Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > MT1 Intro to social/developmental psych- Conformity > Flashcards

MT1 Intro to social/developmental psych- Conformity Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What is social psychology about?

A

How thoughts, feelings and behaviours of individuals are influenced by actual/imaged/implied presence of others (Allport, 1954)

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

What are norms?

A

Shared expectations about appropriate behavior, guides rather than laws

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

What are the two types of norms and what do they both refer to?

A

Descriptive norms- what people typically do eg looking towards the door in a lift
Injunctive norms- what people ought to do, moral obligation to follow norm eg give seat to pregnant woman

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

Are norms fixed?

A

No- vary across historical eras, cultures, groups, situations eg military situation vs carnival

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

What is the autokinetic effect?

A

An illusion where a spot of light in a dark room appears to move- occurs because our eyes make saccadic movements looking around for a point of reference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Procedure of Sherif’s experiment (1935, 1936)

A

Participants asked to judge how far a point of light in a dark room moves
Individual phase- 100 trials where participants judge alone
Group phase- 3 successive daily sessions where participants make judgments aloud in groups of 2/3
Individual-to-group conditions vs group-to-individual condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Sherif (1935, 1936)- results in individual-to-group condition

A

All arrive at individual norms as individuals, but once in a group their judgments converge as they conform to what others are saying, by 3rd day judgments are very similar

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sherif (1935, 1936)- results in group-to-individual condition

A

Convergence of judgement happens very quickly and stays consistent, in individual phase the norms established in group phase prevail and continue to be followed

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

Describe the procedure for the study showing the no of generations norms persisted

A

Jacobs and Campbell (1961)- in initial group trials, a confederate gave high judgements of movement
Participants were then replaced 1 by 1 until none of the original participants remained

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

Describe the results for Jacob and Campbell’s (1961) study of robustness of group norms

A

Effect of norms died out gradually

Norms continued to have an effect by the 4th/5th generation, ceased by 6th generation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What can the results of Jacob and Campbell’s (1961) study on robustness of norms be extrapolated to

A

How societal norms can persist even after the reason for original judgement no longer applies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How does Sherif’s (1935, 1936) study show informational influence?

A

Ambiguous stimulus with no background cues as a frame of reference for apparent movement
People look to others’ judgements as a social frame of reference to calibrate one’s perception against

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Field study of conformity (carpark littering) procedure

A

Cialdini et al (1990)- hospital visitors observed returning to their cars in a car-park
Investigators placed handbills on their car to provide material for littering

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Cialdini et al (1990) field study for conformity manipulations

A

Descriptive norm manipulation- car park was filled with litter
Norm salience manipulation- confederate either dropped litter or just walked past the participant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Cialdini et al (1990) field study for conformity results

A

Clean environment meant a lot less littering than littered environment
Clean environment- confederate littering reduces littering
Littered environment- confederate littering INCREASES littering

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

Who proposed Broken Windows Theory

A

Kelling and Wilson, 1982

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

What is Broken Windows Theory (1982)

A

Environmental cues indicating disorder (eg broken windows, litter, graffiti) establish descriptive norms that promote OTHER kinds of disorderly behaviour
Tidying up neighbourhoods should thus reduce crime

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

Describe the procedure of the study investigating BWT

A

Keizer et al (2008)- attached advertising flyers to all bicycles locked in an alleyway which had no bins and recorded whether participant littered
A sign in the alleyway said graffiti was prohibited (injunctive norm)
The wall behind the sign was either clean or covered with graffiti (descriptive norm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What did Keizier et al (2008)’s study aim to investigate?

