Social Influence Flashcards
(60 cards)
1
Q
Conformity
A
A person’s behaviour or thinking changes because of group pressure. This pressure can be imagined or real
2
Q
Social factors affecting conformity
A
- group size
- anonymity
- task difficulty
3
Q
How does group size affect conformity
A
People more likely to conform to behaviour of others when in a group of three or more due to increased pressure
4
Q
How does anonymity affect conformity
A
Being anonymous reduces conformity as we will not face consequences of ridicule or disagreement
5
Q
How does task difficulty affect conformity
A
People conform more when attempting a more difficult task as they lack confidence in there own judgement and look to others for guidance
6
Q
Dispositional factors affecting conformity
A
- personality
- expertise
7
Q
How does personality affect conformity
A
Lower self esteem and social status can cause people to conform more as they look to others for guidance
8
Q
How does expertise affect conformity
A
People with high expertise are less likely to conform as they have more confidence in their own ability
9
Q
Asch DATE
A
1955
10
Q
Asch AIM
A
- study conformity
- see if people would choose an incorrect, unambiguous answer to conform
11
Q
Asch METHOD
A
- 123 American male students
- 1 naïve P tested with 6-8 confederates with P near end
- had to say which line was same length as X (A, B or C)
- confederates have right answers first then wrong
12
Q
Asch RESULTS
A
- in 12 critical trials naïve Ps gave wrong answer 36.8%
- 25% Ps never conformed, 75% confirmed at least once
13
Q
Asch CONCLUSION
A
- people influenced by group pressure
- Asch effect - to what extent people conform in unambiguous situation
14
Q
Asch STRENGTH
A
- lab study
- high control of variables, able to carefully alter specific factors (group size), standardised procedures, can be replicated and verified
- high internal validity
15
Q
Asch WEAKNESSES
A
- results may only be relevant to 1950s America
- senator McCarthy led McCarthyism to identify and ostracise people with communist tenancies, similar study in UK (1980) - only 1 P conformed in 396 trials
- Asch effect may not be consistent over time
_ - artificial task
- judging length of line isn’t common, real life task, people may be willing to conform when task unimportant, naïve P in group with unknown people
- results can’t be generalised to when results are conformity are important
16
Q
Obedience
A
Acting in response to a direct from an authority figure
17
Q
Milgram’s agency theory DATE
A
1963
18
Q
Milgram’s agency theory parts
A
- social hierarchy
- agency
- proximity
- authority
19
Q
Milgram’s agency theory SOCIAL HIERARCHY
A
- most societies are structured in a way that means people take orders from those above them
- we are agents for them
20
Q
Milgram’s agency theory AGENCY
A
- agentic state - we act on behalf of somebody else and follow orders blindly, we feel no responsibility, more likely to be obedient
- autonomous state - we behave based on our moral principles, have free will, are responsible for our actions, less likely to be obedient
- agentic shift - moving from autonomous to agentic state when confronted with person perceived as having legitimate authority
21
Q
Milgram’s agency theory PROXIMITY
A
- closeness
- obedience decreases as proximity to the person you’re harming increases - guilt
- obedience increases as proximity increases to authority figure
22
Q
Milgram’s agency theory AUTHORITY
A
Uniform makes authority figure more legitimate
23
Q
Milgram’s agency theory STRENGTH
A
- research support
- Blass and Schmitt (2000) showed film of Milgram’s experiment who blamed ‘experimenter’ over ‘teacher’ for harming ‘learner’
- students recognised legitimate authority of experimenter caused obedience
24
Q
Milgram’s agency theory WEAKNESSES
A
- can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience in experiment
- 35% of Ps didn’t go to max 450V
- social factors can’t fully explain obedience
+ - gives people excuse for ‘blind’ obedience
- in Holocaust, racist and prejudice Nazis were doing more than following orders
- theory potentially dangerous as it excuses people who did terrible things
25
Adorno's authoritarian personality DATE
1950
26
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory parts
- authoritarian personality
- cognitive style
- originates in childhood
- displaced hostility
- F-scale
27
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory PERSONALITY
- exaggerated respect for authority
- far more likely to obey orders
- look down on people with low social style
- very aware of their position in social hierarchy
28
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory COGNITIVE STYLE
- think ‘black and white’
- prefer rigid stereotypes
29
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory ORIGINATES IN CHILDHOOD
- nurture over nature
- overly strict parenting, strong discipline, critical
- conditional love, high standards
- child will feel hostility but can’t store to parents
30
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory DISPLACED HOSTILITY
- offload anger and frustration to people lower on social hierarchy - scapegoating
31
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory F-SCALE
Theory based on F-scale questionnaire which aimed to find out if people had an authoritarian personality
32
Adorno's authoritarian personality theory STRENGTH
- supporting research
- Adorno gave 2,000 students F-Scale - respondents with strict parenting + physical punishment more obedient to authority as adults.
