PSY1001 WEEK 6

Question 1

define social influence

Answer 1

process whereby attitudes and behaviour are influenced by the real or implied presence of other people

Question 2

define compliance

Answer 2

attempts to persuade an individual to accept a request to respond in a desired way

Question 3

define obedience

Answer 3

performance of an action in direct response to an order from a figure in authority

Question 4

give a reason why compliance can work

Answer 4

reciprocity - key notion in social exchange, if someone gives us something we feel a need to give in return. deeply ingrained, found in multiple cultures

Question 5

state the 3 techniques for compliance

Answer 5

foot-in-door technique
door-in-face technique
low-balling

Question 6

explain foot-in-door technique

Answer 6

smaller request that virtually everyone agrees to, followed by larger target request. we are already committed to course of action and we have a change in views of self (“I must be type of person who support good causes”)

Question 7

what factors influence foot-in-door technique

Answer 7

individual differences, a desire to act consistently
same requester and same target requests

Question 8

explain a common study in foot-in-door technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966)

Answer 8

asked small request of households to display smaller poster “Keep California beautiful”, between-ppt design (some households didn’t receive poster)
then larger request of displaying a billboard, found small request increased compliance 55% vs 17%

Question 9

explain the door-in-face technique (including reciprocal concessions and social responsibilities and guilt)

Answer 9

larger request first that most will reject then followed by smaller more reasonable one
reciprocal concessions follows the norm to reciprocate as we recognise requester has made concessions so feel pressure to reciprocate and compromise
social responsiblity and guilt - large request indicates need and we feel obliged to help, accepting smaller request alleviates the guilt from our initial decline

Question 10

give a study for door-in-face technique (Cialdini et al, 1975)

Answer 10

large request of asking individuals to sign up to volunteer in youth offending centre often (betwee-ppt design)
smaller request was asked to chaperone group from centre to zoo one time
those receiving a large request first 3x more likely to comply

Question 11

explain compliance low balling

Answer 11

relies on fact we do not like to change mind after committment to course of action

Question 12

provide a study into low balling (Cialdini et al, 1978)

Answer 12

asked to ppt in a 7am study (half not told it is at 7am, only asked to ppt in)
when already said yes, committed to course of action and less likley to un-committ
low-balling = 53% followed through
control = 24% signed up

Question 13

give a real life example for low balling

Answer 13

for flight prices we see initial low cost and sign up, even though this doesn’t include many aspects

Question 14

give the key parts of Milgram electric shock study

Answer 14

increased shock up to 400v with 4 escalating prods from experimenter
found 65% gave full v, replicated in different countries and samples (Shanab & Yahya, 1977: Jordan)

Question 15

what were some pre-study expectations in Milgram electric shock study

Answer 15

110ppts (including 39 psychiatrics) predict not many higher than 150v, only 4% up to 300v, 1-2% to full volt

Question 16

how does agentic state explain Milgram electric shock study

Answer 16

instrument of another
increased psychological distance
little/no sense of personal responsibility

Question 17

state a few ethical considerations of Milgram

Answer 17

harm, deception, insufficient debriefs
ppts not immediately told shock is fake
transformed view of human behaviour = people viewed Nazi as evil so they felt better about self, however study made news impacting view on humankind
replications are impossible for current day

Question 18

give critical evaluation of Milgrams method

Answer 18

1. experimenter improvised prompts, was more coercive (Perry, 2013)
2. scepticism of cover story, 50% actually believe (Perry, 2013)
3. engaged fellowship: went along as identified with the experimenter
4. Milgram misrepresented debrief procedure (Nicholson, 2011)

Question 19

outline Sherif 1936 Autokinetic movement experiment (conformity)

Answer 19

dot stays stationary however illusion makes it look like lights slightly move
1. ppts judge privately
2. ppts judges in group - confederate shouts out answer
3. found ppt with extreme scores change answer to align with other

Question 20

outline Asch 1955 conformity experiment

Answer 20

sits in semi-circle with naive ppts last (every one else is confederate)
first 2 trials confederate answer correct
then false answer
25% ppt correct on all 12 trials
75% conformed to group on at least 1 trial, total error rate = 36.8%

Question 21

name an adaptation from Asch with their result

Answer 21

increasing gropu size 7-15 and thought conforming to norm would increase. found error rate with no. confederates was=

2: 13.6%
7: 31.7%
9: 35%
15: 31%

Question 22

what 3 factors does Turner say why people conform

Answer 22

1. informational influence
2. normative social influence: want of acceptance
3. referent informational influence: derive identity from majority response (conforming to group schema)

Question 23

give critical evaluations of Asch method

Answer 23

1. demand characteristics- didn’t want to ruin result
2. confusing situation: providing wrong answer to easy situation, may be wondering if something is off
3. ppts reported they conformed as didn’t want to spoil research or seem foolish. believed a victim of optical illusions, showing blind conformity wasn’t present

Question 24

what did Moscovici; Jetten & Hornsey critically evaluate from Asch (questions on aim)

Answer 24

Moscovici = does not show conformity but instead provides evidence of significant resistance level (every one time ppt conformed dissentedtwice, so more likely to resist majority than to conform)

Jetten & Hornsey = did the study display conformity or resistance? 25% resisted group norm pressure, 11% conformed in all trials

Question 25

define latent influence (type of minority influence)

Answer 25

majority members consider viewpoints over time, and over time align attitudes and behaviour with minority viewpoint. cause conversion effects

Question 26

outline Moscovici 1980 colour study (Minority influence)

Answer 26

2/6 of the group were confederates
blue slides called green
when consistent, 8% said they were green
inconsistent = 1.25%

Question 27

define social facilitation

Answer 27

enhancement of performance in presence of other people

Question 28

outline Triplett studies for social facilitation

Answer 28

cyclists faster with other compared to alone
ppts turn fishing crank faster and longer with other

Question 29

outline Zajonc explanation of social facilitation

Answer 29

presence of others leads to arousal, increasing a likelihood of performing dominant/habitual response
for simple/well practiced tasks the dominant response is appropriate
for difficult tasks, dominant responses incorrect

Question 30

give evidence for Zajonc theory (Markus, 1978)

Answer 30

in easy condition, remove shoes and then put back on
in difficult = remove shoes, socks etc and put on clothes
IV: alone or with confederate
easy task, audience facilitated performance
in other, inhibited the performance

Question 31

define social loafing

Answer 31

when individuals work as a group, they often generate less effort than if they worked alone

Question 32

where can we find social loafing

Answer 32

sports, writing, creativity, cognitive judgements

Question 33

what was Ringlemann tug of war results

Answer 33

a group force 50% less than sum of predicted individual force

Question 34

give 3 explanations for social loafing

Answer 34

1. evaluation apprehension (uninteresting task, group gives cover for anonymity)
2. output equity (expect others to also loaf. knowing info on teammates reduce social loafing)
3. matching to standard (people have no clear performance standard to match to)

Question 35

define deindividuation

Answer 35

being in group leads to weakened sense of personal identity; self-awareness diminishes, people feel anonymous and less personally responsible for their actions. can lead to antisocial behaviour