Block #2 - The social context impacts our behavior, often in ways we don’t anticipate Flashcards
Conformity
It is changing one’s attitude or behaviour to match a perceived social norm—the tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behaviours in ways consistent with group norms.
Research participants will often not admit to being influenced because they:
1. Rather than admitting it, they rationalize.
2. focuses inward; while people judge others by their overt behaviour and the degree to which it matches what others are doing, ppl tend to judge themselves by focusing inward and introspecting about their thought processes (blinding themselves to conformity).
- Fashion trends serve as good, and sometimes embarrassing, examples of our own susceptibility to conformity.
- two primary reasons for conformity: 1) normative influence and 2) informational influence
Descriptive norm
The perception of what most people do in a given situation.
- How much students drink is highly correlated with how much they believe the average student drinks
Informational influence
Conformity results from a concern to act in a socially approved manner as determined by how others act. People conform because they believe others are correct.
- Ambiguous situations; when uncertain, it may be wise to look to others for assistance
- Uses external cues as information
- Influences internal beliefs
Normative influence
Conformity results from a concern for what other people think of us. People conform because they fear negative social consequences.
- Asch’s line conformity test
- Risk of interpersonal rejection
Asch’s line conformity test
Line comparisons by one subject while in a group of confederates. How powerful is the normative influence? Would you be tempted to give an incorrect answer, like many participants in the Asch experiment did, to better match the thoughts of a group of peers?
- 75% conformed at least once during trials
- Participants went along with the incorrect majority 37% of the time
- 25% of the participants NEVER confirmed
- 50% conformed for at least half of the critical presentations, and the rest conformed occasionally.
Obedience
Responding to an order or command from a person in a position of authority; behaviour change produced by commands of authority.
- taught never to question authority
- influenced by symbols of authority
Normative influence & Culture
This last finding is consistent with the notion that participants change their answers because they are concerned about what others think of them. Finally, although we see the effect in virtually every culture that has been studied, more conformity is found in collectivist countries such as Japan and China than in individualistic countries such as the United States (Bond & Smith, 1996). Compared with individualistic cultures, people who live in collectivist cultures place a higher value on the goals of the group than on individual preferences. They also are more motivated to maintain harmony in their interpersonal relations.
Milgram Experiment
Diagram of the Milgram Experiment in which the “teacher” (T) was asked to deliver a (supposedly) painful electric shock to the “learner”(L).
- Obedience
Agreeableness
A core personality trait that includes such dispositional characteristics as being sympathetic, generous, forgiving, and helpful, and behavioral tendencies toward harmonious social relations and likeability.
- plays an important role in prosocial behaviour
Agreeableness
A core personality trait that includes such dispositional characteristics as being sympathetic, generous, forgiving, and helpful, and behavioral tendencies toward harmonious social relations and likeability.
Altruism
A motivation for helping that has the improvement of another’s welfare as its ultimate goal, with no expectation of any benefits for the helper.
Arousal: cost–reward model
An egoistic theory proposed by Piliavin et al. (1981) that claims that seeing a person in need leads to the arousal of unpleasant feelings, and observers are motivated to eliminate that aversive state, often by helping the victim. A cost–reward analysis may lead observers to react in ways other than offering direct assistance, including indirect help, reinterpretation of the situation, or fleeing the scene.
Bystander intervention
The phenomenon whereby people intervene to help others in need even if the other is a complete stranger and the intervention puts the helper at risk.
Cost–benefit analysis
A decision-making process that compares the cost of an action or thing against the expected benefit to help determine the best course of action.
Diffusion of responsibility
When deciding whether to help a person in need, knowing that there are others who could also provide assistance relieves bystanders of some measure of personal responsibility, reducing the likelihood that bystanders will intervene.
- First-aid responder: fulfilling the obligations of their roles overrode the influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect.
Egoism
A motivation for helping that has the improvement of the helper’s own circumstances as its primary goal.
Empathic concern
According to Batson’s empathy–altruism hypothesis, observers who empathize with a person in need (that is, put themselves in the shoes of the victim and imagine how that person feels) will experience empathic concern and have an altruistic motivation for helping.
Empathy–altruism model
An altruistic theory proposed by Batson (2011) that claims that people who put themselves in the shoes of a victim and imagining how the victim feel will experience empathic concern that evokes an altruistic motivation for helping.
Helpfulness
A component of the prosocial personality orientation; describes individuals who have been helpful in the past and, because they believe they can be effective with the help they give, are more likely to be helpful in the future.
