To themselves as a part of a group instead

To what extent can people influence
others’ impressions of them by making changes to their physical appearance
(make-up, clothing, etc)? 213 words

Asch’s configural model
took a Gestalt approach (whole perceived more than sum of all parts).
Particularly, central traits such as ‘cold’ and ‘warm’ are meaningful, i.e. a
warm trait means friendliness, allowing us to organise information whilst
influencing surrounding traits. Additionally, central traits conclude to the primacy
effect where first appeared traits influences final impressions (Asch, 1946). For instance, Gonçalves et al (2015) found that a bigger
shaped eye – i.e. using mascara/eyeshadow to encourage this – is linked to
appearing warmth and competence, hereby resulting into appearing attractive. Attractiveness
is also linked to a male’s sports hair style, and a classic hair style is
linked to high dimensions of intelligence (Lee & Song, 2015).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

theory does not take in account of the motives or goals of the perceiver. For
example, as found by Young, Slepian and Sacco (2015) the perceiver may have a
self-protection motive which influences the process of intergroups i.e.
categorising racially ambiguities people as an out-group; activating self-protection
motives accurately leads to facial cues associated to trustworthiness. Self-protection
goals can distinguish between a genuine and fake smile. This would suggest individuals
cannot influence people’s impressions of them fully by making changes to
physical appearances, because other factors such as the perceivers
self-protection motive can influence their opinion on an individual.



Compare Western and Asian views of
the self – what are the most important differences in how members of Western
and Asian cultures conceive ‘self’? 250 words

Barkema et al (2015)
researched East Asian cultures discovering they have collectivist morals (relationship
with people is integral to their selves). East Asians do not use categories or
formal logic therefore they rely on the logical discussions of opinions. They
see themselves as a part of a group instead of relying on their own opinion
entirely. Whereas Western society follows individualistic rules; they
prioritise their own opinion instead of relating with the group (Nisbett et al,
2001). Zhong et al (2006) found Westerns
characterise themselves as having independence, but East Asians see themselves
having more dependence on each other. Consequently, Western individuals live to
satisfy themselves, but East Asians are selfless towards others.

            Furthermore, American children
performed better at puzzles when they chose it themselves. But, East Asian
children performed better when they were told their mum chose it out for them
to play with (Goldberg, 2008). This elaborates the point that Western
society are bought up independently with free choice, whereas East Asian
children are reliant on other opinions.

cultures feel the need to demonstrate strong self-enhancement (Boucher, 2010). Cai,
Sedikides and Gaertner (2011) found that Chinese subjects showed low explicit
self-esteem (conscious evaluation of self) whereas showed high implicit
self-esteem (unconscious evaluation of self). However, Americans seemed to have
‘constrained explicit self-esteem’ with no
relation with implicit self-esteem.

In result, Asian cultures see themselves part of a group
being most likely to demonstrate unconscious evaluations of themselves, where
Western cultures see themselves individualistic, looking out for themselves.



How, to what extent, do attitudes
influence behaviour? 246 words

Explicit attitudes mean
conscious awareness of beliefs influencing behaviour. Implicit attitudes is the
unconscious awareness of beliefs but still has the ability to effect behaviour (Cherry, 2017). Ajzen (1985) theory
of planned behaviour (TPB) is built up of constructs which together influence
behaviour. Firstly, attitudes towards behaviour acts as beliefs contributing
positively or negatively to their lives i.e. choosing a TV which makes the most
sense. Secondly, subject norms influence attitudes and behaviour i.e. what
others would think about the TV. Thirdly, perceived behavioural control
influences i.e. how easy/hard it is to use the phone.

ignores the individuals needs for performing the behaviour regardless of
attitudes i.e. someone may like lemonade but will not order it because they are
not thirsty (Araújo-Soares, Presseau &
Sniehotta, 2014) – suggesting attitudes do not always influence
behaviour. However, Wegner and Wheatley (1999) denies importance of the
conscious mind influencing behaviour – implicit attitudes drive behaviour.
Judgments are driven by the unconscious mind weighing with individual’s
memories rather than conscious beliefs on positives/negatives (Campbell &
Whitehead, 2010), suggesting instincts can influence behaviour rather conscious
attitudes – contradicting TPB. Ajzen (2011) meta-analysis found that emotions influence
behaviour. From a TPB perspective, behaviours will lead to a range of emotions
which are either positive or negative. But Wolff et al (2011) found these
behavioural views are not applied enough due to consequences of performing

            In result, attitudes do not always influence behaviour
due to instincts/individuals needs to perform an action i.e. hungry/not hungry.



What strategies can we use to resist
obedience to authority? 247 words

Milgram (1965) completed
an experiment on forty male subjects: 65% of them gave 450 volts to a
confederate when the ‘experimenter’ asked them to. But in Milgram’s (1974) ‘variation
10 experiment’ (in an office building), individuals were able to question the
authority figure, and in result obedience fell to 48%. Additionally, Zimbardo
(2014) noted to resist obedience is to give support and form relationships with
those in authority, which allows individuals to question their instructions to
prevent failures. A case study on his student (nurse) was told to administer
the wrong medication to a patient. She questioned the doctor where he told her
again to administer it. She then injected the medication into an IV bag and
told the doctor he would have to administer it himself as it went against her
training. In result, this allowed the doctor to rethink and then did not administer,
which shows when authority are put in shoes of complying individuals, it allows
them to question their own orders. To question authority is a strategic way to
resist obedience.

            Aversion (distraction) could be used to resist obedience (Pinkham, 1993). This is where the individual
would avoid the topic and get the authority figure to think about something
else. For example, it has been found some school children with behavioural
problems use aversion to manipulate teachers into getting their own way, or
straight out refusal (Goldsmith & Oppenheim, 2007). Overall, aversion and
refusal is a strategic way to resist obedience to authority.



