General learning outcomes -Discuss how and why particular research methods are used at the sociocultural level

of analysis (for example, participant/naturalistic observation, interviews, case studies). Naturalistic Observation, systematic and casual Overt Observation: OReilly (2000) on British expatriates in Costa del Sol Covert Observation: Festinger et al (1956) on religious cult and prophecies Interviews: Palak et al (1980) on lowballing techniques Case Studies: Tajfel et al (1971) on British youth social ingroups

-Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis. Asch (1951) and Tajfel et al (1971) conflict between participants Milgram (1962) involves deception Bandura (1965) inciting such violence at a young age may be construed as a traumatic event, sparking a genetic predisposition for certain affective disorders.

Social Norms -Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies: Principle theory proposed by Bandura (1965) Support studies: Bobo Doll Studies (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1963) Against studies: St Helena Island TV Violence Studies (1995), amended to Social Cognitive Theory in 1986 by Bandura following more observation and studies.

-Discuss the use of compliance techniques (for example, Lowballing, foot-in-the-door, reciprocity). Lowballing (Festinger (1957)) Support studies: Cialdini (1978) on psychology students, Palak et al (1980) on householders

Foot-in-the-door (Cialdini) Support studies: Cialdini (1975), Freedman and Fraser (1966), Sherman (1980)

Door-in-the-face (norm of reciprocity) Support studies: Cialdini (1975)

-Evaluate research on conformity to group norms Asch (1951) conformity study on comparison of three lines of different lengths Sherif (1935) Known as the autokinetic effect, participants placed in a black room if a stationary light object along with other individuals agreed the light source moved, due to perception Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) Dual process theory, between informational and normative influence Di Vesta (1959) Informational influence

-Discuss factors influencing conformity (for example, culture, groupthink, risky shift, minority influence.) Hogg and Vaughan (2008) suggested low self-esteem, dependency on social support and approval, anxiety against low status in the group is associated with increased conformity. Asch (1955) Group size conformity study, identified the bigger the group, the more people conformed although limited to a certain point. Hogg & Vaughan (1995) suggested maximum conformity reached in 3-5 people group Asch (1951) found one person who disagrees with the entire agreeing group can reduce conformity by 80%. Smith & Bond (1996), through meta-analysis, examined 133 conformity studies from 17 different countries, tendency to have higher conformity ratings in highly collective countries. Against Studies: Williams and Sogon (1984) insignificant conformity between Japanese social groups,