A

Inspired by BWT- compared people whether people adhere to injunctive norms when descriptive norms about graffiti contradict or are consistent with the injunctive norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Results of Keizer et al (2008)’s BWT study

A

Observing violation of the anti-graffiti norm more than doubled the extent of littering
Pedestrians were also 2x as likely to keep a 5 Euro note in a letter poking out a mail box when it was covered in grafitti
Suggests violation of one norm can weaken conformity to other norms

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

Procedure of Asch’s line-length studies (1951)

A

Participants were asked to match one line to 1/3 comparison lines (stimuli was unambiguous)
Participants give answers aloud next to last after all confederates have given consistent wrong answers on key trials
Group size is 5-8

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Stages in participants’ reactions (Asch, 1952) in line length study

A

1) Notice disagreement
2) Seek explanation eg ‘the ones ahead of me were following the ones ahead of them just like I was’
3) Self-doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Asch (1952)- what were the 3 reasons for yielding to group incorrect answers

A

Perception, judgement, action

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

Asch (1952) reasons for yielding to group pressure- perception

A

One participant genuinely saw the lines the way the confederates answered they were
He answered he was giving honest answers and was shocked to find he was incorrect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Asch (1952) reasons for yielding to group pressure- judgement

A

One participant did not see the lines as equal, but tried to make themselves see them as equal- trusted the group’s judgement over theirs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Asch (1952) reasons for yielding to group pressure- action

A

Participants knew the group was wrong but did not want to look like a fool or contradict the group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Asch (1951)- effect of group size

A

Conformity is low with 1 confederate, but increases to 15% with 2 confederates and 3 to around 35%
After 3, you reach about the highest level of conformity

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

Asch (1951)- effect of unanimity, accurate vs inaccurate dissenter

A

One dissenter giving correct answers on key trials reduces conformity by 75%
Even a single dissenter who gives extremely incorrect answers reduces conformity

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

Allen and Levine (1971) procedure for effect of unreliable dissenter

A

Confederate with thick-lensed glasses who loudly claimed his eyesight was too poor for distance vision was told to answer in any way they want, ‘randomly maybe’ since they were there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Allen and Levine (1971) results for effect of unreliable dissenter

A

Conformity was reduced by invalid social support by around a 1/3, though ofc less than valid social support
Dissenter gives participant a license to also not conform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Asch’s study (1952) showing responses to non-conformity

A

A single confederate made incorrect judgements against a majority of naive participants
Non-conformity met by laughter and ridicule, even by the experimenter who had created the situation
INCENTIVE FOR CONFORMITY!!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What are the 4 main explanations for why people conform?

A

Normative influence
Informational influence
Referent informational influence
Coordination

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What is normative influence

A

Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)- Conforming based on desire for social approval, and to avoid dislike, ridicule and social punishment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What is informational influence

A

Conforming based on desire to be right and reduce uncertainty, look to others about appropriate way to respond and to gain evidence about reality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What is referent informational influence

A

Desire to feel part of the group (eg Turner, 1991)
Subsumes II and NI
Look to others to see what group norm is so you can behave in a way normative to the group and feel more part of it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What is coordination (reason for conformity)

A

Optimizing performance by adopting a common perspective and operating as a unified group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Criticisms of Asch’s studies- issue of no bidirectional influence?

A

Participants are not allowed to answer back, 2-way dialogues would allow more resistance to conformity, confederates explicitly told to avoid engaging with participant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

In what way do Asch’s studies show independnce

A

Participants actually dissented more than they conformed, in 2/3 trials people do not conform to majority despite pressure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

How did Moscovici criticise Asch’s ideas

A

Studies inspired by Asch follow conformity bias- in the history of ideas and behaviour, majority influence cannot be the dominating force, otherwise over time people would increasingly agree
Minority influence can shape the view of a majority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Asch (1952) line length study results

A

76% of participants conformed at least once to the incorrect majority answer
Conformity occoured in 36.8% of key trials
Participants are visibly confused by the group’s answers, fidgeting and smiling sheepishly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Describe line length study supporting II is involved in Asch’s study

A

Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)- participants answer privately so avoid ridicule and NI
Conformity dropped dramatically, but not fully, as some participants were convinced the majority were actually correct (II)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What study shows effect of how incorrect confederate’s answers are on conformity

A

Asch (1995)- conformity dropped when confederates gave answers that were extremely blatantly incorrect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Study showing effect of age on conformity

A

Walker and Andrade (1996)- found a negative correlation between age and conformity in children from 6-17 yo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Metanalysis showing several variables affecting conformity

