Influence of Others 1+2 - 10 Flashcards
Norman Triplett- conducted first social psychology study
o Hypothesized the presence of others was a variable in how we act around others
o Co-actor: individuals performing the same task as you
o Audience: group of people watching an individual perform a take
o Social facilitation: increased or decrease performance with a co-actor or audience
compared to doing it alone
- Zajonc- in 1965, published a paper about social facilitation
-The presentation of others increases physiological activity (arousal)
-For simple and well-practiced tasks, performance is enhanced
-For difficult and not-practiced tasks, performance is hindered
-Added the ‘decrease performance’ part to the social facilitation definition
Social learning theory
we model and imitate
the behaviours of others
- Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment
o Children between ages 3-6 were given a choice of toys to play
o The adult in the room would either engage in gentle or aggressive behaviour with
the bobo doll- the children who had viewed the aggressive play model were much
more prone to spontaneously act the same when put into a different room
Norms (conformity)
Norms: unwritten but commonly accepted rules for how to behave, help guide how we
interact with others and the world
o Leads to conformity
Sherif’s autokinetic effect
o A stationary light in a pitch black room appears to move when it doesn’t- as we
scan the room, we mistake the image on our retina to be an actual motion
o When comparing results with other participants (after being in the same room at
the same time), the results will start to concur between participants (indicating
conformity)
o In a later trial, there was a confederate in the room that said the value was much
larger, and the participants’ estimate increased, indicating that they accounted for
the confederate’s opinion
* Laugh tracks during comedies are examples of this
- Asch wanted to know why people converge to the norm
o Asked people which comparison line is the same length as the sample
o In the group, only one person is a real participant (others are confederates) and
respond after most of the confederates
o All the confederates say the obviously wrong answer, but 75% of participants
conformed to an incorrect answer on at least 1 trial
o This occurred even with anonymity
Normative function
role of others in setting standards
for our conduct, and we follow them in fear of criticism
and social rejection for not following them
Normative function chart in note from Maddy
Informational function
role of others in providing
information about an ambiguous situation
* Normative and informational functions both contribute to conformity
Group Dynamics (Stoner)
Risky shift effect: tested the idea that groups were more cautious when making
decisions than individuals; individuals came up with their own ideas before
coming together as a group
o Groups do not always cause riskier decisions than individuals- it depends on the
situation
Group polarization
decision making in a group tends to strengthen inclinations of
individual group members
o Encompasses the risky shift and cautious shift effects
o Supported by many experiments
Groupthink
group decision making environment when group cohesiveness becomes so
strong it overrides realistic appraisals of reality and alternative opinions
o These groups think they are right and all others are wrong
o Fail to critically think about other perspectives
o High conformity pressure
o Preventing groupthink: be impartial, encourage critical evaluation and
disagreement (assign a devil’s advocate), subdivide group and later reunite,
provide a second chance
The bystander effect
-The presence of other witnesses led to a diffusion
of responsibility to act
Pluralistic ignorance
when each individual in a
group sees nobody responding in a given
situation, they conclude the situation is not an
emergency
Diffusion of responsibility
in deciding whether
to act, we determine that someone else in the
room is more qualified
* Being direct avoids the bystander effect
* Seeing helpful behaviour increases probability of helping others in the future
Social loafing
individuals seem to be less motivated when working in a group than when
working alone
Millgram’s Study
-In 1963, Stanley Milgram commenced a study to understand human motivation and obedience to authority, the study particularly examined the effect of punishment on memory and learning. 2 people were used in this study (one was the teacher and questioned the learner) the other was a learner. The teacher had to shock the learner with each question they answer wrong, and the voltage got larger as more answers were wrong. 65% of teachers delivered all the shocks, even though they knew the learner had a heart problem and became unresponsive
-Millgram’s study showed the very strong tendency of obedience from authority
-the experience also shows that you are not always an accurate judge of how you perceive you would behave in a situation
-Milgram reported that most participants were happy they participated in the study and fascinated by their willingness to obey authority (could be partially due to cognitive dissonance)
- a similar study called Study 10, was held in both a rundown building and a prestigious university. The two locations yielded the same results, suggesting that the prestige of each location did not alter results
