IB Psychology HL 2.3 Sociocultural Approach Topic Practice

The command term "discuss" requires candidates to offer a considered review of two compliance techniques. Although the response must address two techniques the discussion does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Compliance techniques that are addressed may include, but are not limited to:
- reciprocity (Lynne \& McCall,1998;
Tiger \& Fox, 1989)
- foot-in-the-door (Petrova, 2007;
Sherman, 1980;
Freedman \& Fraser, 1966)
- door-in-the-face (Gueguen \& Meineri, 2011;
Cialdini, 1975)
- low-balling (Burger \& Cornelius, 2003;
Palak, 1980).

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:
- efficacy of the technique
- levels of compliance affected by factors such as liking, authority, etc
- the role of cognitive dissonance
- the need for social acceptance
- the role of goal gradients
- methodological and ethical considerations
- cultural and gender considerations
- contrary findings or explanations.

If a candidate discusses more than two compliance techniques, credit should be given only to the first two compliance techniques.

If a candidate discusses only one compliance technique, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks.
The command term "examine" requires candidates to consider how two or more factors influence conformity in a way that uncovers the assumptions and relationships between each of these factors and conformity.

Appropriate factors influencing conformity may include but are not limited to: culture, minority influence, group size, unanimity, confidence, self-esteem, intellectual competence and leadership ability. Candidates may refer to normative influence and informational influence as factors leading to conformity.

Candidates may refer to a number of studies that may include but are not limited to:
- Asch's (1951,1952,1956) studies on the influence of group size, unanimity and the difficulty of the task
- Crutchfield's (1955) study on intellectual competence, ego strength, leadership ability and authoritarian personality
- Perrin and Spencer's (1988) study on confidence
- Moscovici et al.'s (1969,1976,1985) studies on the influence of a minority
- Berry's (1967) study or Bond and Smith's study (1996) on cultural differences.
- Abrams (1990) study on the role of social identity.

In order to respond to the command term "examine", candidates may refer to:
- our inherent need to belong and the role this plays in normative social influence
- that we understand ourselves through social comparison
- our behaviour is influenced by others, even when we believe that we are acting independently.
- gender and cultural considerations - such as the role of cultural dimensions on our behaviour.

Candidates may examine two factors influencing conformity in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine a larger number of factors in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

If a candidate examines only one factor influencing conformity, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [4] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C , organization.

If factors influencing obedience or compliance, rather than conformity, are discussed, no marks should be awarded for this discussion. Marks should only be awarded for a discussion of the Stanford Prison Study if the response focuses on relevant factors influencing conformity, for example referent informational influence.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks.
The command term "explain" requires candidates to give a detailed account, with reasons or causes, of the effect of one cultural dimension on behaviour and/or cognition, with reference to one relevant study.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:
- Individual versus Collectivism: Berry's (1967) study of conformity;
Kulkofsky's (2011) study of flashbulb memory
- Long- versus short-term orientation: Chen et al.'s (2005) study of consumer behaviour
- Power distance: Zhang et al.'s (2010) study of impulsive buying;
Eylon and Au's (1999) study of empowerment in the workplace
- Uncertainty avoidance: Shane's (1995) study of preference for innovation

If a candidate explains more than one cultural dimension, credit should be given only to the first explanation.

If a candidate explains one cultural dimension without reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.

If a candidate describes a relevant study without explaining the cultural dimension, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.

If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only for the first study.