A

Bond and Smith (1996)- metanalysis of Asch paradigm studies found higher conformity in collectivist countries (due to value of cooperation and conformity), in women, and that conformity rates had dropped over decades to low rates in recent studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Examples of participants not blindly following the majority, but actively trying to understand the situation and resolve the dissonance

A

Some believed the first ppt was visually impaired and EVERYONE was conforming to the wrong answer to avoid embarassing them
Some thought it was inconceivable the whole group was wrong so experienced conversion
Some may have thought the group was right but wanted to be true to their own perceptions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Criticisms of Asch’s experimental situation- black and white

A

IRL conformity is not ‘all-or-nothing’ but subjective, we may be influenced to partially agree- the obviousness of the answers and the incorrect majority left ppts unequipped to deal with the scenario, so easiest to just conform (Ross et al, 1976)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Criticisms of Asch’s experimental situation- triviality

A

Judgement is not personally meaningful, participants have nothing to ‘gain’ by acting one way or another, Crutchfield (1955) showed conformity was lower if outcomes were personally meaningful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Jahoda’s criticism of conformity bias (1959)

A

Jahoda (1959)- there is ample evidence of resistance in every experiment that tries to argue against it, there is an implication that ‘insubordinate subjects who are outside the hypothesis-confirming majority are a nuisance’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Asch’s own statement against presenting humans as only conforming beings

A

‘We should be skeptical, however, of the supposition that the power of social pressure necessarily implies uncritical submission to it’ (1952:34)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What was Sherif’s view of reality

A

Reality is a social psychological construction in which a social framework of norms gives our perceptions meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What do Sherf’s studies demonstrates about society

A

Demonstrate how our perception and understanding of the world is shaped by elements of culture and society that become embedded in consciousness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

How do participants establish norms as individuals in Sherif’s AKI studies

A

Over successive trials, the median and range established as norms in the first trial persisted, with decreased variation over the 2 subsequent trials
These norms serve as a reference point for judging successive movements (1936)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Why do participants form norms independently in AKI studies

A

Situation was ambiguous so participants create their own frame of reference for judging the situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

How did Sherif define norms

A

‘Social products’ that prevailed long beyond the conditions of their inception, locking individuals into certain judgments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

What social contexts did Sherif argue his results were generalisable to

A

When old norms cease to fit, the plastic and unstable situation created promotes the development of new norms
eg during political upheaval, slogans manifest new norms for reality
Political leaders often create the appearance of uncertainty and instability to increase the impact of their slogans

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

What types of concepts did Sherif class as norms

A

Values, morals, attitudes beliefs etc, all involve a frame of reference and focal point
Values are the most enduring frames of reference in terms of defining behaviour/attitudes

57
Q

AKI variant study demonstrating how easy norms can be manipulated

A

Asch (1937)- individuals across different groups were placed with confederates that responses with different ranges and medians- convergence to each of different norms was produced and prevails even when individuals are tested alone

58
Q

What did Sherif argue based on anthropological evidence

A

Even our most basic needs are socially regulated- sexual rules differ across culture (Malinowski, 1927), as well as kinship practices and parenting based on cultural norms

59
Q

Study showing experimental variables that made the formation of norms more efficient

A

Hoffman et al (1953)- an actual moving light source and longer exposure time make norm formation mroe efficient

60
Q

Study showing prevalence of norms over a year!

A

Rohher et al (1954)- norms established in groups of 6 inch movement persisted when tested individually a year later

61
Q

Study showing dispositional variables that effect conformity to norms

A

Vidulich and Kalman (1961)- dogmatic participants conform more to a high status vs low status confederate, while open-minded participants show the inverse

62
Q

Who criticised Sherif’s study for creating expectations?