- more behaviorally oriented. Those high on the helpfulness factor have been helpful in the past, and because they believe they can be effective with the help they give, they are more likely to be helpful in the future.
Helping
Prosocial acts that typically involve situations in which one person is in need and another provides the necessary assistance to eliminate the other’s need.
Kin selection
According to evolutionary psychology, the favoritism shown for helping our blood relatives, with the goals of increasing the likelihood that some portion of our DNA will be passed on to future generations.
Negative state relief model
An egoistic theory proposed by Cialdini et al. (1982) that claims that people have learned through socialization that helping can serve as a secondary reinforcement that will relieve negative moods such as sadness
Other-oriented empathy
A component of the prosocial personality orientation; describes individuals who have a strong sense of social responsibility, empathize with and feel emotionally tied to those in need, understand the problems the victim is experiencing, and have a heightened sense of moral obligations to be helpful.
- People high on this dimension have a strong sense of social responsibility, empathize with and feel emotionally tied to those in need, understand the problems the victim is experiencing, and have a heightened sense of moral obligation to be helpful. This factor has been shown to be highly correlated with the trait of agreeableness discussed previously.
Personal distress
According to Batson’s empathy–altruism hypothesis, observers who take a detached view of a person in need will experience feelings of being “worried” and “upset” and will have an egoistic motivation for helping to relieve that distress.
Pluralistic ignorance
Relying on the actions of others to define an ambiguous need situation and to then erroneously conclude that no help or intervention is necessary.
Prosocial behavior
Social behavior that benefits another person.
Prosocial personality orientation
A measure of individual differences that identifies two sets of personality characteristics (other-oriented empathy, helpfulness) that are highly correlated with prosocial behavior. Two major characteristics are related:
- other-oriented empathy
- helpfulness
Reciprocal altruism
According to evolutionary psychology, a genetic predisposition for people to help those who have previously helped them.
Reciprocal altruism
According to evolutionary psychology, a genetic predisposition for people to help those who have previously helped them.
Egotisitc motivation for helping
- negative state relief model
- arousal: cost-reward model
social influence
How people are affected by the real and imagined pressures of others.
- Social influence caries as points along a continuum according to the degree of pressure exerted on the individual
Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect
Method: Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect – this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion). The light movement was an optical illusion.
- Participant sat alone: participants settled in on their own perceptions of movement, with most estimates ranging from one to ten inches.
- Participated in Groups: initially, the participant’s estimates varied substantially, but participants later converged over the group sessions onto a common group perception. Eventually, each group established its own set of norms.
Gregory Burns et. al: Conformity Effects on Perception: Socially active brain experiemt
- Participants were asked to mentally rotate two geometric objects to determine if they were the same or different
- Just like in the Ash study, participants were accompanied by confederates
- Participants were places in an fMRI scanner while they engaged in the task
- Participants conformed to 41% of the groups incorrect judgements
- Conforming judgements were accompanied by heightened activity in the part of the brain that controls spatial awareness, not in areas associated with conscious decision-making.
- Results suggest that the groups alter peoples perceptions of the shape, not just their behaviour
Gregory Burns et. al: Conformity Effects on Perception: Socially active brain experiemt
- Participants were asked to mentally rotate two geometric objects to determine if they were the same or different
- Just like in the Ash study, participants were accompanied by confederates
- Participants were places in an fMRI scanner while they engaged in the task
- Participants conformed to 41% of the group’s incorrect judgements
- Conforming judgements were accompanied by heightened activity in the part of the brain that controls spatial awareness, not in areas associated with conscious decision-making
- Suggest results suggest that the group altered people’s perceptions of the shapes, not just their behaviour
Private conformity
A person privately accepts the position taken by others, also called true acceptance or conversion. Describes instances in which other causes us to change our overt behaviour and our minds. To conform at this level is to be truly persuaded that others in the group are correct.
- “conversion”
- “true acceptance”
Public conformity
A superficial change in overt behaviour. Sometimes called compliance, it refers to a more superficial change in behaviour.
- people often respond to normative pressures by pretending to agree even when privately they do not - this often happens when we want to be favourable to others.
Distinguishing Types of Conformity Experiment
- Sharif retested participants alone and found that their estimates continued to reflect the norm (even when retested after a full year)
- Asch had participants write their answers
privately so that others in the group couldn’t see them. Their level of conformity dropped. - In a study that demonstrated both processes, Robert Baron et al. had people in groups of three act as eyewitnesses. First, they would see a picture of a person and then try to pick that person out of a lineup. Two cases: easy (asch) and hard (sharif)
- How often is conformity when confederates made the wrong identification? Depends on motivation.
