not needed Flashcards
xxxxxWhat is reciprocity?
Brazelton research
Infants coordinated their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation. There is a rhythm of taking turns.
Brazelton - precursor to later communications, the sensitivity to infant behaviour lays foundation for attachment.
xxxxxWhat is interactional synchrony?
Meltzoff and Moore study
Infants as young as 2 weeks old imitated specific facial and hand gestures.
Adult modelled a facial expression, dummy was removed and child’s expression was filmed on video.
This same synchrony was seen at 3 days old showing this behaviour is innate.
xxxxxWhat is pseudo-imitation?
This imitation may not be intentional. It could be a result of operant conditioning. When a child copies the expression, the adult smiles, a kind of reward. The infant hasn’t actually translated what they see as a matching movement.
Two months old were also studied and no reaction was given to their expression, they showed distress meaning they are active in the ‘conversation’ and intentional. These behaviours must be innate.
xxxxxCaregiver-infant interactions evaluation
Problems - babies are constantly moving and the tested movements tend to occur frequently. So it could be unreliable.
Intentionality supported - infants did not react to inanimate objects, this is an innate social tool to respond to other humans.
The value of the research - the interaction helps infants to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling, this is key for forming social relationships.
xxxxxWhat are the stages of attachment?
Indiscriminate - up until 2 months there is a similar response to all objects.
The beginnings of attachment - at 4 months infants become more social, preference for human company and do not yet show stranger anxiety.
Discriminate - by 7 months separation anxiety and show most comfort with primary attachment figure. Schaffer and Emerson - response to signals and interaction mattered most in attachment.
Multiple - within one month of first attachment, 29% had multiple. Separation anxiety is also seen in these relationships.
xxxxxThe development of attachment evaluation
Unreliable data - based on mother’s reports, some may have been less sensitive and so less likely to report them, creating systematic bias.
Cultural variations - in individualist cultures people are concerned with their own needs whereas in collectivist cultures they are more concerned with the group. The stage model specifically applies to individualist cultures.
Stage theories - it is inflexible and problematic if set as the standard by which families are judged and classed abnormal.
xxxTypes of conformity and what they mean
Compliance: conforming to gain approval.
Internalisation: conforming because of an acceptance of their views.
Identification: accepting influence because of a desire to be associated with a group.
xxxExplanations for conformity
Normative: conformity based on the desire for approval. Occurs if they believe they are under surveillance by the group.
Informational: based on an acceptance of info as evidence about reality. Occurs in an ambiguous situation where other are experts.
xxxTypes of conformity evaluation
Difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation.
Research support for normative - smoking take up (Linkenbach and Perkins).
Research support for informational - attitudes about African Americans (Wittenbrink and Henley).
xxxAsch Procedure (variables affecting conformity)
Participants viewed lines of different lengths and compared them to a standard line.
Group contained confederates with participants answering second to last.
Conf. gave same wrong answer on 12/18 trials.
xxxAsch findings
Conformity rate was 33%
Without confederates participants made mistakes 1% of the time.
Participants conformed to avoid disapproval.
xxxVariables affecting conformity
Group size - conformity increased to 30% with a group size of 3.
Unanimity of the majority - with one dissenter giving right answer, conformity was 5.5%
Difficulty of the task - if correct answer was less obvious, conformity was higher.
xxxEvaluation of variables affecting conformity
Asch’s research was a child of its time - communism in America meant people didn’t want to appear as different.
Independent behaviour rather than conformity - independence was maintained on 2/3 of trials.
Cultural differences - Smith et al. found conformity rates higher in collectivist cultures such as China.
xxxThe Stanford Prison Experiment procedure - Zimbardo (conformity to social roles)
Male volunteers assigned roles of prisoner or guard.
Prisoners referred to by numbers only and guards given uniform and power to make rules.
Guards became tyrannical and abusive.
Prisoners conformed to their role with some showing extreme reactions of crying and rage.
xxxBBC Prison Study - Reicher and Haslam
Male volunteers assigned as prisoner or guard.
Neither guard or prisoner conformed to their role.
Prisoners worked collectively to challenge authority of guards, resulting in power shift.
xxxEvaluation of conformity to social roles
Conformity to roles is not automatic - H&R argue guards chose how to behave rather than blindly conforming.
Response to demand characteristics - Banvaszizi and Movahedi.
Zimbardo’s study followed ethical guidelines but they still suffered.
xxxSocial change through minority influence
Drawing attention to an issue.
Minority creates conflict between minority and majority.
Minorities are more influential when they express their views consistently.
Augmentation principle - minority more influential if they suffer for their views.
Snowball effect - an initial small effect that spreads more widely until it reaches a tipping point.
xxxSocial change through majority influence
If something is seen as the norm, people will alter their behaviour to fit the norm.
Correcting misperceptions about actual norms using social norms intervention.
‘Most of us don’t drink and drive campaign’ resulted in a 13.7% drop in drink driving.
xxxEvaluation of social change
Being perceived as deviant limits the influence of minorities.
Social change through minority influence is gradual.
Social norms interventions have their limitations - not all have led to social change (DeJong et al).