A

Alexander et al (1970)- argued our expectations in a situation shape our tendencies towards structuring..Sherif’s participants believed the light was really moving so there was an objectively correct answer of how far it moved, meaning agreement around this common estimate was a reasonable expectation

63
Q

Describe Alexander et al (1970)’s study where ‘expectations of structure’ are removed

A

Participants were told AKI was an illusion, so they shouldn’t be surprised by variable patterns of movement and shouldn’t expect agreement
Participants reported direction and distance changing across trials, with no convergence to norms

64
Q

How did Alexander et al (1970) interpret their results in which they ‘removed expectations’

A

Situational expectations explain AKI perceptual convergence, rather than Sherif’s view it was inherent psychological tendencies to regard chaos as uncomfortable

65
Q

Who challenged Alexander et al (1970)’s criticism of Asch’s AKI interpretation and how

A

Pollis et al (1976)- Alexander et al created an expectation of divergence instead, so the situation was not uncertain

66
Q

Describe Pollis et al (1976’s) study criticising Alexander et al’s (1970) removal of expectations study

A

They added a 3rd condition where participants were only told the AKI was an illusion
They found evidence of convergence that replicated Asch’s findings rather than Alexander’s, showing an unstructured situation leads to the formation of norms and convergence

67
Q

Study suggesting the nature of participants in the group affects the robustness of group norms

A

Pollis and Montgomery (1966)- group norms were sustained the most over successive trials if they were originally formed by participants together in a natural (preexisting) group, rather than any combination of natural group/strangers/together/individually

68
Q

Who proposed ego functions of norm formation

A

Sherif and Harvey (1952)- uncertainty and anxiety-proviking situations would cause wider range of judgements around a norm, leading to greater convergence to a group norm

69
Q

How did Sherif and Harvey (1952) test ego functions of norm formation

A

Participants tested in a highly disorienting and difficult conditions converge more than those tested in a simple condition

70
Q

Who found less arbitrary norms last longer

A

MacNeil and Sherif- repeated Jacobs and Campbell’s procedure with less implausible norms and found convergence was greater and persisted for many more trials

71
Q

Who proposed idea of norm formation as related o ‘shared reality’

A

Hardin and Higgins (1996)- people gain confidence in their judgements through social verification, so efforts to establish shared reality should dominate social interaction (1996)

72
Q

Why are those in one’s ingroup more likely to share a social reality with you

A

Self-categorisation provides psychological boundaries for reference

73
Q

Turner (1985)- what is he effect of us not agreeing with the group

A

We view our group as an appropriate reference for social comparison, so we expect to agree with them, meaning when we don’t it creates uncertainty that fosters mutual influence

74
Q

Procedure of a study of how expectation of agreement is influenced by social categorisation following RII

A

Abrams et al (1990)- categorization condition- naive ppts given a label H and confederates given a label J
Group identity condition- ppts in each group played a game together

75
Q

Abrams et al (1990) social categorisation study results

A

No convergence to confederates occured in both categorisation and group identity conditions, as confederates were in a separate group/category
Shows salient categorisation allows emergence of 2 distinct norms in parallel within the same environment

76
Q

How does Abrams (1990) study on categorisation support Sherfif?

A

Supports Sherif’s argument that people seek a frame of reference (categorisation) when forming new norms, meaning categorisation is meaningfully correlated with differences in judgement

77
Q

Study supporting that we want a shared reality with our group

A

Robbins and Krueger (2001)- people are likely to overestimate ingroup consensus around their own behaviour or opinion

78
Q

How do we benefit from norms in our life

A

Reduce uncertainty about how to behave appropriately (Van den Bos and Lind, 2002), provide structure and order eg orderly queuing system

79
Q

3 main modes of norm transmission

A

Deliberate instruction/demonstration, nonverbal behaviours, inference through watching the behaviour of others

80
Q

How did Hood and Sherif (1962) describe the motives of participants responses in the AKI study

A

2 motives were relating to others and understanding the social world- reflects a rational accuracy-motivated assessment of the situation

81
Q

How does the Stanford prison experiment support idea of social norms

A

Zimbardo et al (1973)- shows power of a situation to encourage the development of new behavioural norms that disinhibit normally disapproved ways of treating others

82
Q

What did Festinger (1950) propose norm formation/following was the outcome of

A

Pressure towards uniformity in the group

83
Q

Festinger (1950) what 2 things does norm formation/following facilitate

A

Social reality testing- through social comparison, can validate our beliefs and gain subjective reality
Group locomotion- coordination of group allows efficiency to reach desired goals