Why are people less likely to help in
emergency situations when in the presence of others vs. alone? 249 words

The bystander effect
represents individuals who do not help someone in emergencies due to others
presence. Individuals are likely to help when there are fewer witnesses (Darley
& Latane, 1968). Slater et al (2013) found when ‘bystanders’ share common
social identities, the probability of helping someone in emergencies is
increased. Forty male Arsenal supporters were studied for their responses to
either an Arsenal supporter or a non-supporter (in-group/out-group) who looked
at them for help. Interventions were greater for in-groups than out-groups,
meaning people are less likely to help out-group members due to in-group

exchange theory suggests behaviour is based on ‘selfishness’ of maximising own
rewards. (Emerson, 1976). Caring for someone’s needs will depend
on underlying motivations (Underwood, 2009). For instance, helping a person who have
fallen because everyone is watching and will see what a generous person they
are. This is backed up by Dawkins’ theory of the ‘selfish gene’ where natural
selection favourites specific genes for survival, and suggests people will only
help if it benefits them – opposing ‘bystander effect’ where only helps due to
few witnesses.

            Overall, people are less likely to help someone in emergencies
when others are present due to feeling pressure to follow what everyone else (in-group)
are doing (Slater et al, 2013). But, when fewer are present could suggest
people do not feel the pressure to comply to a potential in-group. However,
evidence suggests people will only help if there is a gain for them suggesting
others presence does not impact.


characterizes relationships in which aggression is most likely to occur (i.e.,
what are the features of the aggressor, the victim, and the relationship
between them)? 244 words

Defence mechanisms are a
way to deal with aggression. Some individuals project their frustration onto
something less threatening (e.g. a person of lower status) to protect their
self-esteem against threats (Baumeister, Dale & Sommer, 1998). For example,
nurses were more likely than doctors, to be involved in aggressive events due
to the patients/relative’s frustration with waiting times and lack of
communication. Findings reveal communication factors contribute to aggression
(Angland, Dowling & Casey, 2014).

theory (strong feelings for an individual) by Bowlby (1982) suggests early
experiences from a caregiver influences how empathetic they are and potential
aggression. As the individual gets older, attachment to the caregiver changes
into actions (as cited in You & Kim, 2016, p. 256). Secondary school
students were studied where it was found individuals who had higher parental
attachment exhibited better self-control than those who did not. Higher
attachment and building relationships resulted in greater empathy thus lower
aggression. Additionally, it was found an individual is more likely to be
aggressive to an outgroup than they are an ingroup member (You & Kim,
2016). This suggests whether people felt attached in the early experiences with
their caregiver, influences whether they are more likely to be aggressive to
outgroup members and their empathy to the potential ‘victim’.

if the victim is less threatening to the individual, or an outgroup member/feel
lack of empathy for the victim, then the individual is more likely to be
aggressive towards them when under frustration.


What are some of the limitations of
intergroup contact as a prejudice reduction method? 238 words

Allport (1954) proposed
intergroup contact happens through four stages: equal status, intergroup
cooperation, common goals and the influence of authority (as cited in Hewstone
& Ramiah, 2013, p. 529). Intergroup contact can be deemed too threatening
to the individual thus implicating anxiety. This acts as a limitation to
reducing prejudice. Anxiety results in avoidance of contact and therefore
strengthens threat to outgroup contact. It also limits tolerance of the
outgroup contact (Van, Zomeren, Fischer & Spears, 2007).

contact can worsen when there are negative experiences thus acting as a
limitation for reducing prejudice. For example, white Australians referenced to
their ethnic partners ethnicity if the partner displayed negative nonverbal
behaviour (Paolini, Harwood & Rubin, 2010). 
Although, positive experiences with intergroup contact on an outgroup is
three times more common as found on five European countries (Germany, Poland,
Slovakia, Czech Republic and Austria). But, less frequent negative contact was
deemed more influential for outgroups attitudes during intercontact. Therefore,
negative contact can prevent intergroup contact reducing prejudice therefore
not a successful method (Graf, Paolini & Rubin, 2014).

limitation is some contact may be unlikely to happen or impractical. For
example, cases where war and genocide are involved. Therefore, imagining a
situation where intergroup contact occurs provides a better alternative (Husnu
& Crisp, 2010).

limitations of intergroup contact include inducing anxiety, creating negative
experiences which become more influential than positive experiences and
sometimes being impractical to do so.








What role do attributions play in
romantic relationships? 247 words

How an
individual sees their partner influences how happy they are in the
relationship. Seventy-five couples were interviewed throughout two years. They
were studied upon their trust and motives towards their partner. Results showed
found that their partners attributions predicted changes in trust (Miller &
Rempel, 2004). For example, distress-maintaining attributions is when the
individual saw their partner as untrustworthy, so in result were less satisfied
within their relationship. Whereas, relationship-enhancing attribution, is when
the individual felt more positively within the relationship, so in result were
more satisfied (Miller & Rempel, 2004).

            Furthermore, individuals with
positive feelings were motivated to their partner to make big promises than
others who did not feel as positively. Those who thought about their feelings
towards their partner promised more. However, it was found that those who are
most motivated, were more likely to break the promise because they wanted to
make ambitious commitments which they were unable to keep (Peetz &
Kammrath, 2011). This evidence backs up Miller and Rempel (2004); for example,
if a spouse forgot a date, then a relationship-enhanced individual would
understand that they may had been in traffic, and not because they forgot.
Therefore, this individual would understand why their partner broke the
‘promise’ because of influencing factors, and not based on them personally.

            Overall, if an individual can see
and understand the reasons for their partners actions, not on a personal level,
will in result feel more satisfied than someone who takes their partners
actions personally.