- When the experimenter downplayed the task as
only a pilot study: the conformity rates were 35% when difficult and 33% when the task was easy. - When given a financial incentive to perform well: the conformity went up to 51% (a difficult task) and down to 16% (an easy task).
- With pride and money on the line, the Sharif-like participants conformed more and the Ashlyn
participants conformed less.
A comparison of Sherif’s & Asch’s Studies
Injunctive Norms
Norms that characterize the perception of what most people approve or disapprove
Descriptive Norms
Norms derived from what other people do in any given situation
Compare and contrast: Identify 1 similarity and 1 difference between informational and normative influence.
Informational and normative influence are similar in that they both result in conformity to a group’s norms or behaviors. They are different in terms of motivation: informational influence is motivated by the belief or feeling that others have some knowledge that the individual does not have; this influence is motivated by the desire to do the “right” thing, or to behave correctly. Normative influence is motivated by the desire to belong; this influence is motivated by the desire to fit in, to avoid appearing odd, or to appear to be part of the group.
Leonard Bachman: Symbols of Authority
The problem is that mere symbols of authority, titles, uniforms, batches, or the trappings of success, even without credentials, can sometimes turn ordinary people into docile servants. Leonard Bachman demonstrated this phenomenon in a series of studies where a male research assistant stopped passers-by on the street and ordered them to do something unusual. Sometimes he pointed to a paper bag on the ground and said, pick up this bag for me. At other times, he pointed to an individual standing beside the parked car and said, This fellow is over-parked at the meter but doesn’t have any change. Give him a dime. Would anyone take this guy seriously? Well, when he was dressed in street clothes, only a third of the people stopped and followed his orders. But when he wore a security guard’s uniform, nearly nine out of every ten people obeyed. Even when the uniformed assistant turned the corner and walked away after issuing his command, most passers-by followed his orders.
Uniforms signify the power of authority.
Which of the following increased obedience in the variations on the Milgram study (i.e., compared to the original version)?
a. The presence of an obedient confederate.
b. Moving the study to a downtown office building.
c. Moving the learner (i.e., the person being shocked) closer to the teacher (i.e., the true participant).
a
Important Factors that Influence Obedience (in Milgram Study)
- Physical presence and apparent legitimacy of the authority figure; the closer the experimenter and further away the victim, the more obedience.
- Legitimate authority figure.
- The victim’s proximity.
- The experimental procedure: participants were relieved of personal responsibility for the victim’s welfare, and whether there was a gradual escalation was used.
Jerry Burger’s partial replication of the Milgram
experiment
Jerry Burger conducted a partial replication, the Milgram experiment for which he paid $50 to 70 men and women and use the same procedure that Milgram did. This paper was published by Jerry Burger in 2009. In the original experiments, the learner first protested and asked to stop at a 150 volts, at which point nearly all participants in Milgram’s studies paused and indicated a reluctance to continue. Some outright refused at this point. Of those participants who did continue, however, most went all the way to the 450 volts. On the basis of this finding, burger follow the Milgrom protocol up to 150 volts in order to estimate the number of people who would have pulled this way at 450. He also added a condition in which a defiant Confederate posing as another participant, refused to continue. In light of post Milgrom changes in standards for research ethics. He also took some additional precautions for protecting their participants, including reminding them three times that they could withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Despite all that has changed in 45 years since Milgram’s studies, the obedience rate was not appreciably lower. In the experiment, the burger modeled 83% of Milgram’s participants had continued past 150 volts. In burgers. More recent study, 70%. Same. And this is not statistically different from Milgram’s experiments to additional results provided. Proved interesting. One, just as Milgrim had found, there were no differences between men and women. And to the obedience rate declined only slightly to 63% among participants who saw a defiant confederate and refused to continue.
Provide an explanation for why Jerry Burger only had participants go to 150 volts in his replication? How can he make a comparison of obedience levels without going all the way to the end of the task?
Jerry Burger had participants stop at 150 volts for ethical reasons (because it might be very distressing to think you had given someone a 450 volt shock). In the original experiment, the learner first protested and asked to stop at 150 volts, at which point nearly all participants paused and indicated a reluctance to continue. Of those participants who did continue, however, most went all the way to the end of the shock generator. On the basis of this finding, Burger followed the Milgram protocol up to 150 volts in order to estimate the number of participants who would have pulled the switch at 450 volts.