84
Q

Study supporting overlap between NI and II motives and consequences

A

Prislin and Wood (2005)- normative motives can have informational consequences that persist over time and in private settings

85
Q

Study supporting effect of group salience on conformity

A

Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)- making the group salient will increase people’s desire to be part of the group, increasing conformity following NSI

86
Q

Study showing effect of group credibility on II

A

Kiesler and Kiesler (1969)- factors that increase the credibility of the majority as a valid source of reality (eg status/experience) lead to more conformity following II

87
Q

What is self-categorisation theory

A

Individuals identify with their ingroup and conform to a prototypical group position to maximise similarities between ingroup members and differences between ingroup and outgroup (Turner et al, 1990)

88
Q

What are the conditions for RII occuring

A

Target perceives the source disagrees with their position
Source and target are perceived as members of the same group
Source’s position is prototypical of group norms
Van Knippenberg, 1994)

89
Q

What is social support

A

Allen (1975)- - the presence of a person in a group who gives a response that agrees with the subject’s private belief/perception

90
Q

Secondary study supporting conformity as an ego defence (propaganda)

A

Propaganda advocating the virtues of independence actually increases conformity (Smith and Richards, 1967) as it arouses anxiety, meaning conformity serves as an ego defence

91
Q

Study showing how there’s nto a single dispositional factor that increases conformity

A

People who conform to ambiguous stimuli vs unambiguous stimuli have different personality profiles (McDavid and Sistrunk, 1964)

92
Q

What types of tasks have Asch’s results on social support been generalised to beyond visual perception

A

Logical problems (Edmonds, 1964), questions on attitude, plus generalisable to women and children (Allen and Newtson, 1972)

93
Q

Study into group pressure where participants could abstain from responding- group pressure condition with no social support

A

Allen (1965)- participants abstained LESS than those in a control condition where subjects answered privately
Suggests a dual-process in group pressure- pressure to ANSWER as well as to agree with group

94
Q

Study into group pressure where participants could abstain from responding- WITH social support condition

A

When a confederate also abstained from voting, the subject was willing to abstain at the same rate as those in the control condition

95
Q

Study suggesting no correlation between personality traits and conformity reduction produced by social support

A

Allen and Towson (1971)- found a tiny number of 152 correlations were significant, such a small no it can be ascribed to chance

96
Q

What happens in the Asch studies if a social supporter begins conforming?

A

Asch (1955)- independence abruptly ceases as participant feels psychologically ‘deserted’

97
Q

What happens in the Asch studies if a social supporter leaves the room

A

Asch (1955)- independent persists, but in a slightly weaker way

98
Q

What happens if the experiment gives feedback of right answer in the Asch studies

A

Allen and Lepinski (1969)- feedback from experimenter who publically announced right answer reduced conformity

99
Q

Explain the different effects of experimenter feedback and social support on conformity when they are removed in the Allen and Lepinski study (1969)

A

Feedback alone is more effective in maintaining nonconformity when it ceases compared to feedback AND social support
May be that in feedback AND social support condition, participants saw themselves as just following the dissenter and didn’t self-attribute independence and preparedness to oppose the group alone

100
Q

Why may subjects continue nonconforming when a social supporter leaves the room as opposed to beginning conforming

A

The participant may feel bolstered by the psychological presence of the dissenter, believing they would continue dissenting if they could (were still present) (Allen, 1975)

101
Q

What is cross-context generalisation

A

Means from one content (eg visual) to a very different content (eg opinion)

102
Q

When does cross-content generalisation occur of nonconformity from social support?

