Module 5: Social Influence Flashcards

1
Q

What are the different types of conformity?

A
  • Compliance: normative social influence - superficially fitting in as to not be rejected
  • Internalisation: informational social influence - don’t know how to behave so adopt beliefs/behaviours of group
  • Identification: temporarily changing behaviour in a group setting to fit in
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What situational factors may affect bystander intervention?

A
  • Diffusion of responsibility
  • Less likely to notice while in a group
  • Pluralistic ignorance (assuming there is no emergency)
  • Cost of helping
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What individual factors may affect bystander intervention?

A
  • Competence (which informs confidence)
  • Mood (if bad attention is focused inwards, less likely to notice)
  • Similarity to person in need
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What situational factors may affect conformity?

A
  • Size of majority (own judgement questioned most at 3-4 people, questioned less at <3 or >4)
  • Unanimity (majority unanimous?)
  • Task difficulty/ambiguity (informational social influence)
  • (Found by Solomon Asch 1950s three lines on a card experiments)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does locus of control mean?

A

How much control someone believes they have over their own behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What personality factors may affect conformity?

A
  • Internal LoC: influenced internally, less likely to conform
  • External LoC: influenced externally, more likely to conform
  • Internal LoC still conforms in an unfamiliar situation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What situational factors affected obedience in Milgram’s shock experiments?

A
  • Proximity to victim and/or authority figure
  • Legitimacy of context and/or authority figure
  • Personal responsibility (less if shared with another)
  • Support from others (more likely to disobey if others do first)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What personality factors affected obedience in Milgram’s shock experiments?

A
  • Locus of control
  • Authoritarian personality - F-scale (Theodore Adorno et al. (1950), higher on scale = more obedient)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What other factors affected obedience in Milgram’s shock experiments?

A
  • Told shocks were painful but not harmful
  • Volunteered and had paid - obligation
  • No previous experience (informational social influence)
  • Momentum of compliance (plan completion bias)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What may affect the behaviour of crowds?

A
  • Deindividuation
  • Obedience
  • (Pro-social or anti-social behaviour)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Describe deindividuation

A
  • Members stop acting as individuals and become anonymous
  • Magnifies conformity
  • Loss of personal identity
  • Some argue that identity is not lost, instead a new identity is created bound to group norms
  • Stanford Prison Study - Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Describe obedience within crowds

A
  • Crowd may be influenced by an authority figure
  • Proximity, legitimacy, power
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How can blind obedience be prevented?

A
  • Social support (Holfing et al. (1966) & Rank and Jacobson (1977) nurse studies)
  • Familiarity with the situation (nurse studies)
  • Distance from situation/authority figure
  • Education on preventing blind obedience
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What were the aims of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

A

Investigate in which conditions people are more likely to help in a natural environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was the procedure of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

A
  • Covert observation on a New York subway
  • Two observers, two actors (one victim, other a model to help after a set time period)
  • Observed: number of people, race, sex, who helped and after how long
  • Victim: male, either white or black, either ‘drunk’ or carrying a cane
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What were the results of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

A
  • Cane victim helped 95% of the time
  • Drunk victim helped 50% of the time
  • More than one person came to help 60% of the time
  • The bigger the group, the more likely someone was to help
  • Men helped more than women
  • Drunk victim more likely to be helped by someone of the same race
17
Q

What were the conclusions of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

A
  • No diffusion of responsibility (enclosed space, many people watching)
  • Cost of helping (cane vs drunk), especially for women
  • The longer no one helps, the chance of someone helping goes down (conformity)
18
Q

What are the strengths of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

A
  • Natural environment, ecological validity
  • Covert operation, lack of demand characteristics, more valid
19
Q

What are the weaknesses of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

A

Unethical:
- Covert operation, no consent
- May have caused distress

20
Q

What was the aim of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

A

Investigate prisoner-guard conflict in a simulated prison environment

21
Q

What was the procedure of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

A
  • 10 prisoners, 11 guards
  • Male college students, all psychologically healthy, had volunteered and were paid
  • Guards had uniforms and no specific instructions
  • Prisoners were arrested, had prison attire, were referred to by an identification number
  • Supposed to go on for two weeks
22
Q

What were the results of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

A
  • Guards aggressive and controlling after a few hours
  • Prisoners rebelled by barricading cells, guards punished them with solitary confinement
  • Conflict and aggression escalated over next few days
  • Stopped after 6 days, prisoners showing signs of anxiety/depression
23
Q

What were the conclusions of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

A
  • Prisoners/guards conformed to assigned role
  • Deindividuation - lost personal identity, adopted given identity
  • All immersed in simulated environment
24
Q

What are the strengths of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

A
  • Immersion in simulation (natural behaviour, ecological validity)
  • Can inform the way prisons are run
  • Explains the atrocities that occur within prisons
25
Q

What are the weaknesses of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

A
  • Distress caused to participants
  • Participants could have just been acting (lowers ecological validity)
  • Only male college students, lowers generalisability
26
Q

Give examples of real world social issues surrounding social influence

A
  • Obedience: WW2 antisemitism - understanding the behaviour of soldiers
  • Conformity: 2011 London Riots - informational/normative social influence
  • Deindividuation: Police brutality/prison violence - loss of personal identity
  • Bystander effect: WW2 antisemitism - why citizens failed to aid Jews & persecuted minorities
27
Q

Describe how differing cultures may affect social influence

A
  • Individualistic cultures: obedience unaffected (environment, not culture), less likely to conform, more prone to bystander effect
  • Collectivistic cultures: obedience unaffected, more likely to conform, less prone to bystander effect (if one is perceived to be belonging to the same group)