social influence Flashcards
(30 cards)
describe the study into conformity
aim: asch aimed to investigate conformity through participants responses in an unambigious situation
method: 123 male american students were placed into groups of 6-8 confederates. they were then shown two large cards one with a single standard line and one with 3 comparison lines. the participants were then asked to match the standard line to the correct comparison line. the confederates purposely answred incorrectly and the participants always went last or second to last. there were 18 trials and 12 critical trials
results: 1/3 of participants conformed and answered incorrectly during the 12 critical trials. 25 percent of participants never answered incorrectly.
conclusion: conformity can be as a result of group pressure, also shows a high level of independence as the majority of the participants didn’t conform despite group pressure.
evaluate the study into conformity
one weakness is that the results may only be applicable to 1950s America. In the 1980s, Perrin and Spencer recreated the study in the UK and found only one case of conformity out of 396 trials. this means the results may not be applicable to the rest of the world.
another weakness is the task is not relatable to everyday life scenarios. being asked to match lines together is not an everyday task meaning that the test lacks ecological validity.
how does group size affect conformity and evaluate
the more people in a group, the greater the pressure to conform. Asch found that with two confederates conformity was 13.6 percent but with three confederates it was 31.8 percent. more than three confederates made little difference
evaluation: effect of group size depends on the task because if there is not an obvious answer, people do not tend to conform unless the group size is over 8
how does anonymity effect conformity and evaluate
when participants could write down answers (they were anonymous) conformity levels decreased.
evaluation: if participants are friends expressing opinions then they conform more
how does task difficulty effect conformity and evaluate
if comparison lines are more similar to standard, conformity levels increase as the task is more difficult
evaluation: people with expertise are less affected by task difficulty
what is a dispositional factor
characteristics of a person
how does personality effect conformity and evaluate
internal locus of control leads to lower conformity. when asked to rate cartoons, burger and cooper found that people with a high desire for control were less likely to agree with a confederates rating of the same cartoons.
evaluation: control is less important in familiar situations
how does expertise affect conformity and evaluate
more knowledgable people tend to conform more. for example people who were self- confessed maths experts tended to conform less to other peoples answers to maths problems
evaluation: there is not a single factor to conformity, maths experts may conform in a group of strangers to appear liked.
describe the study of obedience
aim: milgram aimed to see if people would obey to an unreasonable order: to deliver electric shocks.
method: forty males aged 20-50 volunteered for a study on memory. a teacher was paired with a learner - a confederate. the learner was strapped in a chair and wired with electrodes which could give an electric shock. the teacher was instructed by the experimentor (in a lab coat) to give electric shocks to the learner when they made a mistake. experimentor gave prods to continue. the voltage increased from 15-450 volts.
results: no participant stopped below 300 volts. five participants stopped at 300 volts when the learner pounded on the wall. 60 percent of participants continued up to 450 volts. participants showed extreme tension- 3 having seizures.
conclusion: obedience has little to do with disposition. factors in the situation made it difficult to disobey- experimentor wearing a lab coat (figure of authority) and location (prestigious university)
evaluate the study of obedience
lacked realism- participants may not have believed it was real which is why they complied. participants voiced suspicions about the shocks .
unethical: participants showed visible distress.
other studies found similar results: 100 percent of female participants gave what they thought was a fatal shock to a puppy. represented genuine obedience.
Describe Milgram’s agency theory: social factors
Explains obedience in terms of social factors and the power of others.
Agency: there is agentic state- person follows orders with no sense of responsibility. autonomous state: person makes their own free choices and feels responsible for their own actions.
Authority: the term agentic shift is used to describe someone shifting from autonomous to agentic state. the shift occurs when someone sees someone else as a figure of authority.
Culture- social hierarchy: societies have a hierarchy where some people have more authority than others. this hierarchy is agreed on by all members. the culture we live in expects us to respect the social hierarchy.