- increases validity
33
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory WEAKNESSES
- theory based on flawed questionnaire
- F-scale has response bias - any answer yes would increase score
- challenges validity, based on poor evidence
+
- can’t explain all cases of obedience
- millions of Germans displayed high obedience but didn’t have same upbringing
- probably social factors that also affect obedience
34
Bystander behaviour
The more people present in an emergency situation, the less likely they are to help
35
Social factors affecting bystander intervention
- presence of others
- cost of helping
36
How does presence of others affect bystander intervention
The more people who are around, the less likely any one person is to help
37
How does cost of helping affect bystander intervention
People weigh up cost of helping vs the cost of not helping (danger to self vs guilt)
38
Dispositional factors affecting bystander intervention
- similarity to victim
- expertise
39
How does similarity to victim affect bystander intervention
If we feel we have something in common we are more likely to help (same race)
40
How does expertise affect bystander intervention
If we feel like we have specialist knowledge for that situation, we are more likely to help (nurse in medical situation)
41
Piliavin DATE
1969
42
Piliavin AIM
- investigate bystander effect in natural setting
- see if changing certain characteristics will affect extent of help that came
43
Piliavin METHOD
- field experiment
- 4 male students on NYC subway train
- 103 trials (journeys)
- 1 male played victim who collapsed after 70 seconds
- 38 trials - victim acted drunk, smelled of alcohol, brown paper bag with alcohol bottle
- 65 trials - victim was sober and disabled (black cane)
- two researchers recorded how long help took
- 1 researcher acted as ‘modal’ who would help after 70/150 seconds if nobody else did
44
Piliavin RESULTS
- disabled helped 95% of the time, 87% in first 70 seconds
- drunk helped 50% of the time, 17% in first 70 seconds
- larger groups more likely to help
45
Piliavin CONCLUSION
- certain characteristics affect whether they are helped - seeming more deserving (disabled) or less deserving (drunk)
- number of people doesn’t affect willingness to help
46
Piliavin STRENGTH
- more realistic results
- Ps not aware they were being studied, displayed more naturalistic behaviour
- high ecological validity and realism
47
Piliavin WEAKNESSES
- biased sample
- urban sample, all comfortable on subway in their environment, regularly see hurt people
- behaviour may not apply to them
+
- maybe culturally biased
- conducted in America (individualist culture), people expected to deal with their own problems, in collectivist cultures, may have been more help
- research can’t be generalised to explain bystander affect across different cultures
48
Prosocial behaviour
Actions which are beneficial to others but may not necessarily benefit the helpers
49
Antisocial behaviour
Behaviour which is harmful to others and society
50
Crowd
Large temporary gathering with common focus
51
Collective behaviour
How people act when part of a group with an identity
52
Social factors affecting collective behaviour
- social loafing
- deindividuation
- culture
53
How does social loafing affect collective behaviour
Presence of others affects behaviour, in a group of people, some people put less effort in as individual effort can’t be identified
54
How does deindividuation affect collective behaviour
- process of losing our identity and self-awareness when we are part of a group
- take on group's personality so act as the group do
55
How does culture affect collective behaviour
Collectivist societies like china have less social loafing than individualist societies like USA as they do things for the group’s benefit
56
Individualist
Thinking about how you will benefit when making decisions
57
Collectivist
Making decisions with reference to the groups needs
58
Dispositional factors affecting collective behaviour
- personality
- morality
59
How does personality affect collective behaviour
People with external locus of control are more likely to be influenced by crowd, internal more likely to follow personal norms
60
How does morality affect collective behaviour
Idea of being right and wrong, people with high ‘moral strength’ will be less likely to go along with crowd and will speak up for what they believe in
