Social influence Flashcards

1
Q

what was the aim of Asch’s study?

A

to investigate conformity in group pressure in unambiguous situations, through ppts responses

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

what was the method of Asch’s study?

A
  • 123 male students tested in a group
  • groups of 6 to 8 confederates
  • two cards were presents, one standard line, and 3 comparison lines
  • they had to match the standard line with one of the 3 comparison lines.
  • confederates went last or next to last
  • 18 trials, 12 were critical (where the confederates gave the wrong answer)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what were the results of Asch’s study?

A
  • on critical trials, the ppts gave the wrong answer 1/3 of the time (agreeing with the confederates)
  • 25% of the ppts never gave the wrong answer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what was the conclusion of Asch’s study?

A
  • people are influenced by group pressure.

- though there was a high level of independence despite group pressure

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

one evaluation of Asch’s study?

A
  • (weakness) it only reflects conformity in the 1950s in the USA
  • Perrin and spencer repeated the study in 1980 in the UK and found just one conforming response in 396 trials
  • this suggests that the Asch effect is not consistent over time.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

another evaluation of Asch’s study?

A
  • (weakness) they had an artificial task
  • the task was trivial and strangers were involved so it doesn’t reflect everyday situations.
  • results conducted cannot explain more serious world conformity situations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

EXTRA: evaluation of Asch’s study?

A
  • (weakness) Asch’s research is more reflective of conformity in individualist cultures.
  • studies conducted in collectivist countries (like china) produce higher conformity rates than in individualist countries (like the USA and UK) (bond and smith)
  • suggests that Asch’s study cannot be generalised to collectivist countries.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what do social (factors) mean?

A

conformity occurs because of real or imagined pressure from others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

how is group size a social factor?

A
  • the more people, the more pressure to conform

- Asch found, more than 3 confederates made a little difference (2 confederates 13.6%) (3 confederates 31.8%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

how is anonymity a social factor?

A
  • when writing answers down conformity was lower (because they were anonymous)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

how is task difficulty a social factor?

A
  • task difficulty: if comparison lines are more similar to the standard line, the task becomes harder, and conformity increases.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

evaluation of group size

A
  • depends on the task, when no obvious answer then no conformity unless more than 8 ppt were in group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

evaluation of anonymity

A
  • if ppts are friends and opinion is anonymous conformity is higher (Huang and li)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

evaluation of task difficulty

A
  • people with expertise are less affected by task difficulty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what do dispositional (factors) mean?

A

the characteristics of a person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

how is personality a dispositional factor?

A
  • internal locus of control leads to lower conformity.

- burger and cooper found internals, less likely to agree with confederates ratings of the cartoon.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

how is expertise a dispositional factor?

A
  • more knowledgeable people, conform less

- Lucas found math experts less likely to conform to other’s answers on maths problems.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

evaluation of personality

A
  • control is less important in familiar situations (rotter)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

evaluation of expertise

A
  • no single factor to explain conformity, e.g. maths experts may conform in a group of strangers in order to be liked
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what was the aim of Milgram’s study?

A

to investigate if people obey an unreasonable order (to deliver electric shocks)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what was the method of Milgram’s study?

A
  • 40 male (20-50 age) volunteered
  • ‘teacher’ pared with ‘learner’ (confederate)
  • teacher instructed by the experimenter to give a shock if the learner answered a question incorrectly
  • experimenter gave ‘prods’ to continue.
  • intensity increased from 15 to 450 volts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what were the results of Milgram’s study?

A
  • no participants stopped below 300 volts
  • 5 stopped at 300 volts when the learner pounded on the wall (12.5%)
  • 65% continued to 450 colts
  • participants showed extreme tension e.g 3 had seizures.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

what was the conclusion of Milgram’s study?

A

obedience has little to do with dispostion

- factors in the situatiion made it difficult to disobey e.g experimenter wearing a coat (authority figure)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

one evaluation of Milgram’s study?