Proximity: in milgrams further studies, if the teacher was physically closer to the learner, the teacher was less obedient,
evaluate milgrams theory of social factors
doesnt explain why there isnt 100 percent obedience. in milgrams study 35 percent of participants did not go up to the full 450 volts. social factors cant fully explain obedience.
research support, students were shown a film of milgrams study and said that the experimemter was to blame rather than the teacher for the harm to the learner. therefore the students recognised the authority of the experimenter as the cause for obedience.
describe adornos theory of obedience - dispositional factors
adornos theory explains obedience in terms of peoples personality.
authoritarian personality- some people have an exaggerated respect for authority. they are more likely to obey orders and look down on people with inferior status.
cognitive style: some people have a black and white rigid style of thinking. they believe in stereotypes and dont like change.
originates in childhood: originates from overly strict parenting and recieving only conditional love from parents. child identifies with the parents moral values. also feels hostility towards the parents which cant be directly expressed.
scapegoating: freud suggested that people who have this hostility displace it onto others who are socially inferior in a process called scapegoating. you offload anger onto somebody else releiving anxiety and hostility.
evaluate adornos theory
one weakness is the theory was based on a flawed questionnaire. the F scale has a response bias as anyone who answered yes would end up with a higher authatortarian score. this challenges the validity of the theory as it is supported by poor evidence.
a further weakness is the theory cant explain all cases of obedience. millions of germans displayed highly obedient and prejudiced behaviour despite having different upbringings and personalities. this means social factors also affect obedience.
what is proscocial behaviour
acting in a way which benefits the welfare others but may not benefit the helper
what is bystander effect
the presence of others reduces prosocial behaviour
describe the study of prosocial behaviour
aim: piliavin aimed to investigate if certain characteristics of a victim would affect if people would help the bystander in a natural setting
method: a male confedarate collapses on a new york subway train, either appearing drunk or disabled (with a cane). there were 103 trials and a confedarate acting as a model if no help was offered. two observers recorded key information.
results: disabled victim was offered help in 95 percent of the trials. drunk vitctim was offered help in 50 percent of the trials. help was as forthcoming in a carriage which was crowded to a carriage with few people
conclusion: characteristics of a victim affect whether they recieve help. in a natural emergency willingness to help is not affected by rhe number of wittnesses
evaluate the study of prosocial behaviour
a strength is the study had high realism as it was conducted in a natural setting and they behaved naturally. high validity
a weakness is the participants mainly came from a city so knew how to act in this situation an emergency. their behaviour may not reflect the behaviour of all people.
a strength of the study is that qualitative data was collected. two observers on the train noted down remarks they heard from passengers. this offered a deeper insight into why people did or did not offer help.
how does presence of others affect prosocial behaviour
bystander effect states that the more people who are present the less likely help is to be given.
evaluation: it depends on the situation and the cost of not helping. in emergencies help is given
how does cost of helping affect prosocial behaviour
decision of whether to help is dependant on costs.
costs of helping includes: danger to self, embarassment
cost of not helping : guilt, blame, leaving another ij need.
what is crowd and collective behaviour
Le Bon suggested that being in a crowd creates anonymity leading to antisocial behaviour.
describe the study of deindividuation
aim: Zimbardo aimed to investigate deindividuation in a study similar to milgrams.
method: four female undergraduates had to deliver a fake electric shock to another student.
group 1- individuated group. person delivering the shock wore their normal clothes, name tags and could see eachother.
group 2- deindividuated group. person delivering the shock wore large coats and hoods, never referred to by name.
results: the deindiviuated group were more likely to press the button to shock the learner. they held the shock button down twice as long as the individuated group.
conclusion: this supports the view that both anonymity and deindividuation increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviour
describe the study of crowd and collective behaviour
aim: reicher aimed to investigate the behaviour of a crowd to see if their behaviour was ruly or unrly.
method: analysed newspaper, TV and police reports of the st pauls riots in bristol 1980. interviewed 20 people immediately after the riots to see what had happened, including six in depth interviews.
results: the riots were triggered by policemen raiding a cafe for drugs, an action seen as unjustified. a crowd of 300-3000 gathered and attacked the police and other properties, throwing stones and bricks and burning police cars. the attack intensified and spread. when police left, the rioters calmed down.
conclusion: this shows the crowds behaviour was rule driven and anger was only expressed towards predictable targets, based on the social attitudes of the area
