Social Influence and Helping Flashcards
(9 cards)
Explain how leaders show themselves as prototypical
Self-categorisation theory conceptualises the leader as the in-group prototype. Leader needs to show as much of the shared social identity as possible.
Reicher & Hopkins (1996)
- To become a leader, indv must convince the group and be perceived as a true group prototype.
- Once successful, they can define and shape group identity as seen as qualified to indicate the correct group norms. Persuade members that new norms are consistent with the group identity. Results in transformation of group identity.
Explain how leaders know how to capitalise on social identity processes
Reicher and Haslam (1996) - If leaders wish to restructure the group, they might do this by arguing that it is best for categorisation,
Haslam (2004) - A leader struggling to be recognised as prototype may use the ‘us’ vs ‘them’ rhetoric and show outgroup hostility to reinforce their position.
Hollander (1995) - For groups to function effectively, leader needs to be aware of the group members needs.
Describe the study of Sherif (1936) in discussing social influence in groups
Participants judge how far a dot of light moved (was stationary). Two conditions
When participants came together after being alone - Gradually go from making their own judgements to influencing each other. Converge to a group norm.
When participants together and then alone - Make different judgements first and then similar. When alone gave same judgement.
Shows that social reality had been socially constructed. Shows how group norms are formed. We are dependent on the norms established by others. When uncertain, people rely upon others to resolve uncertainty so shared norms can be created.
Creating uncertainty is the core basis of social influence.
Describe the study of Asch (1955) in discussing social influence
Participants went round table and specified if line matched reference line.
When alone = 99% gave correct answer
When in a group = 36% of answers wrong. 76.4% of participants gave the wrong answer at least once.
Shows that the conform to majority. Shows how much of an influence social groups can have.
Creating uncertainty is the core basis of social influence.
Describe the study of Mocovici, Lage and Naffrechoux (1969) in discussing social influence
Reversed Asch’s experiment to show minority influence. More naive participants than confederates. Judge colour of disc.
- 32% of naive participants answered green at least once.
- No confederates - 1% of naive gave wrong answer
- When minority was not consistent - 2% of naive wrong.
Shows that consistent individuals are more likely to influence the group. Consistency shows confidence. Minorities can also have an influence.
Phase 2 shows that minority influence is different to majorities as it is more gradual over time.
Describe the study of Abrams et al. (1986) in discussing social influence
Those who disagree with majority will fail to create uncertainty unless seen as an ingroup member. Disagreeing with ingroup makes us feel uncertain.
Two conditions - ingroup and outgroup.
Ingroup = Naive participant tends to conform to majority Outgroup = Participant makes independent and correct judgements.
Describe the study of David and Turner (1999) in discussing social influence
Intergroup Situation = Minority of radical feminists and majority of moderate feminists. Moderate feminists reject policy statement.
Ingroup = Radical feminists and moderate feminists aware of anti-feminists and so the moderate accept the policy statement.
Shows that it depends on how the group is perceived. Flexibility of social identity, based on context.
Describe the study of Levine and Thompson (2004)
British students specify how likely they would be to help following a natural disaster.
European Identity Condition - Made salient by showing EU flag on questionaire. More likely to help in this condition.
British Identity Condition - Salient by showing British Union flag. Less likely to help.
Buchan et al. (2011) - Showed that those who identify with the whole world community can be more likely to help. Those with a higher identification score more concerned with global issues.
Levine et al. (2005)
Levine et al. (2005)
- Participants were Man U supporters.
- Confederate wears either Man U or rival top and falls in pain.
- When wearing Man U shirt, help in-group member. Not much help to rival.
- Common fan identity condition - Helped football fans the same amount, but little help to plain top.
- Shows that social identity does matter in helping behaviour. People more likely to help in-group. They receive different treatment from outgroup members.