Latane & Darley Experiment: Intercoms
Darley and Latane set out to see if they could produce unresponsive bystanders under laboratory conditions. In one study, when a participant arrived, they were taken to one of a series of small rooms located along a corridor. Speaking over an intercom, the experimenter explained that he wanted participants to discuss personal problems college students often face. Participants were told that to protect confidentiality, the group discussion would take place over the intercom system and that the experimenter would not be listening. They were required to speak one at a
ime, taking turns. Some participants were assigned to talk with one other person, whereas other participants joined larger groups of three or six people. Although one person mentioned in passing that he suffered from a seizure disorder that was sometimes triggered by studying pressures. The opening moments of the conversation were uneventful, but soon unexpected problem developed when the time came for this person to speak again. He stuttered badly, had a hard time speaking clearly, and sounded as if he was in very serious trouble. The participants responses to this emergency were strongly influenced by the size of their group. Actually all participants were participating alone, but tape recorded material lead them to believe that others were present. All of the participants who thought that only they knew about the emergency quickly left the room to try to get help. In larger groups, however, participants were less likely and slower to intervene. Indeed, 38% of the participants in the sixth person groups never left their room at all.
Research led Latin and Darley to a chilling conclusion. The more bystanders there are, the less likely any one of them will seek help for a victim. This is the bystander effect, whereby the presence of others inhibits helping.
Decision-Making Process Involved in Emergency Situations
- Noticing: we must notice that there is a problem/emergency; inhibited by
- distraction
- self-concern
- over stimulation - Interpreting the situation; inhibited by:
- ambiguity
- the relationship between the attacker and victim (inference we make between two people = we assume they know each other; if we know they are strangers, we are more likely to help)
- behaviours of others (pluralistic ignorance) - Assuming Responsibility: taking responsibility for providing help
- diffusion of responsibility (the belief that others will or should intervene)
- Influenced by presence of others (even when it is imagined)
- usually takes place when anonymity is present (ppl who know each other are more helpful than strangers)
- roles/professions - Decide how to help
- ppl who possess skills help directly, while those without skills can call for help - help!
- even after passing all of the first 4 steps, help may not occur
- audience inhibition (worrying about how others view us)
-costs outweigh risks
Latane & Darley Experiment: smoke-filled room
Latane and Darley put this phenomenon to the test and an experiment in which participants completed a questionnaire in a room in which they were either alone with two confederates who remain passive and took no action, or with two other naive participants, just like them. A few minutes after participants had started to fill out the questionnaire, smoke began to seep into the room through event. Was this an emergency? How do you think you would respond? Within four minutes, most participants who are working alone took some actions such as leaving the room to report the smoke to someone within six minutes. The maximum time allotted before the researchers terminated the experiment, three-quarters of these participants took action. Clearly they interpreted the smoke as a potential emergency. But what about the participants working in groups of three? Common sense suggests that the chances that somebody will take action should be greater when more people are present. But only one of the 24 participants in this condition took action within four minutes. And only three did so before the end of the study, even though at that point the smoke was so thick, they had to fan it away from their faces to see the questionnaire. The rate of action was even lower when participants were in a room with two passive confederates.
Getting Help in a Crowd
Make sure that you make your need for help very clear by singling out individuals in a crowd via
- eye contact
- pointing
- direct requests
Getting Help in a Crowd
Make sure that you make your need for help very clear by singling out individuals in a crowd via
- eye contact
- pointing
- direct requests
Collective self-esteem
Feelings of self-worth that are based on evaluation of relationships with others and membership in social groups.
Common knowledge effect
The tendency for groups to spend more time discussing information that all members know (shared information) and less time examining information that only a few members know (unshared).
Group cohesion
The solidarity or unity of a group resulting from the development of strong and mutual interpersonal bonds among members and group-level forces that unify the group, such as shared commitment to group goals.
Group polarization
The tendency for members of a deliberating group to move to a more extreme position, with the direction of the shift determined by the majority or average of the members’ predeliberation preferences.
Group polarization
The tendency for members of a deliberating group to move to a more extreme position, with the direction of the shift determined by the majority or average of the members’ predeliberation preferences.
Groupthink
A set of negative group-level processes, including illusions of invulnerability, self-censorship, and pressures to conform, that occur when highly cohesive groups seek concurrence when making a decision.
Ostracism
Excluding one or more individuals from a group by reducing or eliminating contact with the person, usually by ignoring, shunning, or explicitly banishing them.
Shared mental model
Knowledge, expectations, conceptualizations, and other cognitive representations that members of a group have in common pertaining to the group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources.
Social comparison
The process of contrasting one’s personal qualities and outcomes, including beliefs, attitudes, values, abilities, accomplishments, and experiences, to those of other people.