A

When it is ensured ‘the dissent it attributed to self and perceived as independence’ , and only from objective to subjective items (Allen, 1975)

103
Q

Study supporting the idea that the participant feeling as if they are acting independently is important in maintaining nonconformity

A

Boyanowsky and Trueman (1973)- participants seeing the answer of the social supporter but answering BEFORE them conformed less (increases the likelihood the participant feels independent rather than imitating)

104
Q

What did the Boyanowsky and Trueman (1973) study find about the direction of cross-content generalization

A

Unidirectional, from visual to opinion items

105
Q

How did Boyanowksy and Trueman (1973) explain the unidirectional cross-content generalisation

A

Beliefs about physical reality (visual) are more central to our perception than less important matters of social reality- independence is likely to generalise from matters of physical to social reality only

106
Q

How did Boyanowksy and Trueman (1973) explain the role of the presence of the social supporter

A

The social supporter became an integral part of the situation for the subject’s independent behaviour, acting as a cue for dissent

107
Q

What are 2 social factors of the social support effect

A

Group reaction to dissent, causal attribution

108
Q

Social factors of social support effect- how does group reaction to dissent relate to social support

A

Participants expect a less negative reaction from the group with social support, as they have reduced expectations they will be rejected and thus feel less anxiety (Allen, 1964)

109
Q

Social factors of social support effect- how does causal attribution relate to social support

A

Reactions of the group will be affected by the perceived cause of an individual’s behaviour- if there is multiple deviates, causal attribution of behaviour is more likely to be based on situational factors than personality traits (that can easily be derogatory)

110
Q

Social factors of social support effect- study supporting how causal attribution relate to social support

A

Newston et al (1973)- situational rather than dispositional attribution increased as the no of dissenters increased

111
Q

Study showing effect of extreme erroneous dissent by social supporter in objective vs subjective tasks

A

Levine et al (1973)- in both II and NSI conditions, extreme erroneous dissent is only effective on visual items, meaning the presence of a partner (who gives same answer as participant) plays a greater role in conformity reduction on subjective items rather than objective items

112
Q

Levine et al (1973) study on extreme erroneous dissent by social supporter- why is a partner more important for subjective items than objective items?

A

Lack of group consensus has different implications for objective/subjective material- for visual matters subject to objective verification, agreement is expected so a dissenter can discredit the group, but for opinions there are many valid ‘correct’ answers and no expectation of group agreement, so conformity is only reduced if the subject has a partner

113
Q

How is a social supporter helpful as an independent assessment of reality

A

The social supporter provides a confirmation of physical and social reality when the subject, confronted by anomalous group behaviour, may feel they have lost contact with the external world (Allen, 1975)

114
Q

Social supporter as independent assessment of reality- how does the supporter reduce conformity when facing cognitive pressure

A

When the subject’s concern is response accuracy, the social supporter’s ability to provide valid information allows him to reduce conformity

115
Q

3 reasons conformity increases after social supporter ‘desertion’

A

The supporter is seen as credible due to their previous agreement with the subject. group credibility is increased when the supporter begins agreeing with them, the subject’s actions are now seen as more dispositional (Allen, 1975)

116
Q

What factor of ingroup/outgroup membership affects effectiveness of a social partner

A

Effectiveness is influenced by the partner’s group membership and relevance of beliefs to the subject’s identity as a member of the group exerting pressure

117
Q

Study supporting relevance of beliefs to subject’s identity as ingroup member as having an effect on social support effectiveness

A

Boyanowksy and Allen (1973)- for highly prejudiced subjects, a black social supporter was as effective as a white supporter in reducing conformity on visual perception and general social reality items, but less effective for opinion self-referent items

118
Q

Study supporting the in-group surveillance hypothesis for conformity

A

Boyanowsky (1970)- highly prejudiced subjects answering after a black accomplice avoided answering closely to them on opinion self-referent items even when there was no group pressure from white group members, especially when participants were told they be evaluated in a confrontation by the group afterwards

119
Q

Explain how the in-group surveillance hypothesis affects highly prejudiced individuals’ behaviour in Boyanowsky’s (1970) study

A

The subject attempts to accentuate the disagreement between his answer and the black participant’s, to maintain a self-identity as different as possible from an outgroup member under surveillance of ingroup members

120
Q

Festinger (1950)- what 3 things increase uniformity pressures

A

Degree of disagreement within the group, degree of relevance of the disagreement to group functioning, cohesiveness of the group

121
Q

Study showing effect of group cohesiveness on uniformity pressures

A

Back (1951)- pairs in high cohesive condition showed stronger tendency to influence one another in communication and change their answers towards their partner
Uniformity pressures were embodied in active attempts at mutual influence rather than just passive acceptance of the other’s opinion