A
  • (weakness) lacked realism
  • participants may not believed the shock was real.
  • ppts voiced suspicious about the shocks (perry)
  • this suggests that milgran participants just went along and werent really obeying orders
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

another evaluation of Milgram’s study?

A
  • (strength) it is supported by other research
  • sheridan and king found 100% females followed orders to give a fatal shock to a puppy.
  • suggests that Milgram’s results were not faked but represented a genuine obdedience.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

EXTRA: one evaluation of Milgram’s study?

A
  • (weakness) the study has ethetical issues
  • milgram ppts experiencsed considerable sidstress
  • he could have caused psychological damage to his ppts
  • because they thought they were causing pain to the learner
  • this suggests that whether his research should have been carried out or not
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what is the agentic state (social factors of Milgram’s agency theory)?

A

followers orders with no responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

what is the autonomous state (social factors of Milgram’s agency theory)?

A

makes their own free choice + feel responsible for their own actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what is the agentic shift (social factors of Milgram’s agency theory)?

A
  • moving from making their own choice (autonomous state) to following orders (agentic state)
  • occurs when someone is in authority
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

how does culture affect obedience?

A
  • in the social hierarchy, societies have a hierarchy with some people having more authority than others
  • hierarchy depends on society and socialisation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

how does proximity affect obedience?

A
  • ptts are less obedient in Milgram’s study when in the same room as a learner
  • increasing ‘moral strain’
  • if the teacher was physically closer to the learner the teacher was less obedient.
32
Q

one evaluation of Milgram’s agency theory

A
  • (weakness) it doesn’t explain all findings and why there isn’t 100% obedience. in Milgram’s study, 35% of the participants didn’t go up to the maximum shock of 450 volts.
  • this means that the social factors cannot fully explain obedience in the study
33
Q

another evaluation of Milgram’s agency theory

A
  • (weakness) agency theory gives people an excuse for ‘blind’ obedience.
  • nazi who were racist and prejudiced were doing more than just following orders.
  • this means that agency theory is potentially dangerous as it excuses people
34
Q

what did Adorno believe?

A

Adorno believed that unquestioning obedience was due to a psychological disorder and tried to find its cause in an individual’s personality (disposition)

35
Q

what are the characteristics of an authoritarian personality?

A
  • exaggerated respect for authority figures
  • hierarchy with people showing obedience to those with more power.
  • Hostile to those seen as inferior intolerant of weakness
  • Will expect obedience from those lower in the social hierarchy
  • More likely to show obedience to direct orders from a person perceived as having authority or higher up in the social hierarchy
  • Exaggerated respect for authority figures
36
Q

how and when is authoritarian personality originated?

A
  • develops if have overly strict parents.
  • Those who show how strong discipline and are critical of their behaviour.
  • He believes it is something that is made not something you are born with (nature not nurture)
  • Freud said we learn our moral values through identification with our parent’s values - expects all people to act like this.
  • The child feels some hostility towards the parent’s high standards and conditional love. Can’t express as they fear appraisal
  • Conditional love - child only receives love if they behave correctly.
37
Q

how does a person with an authoritarian personality think?

A
  • have a particular way of thinking
  • They like things to be black and white
  • They believe in rigid stereotypes. This is called a rigid cognitive style.
38
Q

what is meant by Scapegoating?

A
  • people who are hostile will displace their anger onto something else.
  • Authoritarian personality will displace someone they feel are inferior and this is called scapegoating.
  • This relieves anxiety and hostility
  • It makes you feel better when you offload.
39
Q

one evaluation of Adorno’s obedience theory

A
  • one weakness is that Adorno’s idea of authoritarian personality was based on flawed questionnaire.
  • The questionnaire was called f-scale.
  • They used age scale with over 2000 middle-class white Americans and the results formed the basis of their theory.
  • However subsequently the f-scale was quite strongly criticized, most notably because it has a response bias- anyone who tended to answer yes instead of no to the questions would end up with a higher authoritarian score . - This challenges the validity of the theory because it is based on poor evidence.
40
Q

another evaluation of Adorno’s agency theory

A
  • another weakness with the evidence is that the data is correlational.
  • The theory is challenged because we cannot claim that authoritarian personality causes greater obedience levels.
  • A ‘third factor’ may be involved, for example, both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education.
  • This suggests that other factors may explain the apparent link between obedience and the authoritarian personality.
41
Q

EXTRA: one evaluation of Adorno’s agency theory

A
  • one weakness is that authoritarian personality cannot explain all cases of obedience
  • germans were obedient but did not all have the same upbringing and same personality
  • this suggests social and dispositional factors affect obedience
42
Q

what is meant by prosocial behaviour?