Social facilitation
Improvement in task performance occurs when people work in the presence of other people.
- Triplett (cyclist experiment): others enhanced performance
- Further research: conflict results, sometimes enhanced, sometimes impaired.
- Zajonc: arousal in the key
OVERALL: The presence of others
- enhances performance on easy tasks
- impairs performance on difficult tasks
Social identity theory
A theoretical analysis of group processes and intergroup relations that assumes groups influence their members’ self-concepts and self-esteem, particularly when individuals categorize themselves as group members and identify with the group.
Social loafing
The reduction of individual effort exerted when people work in groups compared with when they work alone; a group-produced reduction in individual output on easy tasks in which contributions are pooled.
- Explanation: people exert less effort
- Ringelmann (1880s): individual output declines on pooled tasks
Will not occur if:
- people believe their own performance can be identified
- task is important
- people believe their efforts are necessary for success
- groups will be punished for poor performance
- group is small
- group is cohesive (ppl like each other, are similar)
Avoid by:
-Limiting the scope of the project via breaking it down into components.
- keeping groups small
- peer evaluations
- prevalent around the world, but some cultural differences have been found.
Sociometer model
A conceptual analysis of self-evaluation processes that theorizes self-esteem functions to psychologically monitor of one’s degree of inclusion and exclusion in social groups.
Teamwork
The process by which members of the team combine their knowledge, skills, abilities, and other resources through a coordinated series of actions to produce an outcome.
Role Models
Role models are essential in teaching children about helping.
- Positive role models research finds that prosocial television increases prosocial behaviour
- provides an example of behaviour to imitate directly
- teaches that helping is valued and rewarding
- increases awareness of societal standards of conduct
Social norms: helping
Norms are very general and prescribe to different settings; should we follow the norm of minding our own business or helping a fighting couple? Other norms of helping include:
- norm of reciprocity
- norm of equity
- norm of social responsibility
- concerns about justice or fairness
Social norms: culture
- social norms vary dramatically across cultures
- Miller et al (1990): people in India are more likely to see helping as an obligation than those in the US (moral obligation)
- Yablo & Fielf (2007): Thai students appear more altruistic and helpful than American students - the role of religion as a factor
Empathy
Understanding or vicariously experiencing another’s individual perspective and feeling sympathy and compassion for that individual.
- Perspective taking: the cognitive component of empathy that involves seeing the world through someone else’s eyes
- Empathic concern: empathy’s emotional component involving other-oriented feelings such as sympathy, compassion, and tenderness.
- Personal distress (contrast to empathetic concern, which involves self-oriented reactions to a person in need, including feeling alarmed, troubled, or upset)
Rewards of helping
- People are more likely to help when the potential rewards of helping seem high relative to the potential costs. This effect doesn’t appear to be limited to individualistic cultures like Canada, US, and
Western Europe. Potential help others around the world often seem to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Not only when making deliberate decisions to behave prosocially as when donating blood, but also in more impulsive, sudden decisions to intervene in an emergency.
- Arousal: cost-reward model - There is a relationship between helping and feeling better. Heidi Wayman, for example, found that women who engaged in helping behaviours and the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, showed a greater reduction in distress over time than women who did not do so. Even when help doesn’t feel good immediately, it can pay off in the long run.
- For example, participants in one study rated the relative importance of a number of considerations and deciding whether to help someone else. Two of the three considerations that the participants rated as most important concerned rewards. It would make me feel good about myself and costs like I might get hurt. The other consideration was whether it was the right thing to do. - Negative state relief model: proposes that people help to counter their feelings of sadness.
- Helping to be “Good:” may help because motivated to behave in ways that are consistent with moral principles - e.g., the right thing to do
Costs of Helping or of Not Helping
- Helping has its costs as well as its rewards.
- Helping can also be more sustained and deliberate, including courageous resistance.
- Helping can have negative health effects if it involves constant and exhausting demands.
- Good samaritan laws to reduce potential costs: Some legislators have created Good Samaritan laws to encourage bystanders to intervene and emergencies by offering them legal protection, particularly for doctors who volunteer medical care when they happen upon emergencies. Other good Samaritan laws increase the cost of failing to help, sometimes called duty to-rescue laws. These laws require people to provide or summon aid in an emergency so long as they don’t endanger themselves.
Altruistic
Motivated by the desire to increase another’s welfare
- Batson: the motivation behind some helpful actions is truly altruistic
Egoistic
They are motivated by the desire to increase one’s own welfare.