-a similar experiment called experiment 13, had the experimenter dressed either casually or in a lab coat - participants were more obedient to the person wearing a lab coat
-more people were more likely to obey the experiment in this study when sitting in the same room as the experiment, rather than a different room and following orders by phone
Nurse and Doctor Experiment
- a fake doctor called a nurse at a hospital over the phone, and ordered them to administer medication to a patient (fake medicine but the nurse did not know this). The doctor ordered a higher dose than is safe, and medication orders should never be done over the phone. 21/22 nurses compiled suggesting:
The tendency to obey can be irresistible under a variety of circumstances
You never quite know how you would act until you were placed in a given situation (95% of nurses said they wouldn’t obey, yet 95% of nurses in the experiment did)
Cognitive Dissonance
-a state of psychological discomfort brought on by conflict between a person’s attitudes and their behaviour. It’s most often resolved when a person adjusts their beliefs to justify the action that they have made in the past and can thus no longer change
Cognitive Dissonance Explained
-if someone is paid $20 to lie, and another person is paid $1 to lie, the person paid $1 will actually be more satisfied due to cognitive dissonance. The lie is to tell someone an activity is fun, when in reality it’s boring
Think it’s boring (attitude) + say it’s exciting (lie) (behaviour) = large dissonance because attitude and behaviour are conflicting
Overjustification Effect
childenjoys drawijg and gets paid. overtime they stop enjoying drawing and only want moneh]y
The Stanford Prison Experiment
-demonstrates the incredible power that circumstance and assigned role can have on human behaviour
Deindividuation
-in a group situation, the loss of a sense of personal responsibility and restraint
Similarity vs Credibility
-people are often more persuaded by people who are similar to them, rather than depending on what their credentials are
Central Appeal (what an audience is more likely to be persuaded by
-well reasoned, factual, two-sided arguments
-effective for academic audiences
Peripheral Appeal (more convincing in a less academic setting)
-well presented, easy to understand messages
-effective for non-academic audiences
Foot in the Door Technique
-when a large request doesn’t seem so outrageous because it followed previous related and escalating requests
-ex if you ask someone to wear a pin for a cancer research charity, they’ll be more likely to donate to that charity
Low-Ball Technique
-an escalation of the terms of an agreement after simeon has already agreed to comply
-ex. A car at a dealership is really chip so a buyer is set on it. When he goes to pay, the dealer revels hidden costs so the car is actually no cheaper, yet the buyer still purchases it because of feeling excited at first
Foot in the Door vs Low-Ball Technique
-foot in the door = target agrees to small request, then increasingly larger requests can be made
-low ball = changing initial deal that target already agreed to
Persuasion
-has three important components:
the communication, message and audience
-foot in the door technique, low ball technique, and door in the face technique can make someone seem more persuasive
Hostile aggression:
Involves behaviours that are directly confrontational—
for example, hitting someone or yelling at them. This is more commonly
used by men.
Negative State Relief Model:
We help others because we would feel
distressed (and guilty) if we didn’t.
Norm Function:
Proposed by Sherif. Found that participants gradually
conformed to the others opinion, regardless of starting point.
Normative Social Influences:
In general, we want to be approved of by
the people we associate with.
Norm of Reciprocity:
We are expected to reciprocate when someone else
treats us well.
Norm of Social Responsibility:
As a member of a society, we are expected
to contribute to its welfare in a positive way.
One-Sided Argument:
Only one side/opinion of a particular argument is
presented. This tends to be to be more effective when the audience initially agrees with the communicator.
Self-Perception Theory:
Proposed by Bem. Indicates that we don’t
necessarily have a special insight into ourselves. We sometimes have to
figure out who we are in a way that is similar to how we figure out who
others are: by assessing behaviour.
Relational aggression:
Involves personal interactions. Relationally
aggressive behaviours are engaged in an attempt to make others dislike
someone—for example, spreading rumours about someone or ignoring
them. This is more commonly used by women.
Risky-Shift:
The observed tendency for people to make more daring
decisions when they are in groups, than when they are alone. However, later
determined to be caused by group polarization and not actually risk.
Two-sided arguments:
Both sides of an opinion are explained by the
communicator. This tends to be more effective when the audience initially
disagrees. Such an audience may appreciate acknowledgment of their
point of view and, following that, may be more open to being brought
around to a different one. This type of argument works best to convince an
academic audience.
