual cache (visual data), inner scribe (object arrangement)
● Episodic buffer added by Baddeley ; temporary store for information to integrate
information to create a time sequence. Limited capacity of 4 chunks and buffer to LTM
● Clinical evidence - Shallice and Warrington found poor ability for auditory but could
4.1.1 Social Influence
Explanations for obedience: Obedience
agentic state and legitimacy of ● 40 US men volunteered and were introduced to confederate
authority, and situational variables ● Participant became the teacher with confederate being learner
affecting obedience including ● Aimed to assess obedience in situation where authority figure ordered participant to
proximity and location, as give learner electric (fake) shocks from a different room
investigated by Milgram, ● Every participant delivered al shocks up to 300V
and uniform. Dispositional ● 12.% stopped at 300V and 65% continued to highest level of 450V
explanation for obedience: the ● Participants showed signs of extreme stress
Authoritarian Personality ● All participants debriefed and 84% said glad to have participated
● Research support: Beauvois et al game show (The Game of Death) found 80% Ps
delivered 460V to ‘unconscious’ man and so supports findings
● Sheridan and King found all participants gave shocks to a real puppy with 54% men
giving ‘fatal’ shock and 100% women, suggests genuine behaviour
● Low internal validity: 75% participants believed genuine according to Milgram by Orne
and Holland said play acting, and Perry found ⅔ participants disobedient and only ½
believed shocks were real
● Participants did not obey the fourth prod where they were obey authority figure,
compared to continuing due to scientific aims of research
● Ethical issues; participants were deceived as shocks were told to be real which could
have led to trauma afterwards
Proximity
● When teacher and learner in same room obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
● When teacher forced learner’s hand onto shock plate obedience dropped to 30%
● Remote instruction by telephone saw obedience drop to 20%
● Decreased proximity allows psychological distance from consequences of actions
Location
● In run down office block obedience fell to 47.5%
● The university had given the study legitimacy and authority which was not as prevalent
in the office block
Uniform
● When role of experimenter taken over by public member, obedience fell to 20%
● Uniform encourages obedience due to being recognised symbols of authority
● Someone without uniform therefore has less right to expect obedience
● Research support: Bickman had confederates dress in uniforms, people 2x likely to
obey security guard than jacket and tie
● Cross cultural replication from Meeus and Raaijmakers and found 90% obeyed when
ordered to saw stressful things
● Smith and Bond found only 2 replications from 1968-85 which were from cultures
different to the USA so cannot be called fully generalisable
● Participants may have guessed the procedure was faked due to the extra variation
manipulation and so cannot be seen results were due to obedience
Agentic state
● Experiencing high anxiety but are powerless to disobey - acting for someone
● Opposite in being in an autonomous state - feeling responsible for own actions
● Agentic shift is the shift from autonomy to agency - occurs when someone else is
perceived as an authority figure with a greater hierarchical position
● People remain in agentic state due to binding factors that minimise damage
● Research support: Milgram demonstrated Ps were resistant until experimenter
explained that they were responsible
● Doesn’t explain findings of Rank and Jacobsen who found 16/18 nurses disobeyed
doctors when asked despite doctor being higher authority figure
Legitimacy of authority
● Authority is legitimate due to the fact it is agreed by society
● Authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others as this allows
society to function smoothly
● Legitimacy of authority means some are granted punishment ability
● Learn acceptance of it through childhood and parents
● Destructive authority arises from authority becoming too strong
, ● Explains cultural differences - Kilham and Mann found 16% Australian women went to
450V, but Mantell found German participants were 85%
● Cannot explain instances of disobedience in hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is
clear e.g. Rank and Jacobson study, Milgram’s Ps - innate tendencies
Authoritarian personality
● Dispositional - explanations highlighting importance of individual
● Belief high level of obedience was psychological disorder due to personality
● People with it show extreme respect for authority and view society as weaker than it
once was; need strong leaders
● More likely to obey orders from authority; show contempt for those of inferior social
status - inflexible outlook on the world
● Forms in childhood due to harsh parenting including strict discipline and high standards
with severe criticism - creates hostility and resentment but fear punishment
● Displace fears onto those they believe to be weaker (psychodynamic)
● Adorno et al studied 2000+ whites and used F scale, found those with authoritarian
leanings had high status conscious and showed extreme respect to those higher
● Have very fixed stereotypes on different groups and strong correlation between
authoritarianism and prejudice
● Research support: Elms and Milgram found obedient participants that had scored high
were much different to the lower scoring group and similar to authoritarianism