The Empathy-Altursim Hypothesis
The empathy–altruism hypothesis states that feelings of empathy for another person produce an altruistic motivation to increase that person’s welfare. In the empathy–altruism hypothesis, the term empathy refers to feelings of compassion, sympathy, tenderness, and the like.
According to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, altruistic behaviour is primarily the result of taking another’s perspective. Research on this model suggests that individuals high in empathetic concern offer help regardless of the ease of escape from a situation.
Telling the difference between egoistic & altruistic motives
Depends on:
- how easy it is to escape from a helping situation
- if egoistic, helping should decline when escape from the situation is easy
- if altruistic motive, help is given regardless of ease of escape
Egoistic vs. Altruistic Experiment
For example, participants in one set of studies were given an opportunity to use an excuse that would allow them to both escaped from helping someone and avoid feeling guilty about it. Participants who were primed with nothing or primed to think about their own feelings, tended to take advantage of the excuse and escape. Participants primed to take the other person’s perspective, however, we’re much more likely to help the other person despite the chance to get out of it and despite the cost associated with giving help. For these participants, the altruistic motives triggered by empathic concern can be satisfied only through actual helping.
In this experiment, participants were paired with Confederate and then assigned to the observation condition. While the confederate had to complete an unpleasant task during which she is delivered several painful shocks. The Confederate relays a story from their childhood of being thrown from a horse against an electric fence and appears very uncomfortable, but says that she’ll continue the experiment are then ask the participant if they would be willing to switch places. After the Confederates have gone through the first two trials. They manipulate empathic thoughts but tell half of the participants that Confederates, personal values and interests were similar to their own. They then manipulated easily escape by telling half the participants they would leave after witnessing two of the ten trials during which the Confederates received shocks or that they had to witness all ten trials. When empathic concern was high, most people helped regardless of whether the escape was easy or difficult. But among those with low levels of empathic concern, fewer people helped when escape was easy than when it was difficult.
Bateson and colleagues Experiment
In research by Batson and his colleagues (2007), students read about a fictitious student named Bryan Banks who was hit by a car while running late to class and was seriously injured. This study demonstrated that helping requried the combination of perspective taking and warm emotional reactions toward Byran.
In a recent study by Batson and colleagues, they demonstrated both the role of perspective taking and having warm emotional reactions to the other person in predicting help. Students in this study, right, about a fictitious student named Byran Banks who was hit by a car while running late to class, seriously injured. The researchers manipulated perspective taking by telling some students to try to remain objective and detached well, thinking about Brian situation and telling others to try to imagine how the student facing this difficulty feels and how it was affecting his life. The researchers also manipulated emotional reactions to Brian. So they have students read that Brian and bid were running late to class because he was stopped by an old woman who was lost and needed help finding her house. Some students read that Brian was nice to the woman and others, right? He was nasty to her, as can be seen in the figure. When they had positive reactions to Brian and had imagined his perspective, there are much more likely to help than in the other three conditions.
Which of the following would be most consistent with the negative state relief model?
a. People who win the lottery are more likely to give money to charity than those who have not won the lottery.
b. Professional athletes are more likely to sign autographs for fans following a win than following a loss.
c. Shoppers who are given a free gift are more likely to donate money to a solicitor as they leave the store.
d. Students who feel guilty about falling asleep in class are more likely to volunteer to help a professor by completing a questionnaire.
Conformity Influences
- Group Size: Conformity increases with group size - but only up to a point
- Law of “diminishing returns.”
- a perception that others are either in “collusion” or “spineless sheep.” - Awareness of Norms
- conform only when know about and focus on social norms
- often misperceive what is normative; puristic ignores
- Example: misinterpretations on how much students drink alcohol
Cialdini et al. Littering Experiment
- Amusement Park
- Parkade
Bob Cialdini and his colleagues have demonstrated this point in studies on littering.
In one study, researchers had confederates pass handbills to an amusement park. Visitors varied the in the amount of litter that appeared during their visit. One section of the park. This indicates how others behaved in the same setting. The result was that the more litter there. Was, the. More likely, visitors were. To toss their handbills onto the ground.
A second study showed that. Passers-by were most. influenced by the prior behaviour of others when their attention was drawn to an existing norm. People were observed in a parking garage either clean or cluttered with trash. And half of the cases, the norm was that the place was clean. In the other half of cases, the norm was that the place was cluttered or littered or dirty.
In half of the cases, the norm was brought to participants’ attention by a confederate who threw a paper to the ground. As he walked by. In the. Another half saw the confederates pass by without incident.