122
Q

Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process- why do we seek similar others

A

We seek similar others in order to make informed comparisons (gain subjective valdity) and evaluate ourselves (appraise our abilities)

123
Q

Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process-what do we compromise between when seeking others

A

Wanting to be similar vs wanting to be better in ability than others- we seek situations where we can be slightly superior

124
Q

Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process- what is the effect of being different to others

A

Induces instability and uncertainty in self evaluation, meaning we are more likely to be influenced by others

125
Q

What is the fundamental issue with Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process compared to his 1950 uniformity pressure theory

A

In uniformity pressure, motivation to conform directly confers validity as it indicates one is right, but 1954 theory implies validation is indirect as the motivation to conform is to be similar to others to make more detailed comparisons rather than to be correct- this comparison could equally demonstrate one is incorrect

126
Q

Who criticised Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process and the need to compare with similar people

A

Goethals and Darley (1977)- the idea one only compares with similar rather than different people contains a paradox, as defining someone as different in the first place is itself a comparative judgement

127
Q

What solution did Goethals and Darley propose to the issue of Festinger’s 1954 theory

A

The related attributes hypothesis- we compare with people providing they are similar on background attributes related to and predictive of the opinion/ability being evaluated ie people who SHOULD be similar in opinion/ability
Fits with eg Tafjel and Turner’s (1986) intergroup relations theory

128
Q

Study supporting seeking out comparative information from others to reduce uncertainty about what one is feeling as a motive for affiliation

A

Schachter (1959)- participants in a high fear condition felt uncertainty about what to feel and how to react, so seek the company of others to compare themselves with and gain info about how to behave

129
Q

FOLLOW UP STUDY supporting seeking out comparative information from others to reduce uncertainty about what one is feeling as a motive for affiliation

A

Schachter (1959)- subjects only seek the company of those in a similar situation to them, as comparison with people in a different situation would not provide information appropriate for reducing uncertainty

130
Q

Deutsch and Gerrard- what increases NSI

A

Group belongingness and social interdependence, surveillance of one’s response

131
Q

Deutsch and Gerrard- what decreases NSI

A

Public and private commitment to some prior course of action producing conflicting expectations in others and oneself

132
Q

What is the inward effect of informational/normative influence

A

II- leads to private acceptance and internalization, long-lasting attitude change
NI- outward conformity but not necessarily inwards conformity

133
Q

What are the 3 processes of influence distinguished by Kelman (1958)

A

Compliance, internalization and identification

134
Q

What 2 of Kelman’s processes of influence are invovled in NSI

A

Compliance (based on others’ power to mediate rewards and costs) and identification (based on attraction to the other, can lead to acceptance of other’s values as long as the relationship is maintained)

135
Q

Under what conditions do people conform more to attractive groups than less attractive groups? (Turner, 1991)

A

They feel part of the group, they define the majority’s responses as the group norm, they perceive the basis of group cohesiveness as relevant to the task, or believe conformity is necessary for group acceptance

136
Q

What is Turner’s (1991) conclusion about NSI and II

A

NSI and II are rarely distinguishable in research data
Variables like group interdependence, cohesiveness and unanimity can exert their effects on conformity through one or both processes eg a cohesive group means mroe desire for approval (as they like the group more) and they will see the group as a more trustworthy source of information

137
Q

What do Keizer et al (2008) define as the Cialdini effect

A

If injunctive norm informatino ie an anti-graffitti sign is in conflict with descriptive norm information, it is less likely to be followed

138
Q

What is Keizer et al’s (2008) cross-norm inhibition effect

A

Cross-norm inhibition effect- violation of one norm fosters violation of other norms, as viewing inappropriate behaviour weakens one’s concern for appropriateness and strengthens conflicting hedonic and gain goals

139
Q

What did Keizer et al (2008) argue cross-norm inhibtion effect extends to

A

Police ordinances, also as effect when disorder is linked to visual cues eg hearing setting off of illegal fireworks

Psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions