Social Influence

Question 1

deindividuation

Answer 1

loss of self-awareness and responsibility when in a group setting

Question 2

blind obedience

Answer 2

complying with orders of an authority figure without question (usually negative)

Question 3

compliance

Answer 3

going along with the majority although we don’t agree privately

Question 4

identification

Answer 4

temporarily adopting behaviours from a group/ role model

Question 5

internalisation

Answer 5

going along with the majority because we don’t know how to behave

Question 6

locus of control

Answer 6

the extent to which we believe that we control our behaviours/ life

Question 7

diffusion of responsibility

Answer 7

when we believe others will help so we don’t need to

Question 8

pluralistic ignorance

Answer 8

when we interpret the situation based on other people’s reactions

Question 9

situational factors affecting bystander intervention

Answer 9

diffusion of responsibility, noticing the event, pluralistic ignorance, cost of helping

Question 10

personality factors affecting bystander intervention

Answer 10

mood, competence, similarity

Question 11

situational factors affecting conformity

Answer 11

size of majority, unanimity of majority, task difficulty/ ambiguity

Question 12

personality factors affecting conformity

Answer 12

locus of control: internal- we are responsible, personal, less likely external- not responsible, more likely, something external, is responsible

Question 13

situational factors affecting obedience

Answer 13

proximity to victims, proximity to AF, legitimacy of comets, personal responsibility, support of others

Question 14

personality factors affecting obedience

Answer 14

authoritarian: respect AF, rigid beliefs, right-wing politics, high score on milgram’s f-scale

Question 15

prevention of blind obedience

Answer 15

social support, familiarity with event, distance, education

Question 16

evaluation of asch’s line experiment

Answer 16

s: lab experiment, highly controlled, valid
w: andro & ethnocentric, used all male sample from USA, ungeneralisable to women

Question 17

evaluation of milgram:

Answer 17

s: real life application, found situational factors e.g proximity to AF or victim, understand why people obey in these circumstances
w: androcentric, used only males, ungeneralisable to females

Question 18

milgram experiment

Answer 18

aim: wanted to see how far proticipants would go in obeying AF in administrating shocks
procedure: ppts paired with a confederate, roles were rigged, ppt would give fake shocks to confederate
findings: situational factors

Question 19

asch’s lime experiment

Question 20

pilavin (1969)

Answer 20

aim: investigating helping behaviour in a natural environment
procedure: 4500 passengers on NYC subway, observed by uni students to see if they help when victim collapsed
findings: 81/103 trials victim was helped, 60% more than one helped
conclusion: people more likely to help ill people, men more likely to help

Question 21

evaluation of pilavin

Answer 21

s: ppts didn’t know they were being observed, no demand characteristics, results valid
w: ethnocentric ,only done in NYC subway, ungeneralisable to others

Question 22

zimbardo (1973)

Answer 22

aim: to investigate prisoner guard conflict in prison environment
procedure: 22 volunteers, prison set up in stanford basement, paid $22 /day, prisoners& guards
findings: guards aggressive, prisoners rebelled, stopped after 6 days
conclusion:both prisoners & guards confirmed to their roles

Question 23

evaluation of zimbardo: