Module 5: Social Influence

Question 1

What are the different types of conformity?

Answer 1

• Compliance: normative social influence - superficially fitting in as to not be rejected
• Internalisation: informational social influence - don’t know how to behave so adopt beliefs/behaviours of group
• Identification: temporarily changing behaviour in a group setting to fit in

Question 2

What situational factors may affect bystander intervention?

Answer 2

• Diffusion of responsibility
• Less likely to notice while in a group
• Pluralistic ignorance (assuming there is no emergency)
• Cost of helping

Question 3

What individual factors may affect bystander intervention?

Answer 3

• Competence (which informs confidence)
• Mood (if bad attention is focused inwards, less likely to notice)
• Similarity to person in need

Question 4

What situational factors may affect conformity?

Answer 4

• Size of majority (own judgement questioned most at 3-4 people, questioned less at <3 or >4)
• Unanimity (majority unanimous?)
• Task difficulty/ambiguity (informational social influence)
• (Found by Solomon Asch 1950s three lines on a card experiments)

Question 5

What does locus of control mean?

Answer 5

How much control someone believes they have over their own behaviour

Question 6

What personality factors may affect conformity?

Answer 6

• Internal LoC: influenced internally, less likely to conform
• External LoC: influenced externally, more likely to conform
• Internal LoC still conforms in an unfamiliar situation

Question 7

What situational factors affected obedience in Milgram’s shock experiments?

Answer 7

• Proximity to victim and/or authority figure
• Legitimacy of context and/or authority figure
• Personal responsibility (less if shared with another)
• Support from others (more likely to disobey if others do first)

Question 8

What personality factors affected obedience in Milgram’s shock experiments?

Answer 8

• Locus of control
• Authoritarian personality - F-scale (Theodore Adorno et al. (1950), higher on scale = more obedient)

Question 9

What other factors affected obedience in Milgram’s shock experiments?

Answer 9

• Told shocks were painful but not harmful
• Volunteered and had paid - obligation
• No previous experience (informational social influence)
• Momentum of compliance (plan completion bias)

Question 10

What may affect the behaviour of crowds?

Answer 10

• Deindividuation
• Obedience
• (Pro-social or anti-social behaviour)

Question 11

Describe deindividuation

Answer 11

• Members stop acting as individuals and become anonymous
• Magnifies conformity
• Loss of personal identity
• Some argue that identity is not lost, instead a new identity is created bound to group norms
• Stanford Prison Study - Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973)

Question 12

Describe obedience within crowds

Answer 12

• Crowd may be influenced by an authority figure
• Proximity, legitimacy, power

Question 13

How can blind obedience be prevented?

Answer 13

• Social support (Holfing et al. (1966) & Rank and Jacobson (1977) nurse studies)
• Familiarity with the situation (nurse studies)
• Distance from situation/authority figure
• Education on preventing blind obedience

Question 14

What were the aims of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

Answer 14

Investigate in which conditions people are more likely to help in a natural environment

Question 15

What was the procedure of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

Answer 15

• Covert observation on a New York subway
• Two observers, two actors (one victim, other a model to help after a set time period)
• Observed: number of people, race, sex, who helped and after how long
• Victim: male, either white or black, either ‘drunk’ or carrying a cane

Question 16

What were the results of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

Answer 16

• Cane victim helped 95% of the time
• Drunk victim helped 50% of the time
• More than one person came to help 60% of the time
• The bigger the group, the more likely someone was to help
• Men helped more than women
• Drunk victim more likely to be helped by someone of the same race

Question 17

What were the conclusions of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

Answer 17

• No diffusion of responsibility (enclosed space, many people watching)
• Cost of helping (cane vs drunk), especially for women
• The longer no one helps, the chance of someone helping goes down (conformity)

Question 18

What are the strengths of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

Answer 18

• Natural environment, ecological validity
• Covert operation, lack of demand characteristics, more valid

Question 19

What are the weaknesses of Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritan study?

Answer 19

Unethical:
- Covert operation, no consent
- May have caused distress

Question 20

What was the aim of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

Answer 20

Investigate prisoner-guard conflict in a simulated prison environment

Question 21

What was the procedure of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

Answer 21

• 10 prisoners, 11 guards
• Male college students, all psychologically healthy, had volunteered and were paid
• Guards had uniforms and no specific instructions
• Prisoners were arrested, had prison attire, were referred to by an identification number
• Supposed to go on for two weeks

Question 22

What were the results of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

Answer 22

• Guards aggressive and controlling after a few hours
• Prisoners rebelled by barricading cells, guards punished them with solitary confinement
• Conflict and aggression escalated over next few days
• Stopped after 6 days, prisoners showing signs of anxiety/depression

Question 23

What were the conclusions of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

Answer 23

• Prisoners/guards conformed to assigned role
• Deindividuation - lost personal identity, adopted given identity
• All immersed in simulated environment

Question 24

What are the strengths of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

Answer 24

• Immersion in simulation (natural behaviour, ecological validity)
• Can inform the way prisons are run
• Explains the atrocities that occur within prisons

Question 25

What are the weaknesses of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Simulated Prison study?

Answer 25

• Distress caused to participants
• Participants could have just been acting (lowers ecological validity)
• Only male college students, lowers generalisability

Question 26

Give examples of real world social issues surrounding social influence

Answer 26

• Obedience: WW2 antisemitism - understanding the behaviour of soldiers
• Conformity: 2011 London Riots - informational/normative social influence
• Deindividuation: Police brutality/prison violence - loss of personal identity
• Bystander effect: WW2 antisemitism - why citizens failed to aid Jews & persecuted minorities

Question 27

Describe how differing cultures may affect social influence

Answer 27

• Individualistic cultures: obedience unaffected (environment, not culture), less likely to conform, more prone to bystander effect
• Collectivistic cultures: obedience unaffected, more likely to conform, less prone to bystander effect (if one is perceived to be belonging to the same group)