A

Behaviour that’s beneficial to other ppl + may not necessarily benefit helper - you act in a way that promotes the welfare of others

43
Q

what is meant by bystander effect?

A
  • The observations that the presence of others (bystanders) reduce likelihood of help being offered in emergency situations.
  • basically reduced bystander affect
44
Q

what is the aim of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)

A

To investigate if characteristics of a victim affect wthere people will help a bystander in a natural setting.

45
Q

what is the method of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)

A
  • male confederate collapses on subway
  • victim appareas drunk or disables with a cane
  • 103 trails
  • one confedrate was a model if no other help offered
  • 2 observers recorded key inofrmation
46
Q

what are the results of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)

A
  • disabled victim given help in 95% of trials
  • drunk victim 50% of trials was helped
  • help was likely in crowded and empty carriages
47
Q

what is the conclusion of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)

A
  • characteristics of victim affects help given

- in a natural emergncy willingness to help is not related to the number of witnesses

48
Q

one evaluation of Pilvian’s subway study

A
  • one strength was it had high realism
  • participants didnt know their behaviour was being studied
  • which means they behaved naturally
  • suggests that the results of study are high in validty
49
Q

another evaluation of Pilvian’s subway study

A
  • one weakness is that it had an ubran sample
  • ppts came mostly from the city
  • meaning they may have been used to emergencies
  • mean that their behaviour may not have been typical of all people
50
Q

EXTRA: one evaluation of Pilvian’s subway study

A
  • one strength is that they collected qualitative data
  • 2 observes on each trial noted down remarks they heard from passengers
  • This offered a deeper insight into why people did or did not offer help
51
Q

how is the presence of others a social factor of prosocial behaviour?

A
  • bystander effect states that the more people are present the less likely that help is given. -
  • darley and latanè asked participants to have a discussion on intercom with others (confederates). one had an epileptic seizure and asked for help.
  • if participants thought they were alone 85% reported the seizure compared to 31% if they thought four others were present
52
Q

how is the cost of helping a social factor of prosocial behaviour?

A

decision of whether to help depends on costs:

  • cost of helping includes: danger to self or embarrassment
  • cost of not helping includes:: guilt, blame and leaving another in need
  • cost-reward model: balance between costs and rewards of helping
53
Q

evaluation of the presence of others

A

it depends on the situation and the cost of not helping. in very serious emergencies help is given

54
Q

evaluation of the cost of helping

A
  • help also depends on how the situation is interpreted,
  • e.g. man and woman arguing, 65% intervened when the woman shouted ‘i don’t know you’ but only 19% when shouting i’ don’t know why im married to you’
55
Q

how is the similarity to victim a dispositional factor of prosocial behaviour?

A
  • if you identify with a characteristic of victim you are more likely to help
  • manchester united football fans were more likely to help a runner who had fallen over if the runner dressed in a manchester united shirt as opposed to a liverpool one
56
Q

how is expertise a dispositional factor of prosocial behaviour?

A
  • people with specialist kills are more likely to help in emergency situations that suit their expertise.
  • registered nurses were more likely to help than non-medical students to help a workman who had fallen off a ladder
57
Q

evaluation of similarity to victim

A

similarity may increase helping but for example if the costs are too high or the situation is ambiguous it is not sufficient to guarantee helping.

58
Q

evaluation of expertise

A

in contrast people who had received red cross training were no more likely to help a victim who was bleeding a lot than people who had no training - though the red cross people have a higher quality of help.