● Found obedient participants had characteristics unusual for authoritarians and so the
link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex
● Cannot explain across a whole country e.g. German antisemetic views WW2
● F scale only measured tendency towards right wing ideology and is politically biased so
is not a complete comprehensive explanation across the political spectrum
Explanations of resistance to Social support
social influence, including social ● Resisting conformity can be done if there are others not conforming e.g. Asch
support and locus of control. ● The fact someone else isn’t following allows participant to be free to follow conscience
● Dissent gives rise to further dissent
● Resisting obedience increases if someone else disobey - Milgram variation obedience
dropped 65% to 10% when someone else objected
● Disobedient model challenges legitimacy of authority so others disobey
● Real world support: Albrecht et al saw with a smoking programme social support made
people much less likely to smoke than those that didn’t have social support
● Support for dissent: Gamson et al found high levels of resistance due to the fact groups
were made and so discussion could be had. 88% groups rebelled
Locus of control
● Rotter proposed it as a concept relating to internal vs external control
● Internal LOC believes things that happen happen due to themselves
● External LOC believe things that happen are outside their control
● LOC is a continuum ad individuals vary across the scale
● High LOC = more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey as decisions based on
own opinions
● Research support: Holland repeated Milgram study and measured if internal/external
LOC, found 37% internals did not continue but 23% externals did not continue
● Contradictory research: Twenge et al analysed LOC data which showed people
became more resistant but more external which is contradictory
Minority influence including Minority influence
reference to consistency, ● Small group influences beliefs of majority of other people
commitment and flexibility. ● Minority influence leads to internalisation with pub and private beliefs changed
● Consistency - can be synchronic (all same thing) or diachronic (saying same thing for
long time)
● Commitment - engagement in extreme activities that engage the majority group -
augmentation principle
● Flexibility - members of minority have to be prepared to adapt their POV
● Deeper processing is key in conversion process with people switching in increasing
numbers - snowball effect
● Research support: Moscovici et al showed consistent minority opinion had greater
effect. Wood et al found minorities seen as consistent were most influential
● Research support: Martin et al found people less willing to change opinions if had
listened to minority than majority as suggests deeper processing
● Martin et al showed clear distinctions, but in the real world much more complex.
Limited in the real world application
● Tasks were artificial; Moscovici et al is far removed from how minorities attempt to
change behaviour of majorities in real life
, 4.1.2 Memory
The multi-store model of memory:
sensory register, short-term
memory and long-term memory.
Features of each store: coding,
capacity and duration.
● Atkinson and Shiffrin model
● Sensory register is where stimuli from environment passes, and it comprises several
register for each of the senses
● Coding in each ahowrea depends on the sense - visual information is iconic memory
and acoustical is echoic memory
● Duration is less than half a second and they have very high capacity
● Attention is the key process
● Short term memory is coded acoustically and lasts 18 seconds without rehearsal
● Capacity is around 7 (+/- 2) but can be lower
● Maintenance rehearsal occurs when we repeat information, if if done enough it passes
to long term memory
● LTM is coded semantically with duration up to a lifetime.
● Capacity is unlimited
● In order to retrieve information it had to be transferred back to the STM by retrieval
● Baddeley found we mix up similar sounding words in ST but similar meaning in LTM
showing they are separate stores
● Memories are often formed to memories, and MSM studies didn’t use real life materials
- used digits and letters (e.g. Jacobs) so may not be valid in everyday life
● May be more than one STM store - Shallice and Warrington, could not recall when
read to him but better when read to himself
● Prolonged rehearsal not needed - Craik and Watkins found type of rehearsal more
important than amount; elaborative rehearsal needed for LTM so MSM does not
explain how LTM storage is achieved
The working memory model:
central executive, phonological
loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad
and episodic buffer. Features of
the model: coding and capacity.
● WMM consists for four main components
● Central executive monitors incoming data and focuses and divides subsystems to be
allocated tasks
● Limited processing capacity and does not store information
● Phonological loop deals with auditory info (acoustic) and includes phonological store
(words you hear) and articulatory loop (allows maintenance rehearsal, capacity of 2s)
● Visuospatial sketchpad stores visual and spatial information, limited capacity of ¾
objected, and split into visual cache (visual data), inner scribe (object arrangement)
● Episodic buffer added by Baddeley ; temporary store for information to integrate
information to create a time sequence. Limited capacity of 4 chunks and buffer to LTM
● Clinical evidence - Shallice and Warrington found poor ability for auditory but could