As participants reached their cars, they found Police handbills tucked under their windshields. Did they toss the paper on the ground or take it with them? The results showed that people were most likely to conform by littering more when the garage was
cluttered than when it was clean when the
confederate had littered. The highest amount of litter was the high norm salience condition where the confederate littered in a pro-littering environment.
The least amount occurred when the confederates littered when they did so in a clean environment. The explanation is that the confederates’ behaviour drew the participant’s attention to the clean environment or the anti-littering Norm.
Asch Experiment: Having Ally in Dissent
When there was an ally present in Asch’s study, conformity dropped by almost 80%. - Ashe investigated this issue and found that the presence of a single confederate who agreed with the participant reduced conformity by almost 80%. This finding, however, doesn’t tell us why the presence of an ally was so effective.
Why is the presence of an agreeing confederate effective? Why does having an ally reduce the majority influence on our behaviour?
Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to conform.
Vernon Allen and John Levine (1969) led participants to believe that they were working together with four confederates. Three of these others consistently agreed on the wrong judgment. The fourth then followed the majority, agreed with the participant, or made a third judgment, which was also incorrect. This last variation was the most interesting: Even when the confederate did not validate their own judgment, participants conformed less often to the majority.
In another experiment, Allen and Levine (1971) varied the competence of the ally. Some participants received support from an average person. In contrast, others found themselves supported by someone who wore very thick glasses and complained that he could not see the visual displays. Not a very reassuring ally, right? Wrong. Even though participants derived less comfort from this supporter than from one who seemed more competent at the task, his presence still reduced their level of conformity.
According to Moscovici
Majorities are powerful by virtue of their sheer numbers, whereas nonconformists derive power from the style of their behaviour.
- “consistent dissent” approach: those in the minority must be forceful, persistent and unwavering in their position. Yet at the same time, they must appear flexible and open-minded.
- Unwavering repetition draws attention from those in the mainstream, which is a necessary first step To social influence.
- Consistency signals that the dissenter is unlikely to yield, which leads to those in the majority feeling pressured and seeking compromise.
According to Hollander
Minorities influence by first accumulating idosyncracy credits.
Based on the fact that dissent often breeds hostility. Edwin Hollander recommended a different approach.
Hollander warned that members who seek leadership positions or challenge a group without first becoming accepted run the risk that their opinions will fall on deaf ears.
As an alternative to Moscovici’s consistency strategy, Hollander suggested that to influence the majority people should first conform in order to establish their
credentials. As competent insiders by becoming members of the mainstream. They accumulated idiosyncrasy, credits, or brownie points. Once they have accumulated enough goodwill within the group, a certain amount of deviance will then be tolerated.
Do majorities and minorities exert influence in different ways?
- Because of their power and control, majorities elicit public conformity through normative pressures.
- Because they are seen as seriously committed to their views, minorities produce private conformity or conversion.
- Relative impact of each depends on whether the judgment that is being made is subjective or subjective.
- The relative effects of majority and minority viewpoints depend on how conformity is measured.
List the possible explanations for why a consistent behavioural style increases minority influence.
All of the following could explain why a consistent behavioural style increases minority influence:
a) a consistent minority draws more attention to its position. b) a consistent minority puts increased pressure on the majority to compromise. c) the position advocated by a consistent minority is more likely to be perceived as valid.
The Zajonc Solution
Zajonc’s theory, also called activation theory, explains that social facilitation is caused by stress triggered by the presence of others. Robert Zajonc conducted studies in 1956 to try and fill in the gaps of the current theory of social facilitation. He compared experiments in which people were required to perform complex tasks versus simple tasks. He found that the simpler tasks yielded higher performance when completed in groups, and complex tasks yielded hindered performance.
He also proposed the alertness hypothesis, which proposes that people are more alert and aware of their surroundings when others are present.
- Having a dominant response, like knowing how to play the violin well, the presence of others with increased arousal, which will strengthen the dominant response.
Zajonc et al. Experiment
Robert Zajonc would go on to study the phenomenon further, proposing his own iteration on social facilitation theory. He performed an experiment in 1969 where he placed cockroaches in a maze to study the phenomenon, as well as performing various experiments on animals and humans alike to test theories on the mere-exposure effect and sensory interaction.
In a seminal paper, Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman (1969) reported that the interaction between task complexity and social facilitation was not a uniquely human phenomenon, but also extended to cockroaches. Here they tested cockroaches on a simple runway task or a complex maze task, either in the presence of other cockroaches or alone. Much like in humans, cockroaches ran the simple runway faster when others were watching, but were slower at completing the complex maze in the presence of others.