59
Q

what is crowd and collective behaviour?

A
  • le bron suggests that being in a crowd creates anonymity, leading to antisocial behaviour.
  • behaviour is ruled by social norms. when not identifiable (deindividuated) we lose our sense of responsibility and behave irrationally/aggressively
60
Q

what was zimbardo’s aim? (crowd and collective behaviour)

A

to investigate deindividuation in a study similar to milgram’s

61
Q

what was zimbardo’s method? (crowd and collective behaviour)

A
  • 4 female undergraduates
  • had to deliver a fake elctric shock to another student
  • group 1: individuated group - person delivering the shock wore their normal clothes, name tags and could see each other.
  • group 2: deindividuated group - person delivering the shock wore large coats with hoods, never referred to by name.
62
Q

what were zimbardo’s results? (crowd and collective behaviour)

A
  • the deindividuated group was more likely to press the button to shock the ‘learner’ in the other room.
  • they held the shock button down twice as long as the individuated group
63
Q

what was zimbardo’s conclusion? (crowd and collective behaviour)

A
  • this supports the view that both anonymity and deindividuation increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviour
64
Q

one evaluation of zimbardo’s study

A
  • one weakness is that deindividuation doesn’t always lead to antisocial behaviour
  • johnson and downing found that participants dressed as a nurse have fewer and milder shocks than those dressed in a KKK outfit but more shocks than those in their own clothes
  • this shows that people take on group norms
65
Q

another evaluation of zimbardo’s study

A
  • one strength is that understanding deindividuation can be used to manage crowds
  • at sporting fixtures crowd control can be achieved through using video cameras so people are more self-aware
  • this can then reduce aggressive behavior of the crowd
66
Q

EXTRA: one evaluation of zimbardo’s study

A
  • another weakness is that antisocial behaviour may be due to crowding rather than collective behaviour
  • when animals are packed together they feel stressed and act aggressively (freedman)
  • so it may be overcrowding that creates antisocial behaviour as well as deindividuation
67
Q

how is deindividuation a social factor of crowd and collective behaviour?

A
  • group norms (social factors) determine the behaviour of the crowd - either prosocial or antisocial.
68
Q

how is social loafing a social factor of crowd and collective behaviour?

A
  • in a group, people individually put in less effort.
  • being in a group reduces personal identity (deindividuation) so individual effort is not known.
  • latanè etal. found participants made less noise individually when shouting in a group of 6 than when on their own.
69
Q

how is culture a social factor of crowd and collective behaviour?

A
  • individualist cultures (e.g. US,UK) focus on individual needs. collectives cultures (e.g. china, korea) focus on the needs of the group
  • social loafing lower in collectivist cultures, e.g. Earley found chinese but not US people put in the same effort on a group tak regardless of whether they could or could not be identified
70
Q

evaluation of deindividuation (social factor)

A

antisocial effects may be due to being packed together in small space (crowding), as researched by freedman

71
Q

evaluation of social loafing (social factor)

A

social loafing is not a problem for creative tasks - in fact more people mean greater individual output

72
Q

evaluation of culture (social factor)

A

making generalisations about cultures may be simplification of the way people behave since they are influenced by multiple factors.

73
Q

how is personality a dispositional factor of a crowd and collective behaviour?

A

people with an internal locus of control are less likely to be influenced by others in a crowd.

74
Q

how is morality a dispositional factor of a crowd and collective behaviour?

A
  • morals are our sense of right and wrong.
  • those with greater moral strength are more likely to have their behaviour guided by these morals than be influenced by the opinions/behaviour of others.
75
Q

evaluation of personality (dispositional factor)

A
  • not all research shows that personality matters.

- for example in one study ‘whist-blowers’ had similar scores on a personality test as non-whistle-blowers

76
Q

evaluation of morality (dispositional factor)

A
  • supported by history when the german sophie scholl was executed for distributing anti-nazi literature.
  • she resisted the group norm and was willing to sacrifice her life for her moral values.