When the track was a simple one like the one depicted here, with a straight runway between the start box and the goal box. Cockroaches running in
pairs ran more quickly toward the goal box than those running alone. But in the more complex maze that requires a right turn to reach the goal, solitary
cockroaches out-raced pairs.
In a particularly creative follow-up experiment, Zions
and his colleagues found that cockroaches completed the easy maze faster and the difficult maze slower if they raced in front of a crowd of spectator cockroaches placed in these Plexiglas audience boxes on either side of the maze. This
audience produced social facilitation.
Could the presence of such a TV character trigger social facilitation effects?
Gardner & Knowles found that it could, as participants in their study perform simple tasks better and complex tasks worse in the presence of a picture of a favourite TV character, a picture of a non-favorite character did not elicit these effects.
Why does social facilitation occur?
- Zajobc’s mere presence theory
- Evaluation apprehension theory: The evaluation apprehension theory states that it is not just the presence of others that matters, but their evaluation influences performance. When a person is being evaluated or judged on their performance, individuals are more incentivized to do well. This goes hand-in-hand with the next theory regarding self-presentation. This concept of evaluation influencing performance can be observed fairly easily. For example, students are incentivized to perform well on tests because they are being evaluated and given a grade based on their performance. If they were not being evaluated, and simply taking the test was enough to get the grade, then students would likely not perform as well.
- stereotype threat
- distraction conflict theory
Stereotype Threat & Social Facilitation
People may
experience evaluation apprehension when they are the targets of negative
stereotypes about their group’s ability to perform in a particular domain. Students
in this study thought that they were about to take a difficult math test under
conditions designed to make female students feel either threatened or not about
negative stereotypes regarding women in math. In the no threat condition, women
read instructions that the tests they were about to take produced no gender
differences. While watching. For the test. To begin, participants performed and
easy familiar tasks, such as writing their first and last name as many times as
possible for 20 seconds. Or a difficult novel tasks where they were writing their
name backward as many times as possible for 20 seconds. The researchers
hypothesized that women under stereotype threat would feel aroused, causing social
facilitation effects on the unrelated task. As predicted, women under stereotype
threat performed better on the easy task and worse on the difficult task compared
to women who were not under threat.
Distraction Conflict Theory
Distraction-conflict is an alternative to the first tenet in Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation. This first tenet currently seems to be more widely supported than the distraction-conflict model. Distraction-conflict theory recognizes that even if distraction does elevate drive, it also diverts attention from the task. While increasing drive should have a beneficial effect on simple task performance, diverting attention from the task should have a disruptive effect.
- attentional conflict between focusing on a task and inspecting and distracting stimulus creates arousal
- maintains there is nothing uniquely social about “social” facilitation
Social Loafing: Culture
Prevalent around the world, but some cultural differences have been found.
- Research has found social loafing to be less prevalent among women than men and less prevalent in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures.
For this course, you complete in-class group activities and assignments. Which of the conditions that limit loafing (as discussed in the video) are present in the groups you complete tasks with for this course?
The conditions that limit loafing present in our in-class groups include:
- People believe their own performance can be identified: Everyone provides feedback on their group members’ performance, which might have the result of reducing someone’s grade on the task (as well as their professionalism score) if they don’t contribute.
- The groups are small: The groups are 3-4 people, which means there are fewer people to loaf from.
- The projects are limited in scope: You are only working with those particular groups on a task for that class session (rather than a term/semester long project), and then complete you later tasks with a different group.
- The task is important/group will be punished: Because the group performance is graded people will be less likely to loaf.
- People believe their efforts are necessary: Because you are randomly assigned to work with others each session, you may not have prior knowledge of the other students’ work or abilities. Thus, you may be less likely to rely on them to complete the task well.
Unifying the Paradigms
Now in trying to unify the
paradigms of social facilitation and social loafing. You should consider two
factors. The evaluation of an individual’s work and the type of task, either easy
or difficult. When the presence of others increases the possibility of an
evaluation of an individual’s work. Performance on easy tasks is enhanced because
the individual is more motivated, That’s social facilitation. Performance on
difficult tasks is impaired because the pressure gets to the individual and that
social facilitation as well. One of the presence of others decreases the
possibility of evaluation of an individual’s work. And instead, the group work is
evaluated. Performance on easy tasks is impaired because the individual is
uninspired. That social loafing. But performance on difficult tasks is enhanced
because being lost in the crowd frees the individual from anxiety. This is
sometimes known as Social Security. You can also see the same effects demonstrated
in this figure
