Short Answer Chp 7-9 Flashcards
Define social influence.
The term social influence refers to ways in which people are affected by the real and imagined pressures of others.
Distinguish three forms of social influence: conformity, compliance, and obedience.
Conformity, compliance and obedience vary in the degree of pressure exerted on an individual. They are not distinct “types” of influence. The influence may emanate from a group, a person, or an institution. The behaviour in question may be constructive (helpful), destructive (hurtful), or neutral. Social influence varies, as points along a continuum, according to the degree of pressure exerted on the individual. We do not always succumb to pressure. People may conform to maintain their independence from others; they may comply with direct requests or react with assertiveness; they may obey commands of authority or oppose powerful others in an act of defiance.
Distinguish between normative and informational influence.
Informational influence is the influence that produces conformity when a person believes others are correct in their judgments.
Normative influence is the influence that produces conformity when a person fears the negative social consequences of appearing deviant.
Distinguish between public conformity and private conformity.
Private conformity is the change in beliefs that occurs when a person privately accepts the position taken by others.
Public conformity is a superficial change in overt behaviour, without a corresponding change of opinion, produced by real or imagined group pressure.
Distinguish between majority and minority influence. Explain the different processes by which majorities and minorities can exert pressure to affect people’s behaviour.
Conformity increases with group size, but only to a point. Beyond the presence of three or four, additions to a group, are subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Ex: When a second light bulb is added to a room, the results are dramatic. When a tenth light is added, you can’t notice it.
Also, when more and more people express the same opinion, an individual is likely to suspect that they are acting either “in collusion”, or as a “spineless sheep”.
The size of the majority may influence the amount of pressure that is felt, but social norms give rise to conformity only when we know about and focus on those norms. (ex: See trash on the ground at an event, conform to littering, or, everyone is drinking at a party, might as well do it too).
This seems obvious, but people often misperceive what is normative-especially if others are too shy or embarrassed to publicly present their true feelings and thoughts.
Minority Influence:
The process by which dissenters produce change within a group.
Style: Majorities are powerful by virtue of their sheer numbers alone, while nonconformists derive power from the style of their behaviour. To exert influence, those in the minority must be forceful, persistent, and unwavering in support of their position. Yet at the same time, appear flexible and open-minded.
Why does a consistent behaviour style prove effective? Unwavering repetition draws attention from those in the mainstream, which is a necessary first step to social influence. Consistency also signals that the dissenter is unlikely to yield. 247
Majorities and minorities exert influence in very different ways. Majorities, because they have power and control, elicit public conformity by bringing stressful normative pressures to bear on the individual. But minorities, because they are seen as seriously committed to their views, produce a deeper and more lasting form of private conformity, or conversion, by leading others to rethink their original positions.
Explain how normative and informational influence and public and private conformity operate in Sherif’s and Asch’s studies.
Sherif’s study is an example of informational influence and private acceptance. He used an ambiguous task, so others provided a source of information and influenced the participants’ true opinions.
Asch’s study is an example of normative influence and public conformity. He used a task that required simple judgments of a clear stimulus, so most participants exhibited occasional public conformity in response to normative pressure but privately did not accept the groups’ judgments.
Compare several two-step request techniques that are effective in influencing compliance.
The foot in the door technique: A two-step compliance technique in which an influencer sets the stage for the real request by first getting a person to comply with a much smaller request.
Low Balling: A two-step compliance technique in which the influencer secures agreement with a request but then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs.
The door in the face: A two-step compliance technique in which an influencer prefaces the real request with one that is so large that it is rejected.
That’s Not All, Folks! A two-step compliance technique in which the influencer begins with an inflated request, and then decreases its apparent size by offering a discount or bonus.
Explain why the foot-in-the-door technique works.
One reason is based on self-perception theory- people infer their attitudes by observing their own behaviour. This is a two-step process at work. First, but observing your own behaviour in the first situation, you come to see yourself as the kind of person who is generally cooperative when approached with a request.
Second, when confronted with the heavier request, you seek to respond in ways that confirm this new self-image.
Explain why the low-balling technique works.
Even though people may suspect that they have been misled, they still go along with the sale. Why? One reason appears to be based on psychological commitment. Once people make a decision, they justify it to themselves by thinking of all its positive aspects. As they grow increasingly committed to a course of action, they grow resistant to changing their mind.
Another form of commitment is also at play. People feel a nagging sense of unfulfilled obligation to the person with whom they negotiated.
Explain why the door-in-the-face technique works.
One reason why this technique works may involve the principle of perceptual contrast. To the person exposed to a very large initial request, the second request seems smaller.
Another explanation for the effect involves the notion of reciprocal concessions. This refers to the pressure to respond to bargaining position. When a person backs down from a large request to a smaller one, we view that move as a concession that we should match by our own compliance.
Explain why the “that’s-not-all” technique works.
This request attempts to use concession without first eliciting refusal.
Briefly describes the hypothesis, research design, procedure, and results of Stanley Milgram’s original experiment on obedience to authority.
Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.
The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the 'learner' and who would be the 'teacher.' The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram's confederates (pretending to be a real participant). The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX). Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.
Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.
Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, who was a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram).
They drew straws to determine their roles - learner or teacher - although this was fixed and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).
Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used - one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the “teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger - severe shock).The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.
There were four prods and if one was not obeyed, then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.
Prod 1: Please continue.
Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.
65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Milgram did more than one experiment - he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).
****https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.htm
Describe the social impact theory. Identify the factors that influence the source’s impact ad the target’s resistance.
Social impact theory: The theory that social influence depends on the strength, immediacy and number of source persons relative to target persons.
The strength of a source is determined by his or her status, ability, or relationship to the target. The stronger the source, the greater the influence.
Immediacy refers to a source’s proximity in time and space to the target. The closer the source, the greater its impact.
As the number of sources increases, so does their influence.
Briefly describes the hypothesis, research design, procedure, and results of Stanley Milgram’s original experiment on obedience to authority.
Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.
The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the 'learner' and who would be the 'teacher.' The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram's confederates (pretending to be a real participant). The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX). Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.
Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.
Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, who was a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram).
They drew straws to determine their roles - learner or teacher - although this was fixed and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).
Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used - one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the “teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger - severe shock). The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.
There were four prods and if one was not obeyed, then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.
Prod 1: Please continue.
Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.
65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Milgram did more than one experiment - he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).
****https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.htm
List the variables that affected the level of obedience in Milgram’s series of experiments on obedience to authority. Summarizes how each of these variables affected the level of obedience in the studies.
office building: when Milgram diminished the experimenter’s status by moving his lab from the distinguished surroundings of Yale University to a rundown urban office building the rate of total obedience dropped to 48%
ordinary person in charge: when the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary person there was a reduction to 20% obedience.
experimenter in remote location: when the experimenter issued his commands by telephone, only 21% fully obeyed.
victim in the same room as a participant: only 40% fully obeyed.
participant required to touch victim: full obedience dropped to 30%
two confederates rebel: reduced to 10% obedience
Describe how the participants in the Milgram study behaved differently from the participants in the Gamson et al, study, and explain why.
Milgram’s study produced passive obedience and Gamson’s study produced passionate revolt.
One key difference is that people in Milgram’s studies took part alone, and those in Gamson’s were in groups.
Describe the social impact theory. Identify the factors that influence the source’s impact and the target’s resistance.
Latane (1981) proposed social impact theory - states that social influence of any kind, the total impact of others on a target person - is a function of the others’ strength, immediacy, and number.
Social impact theory also predicts that people sometimes resist social pressure. According to Latane, this resistance is most likely to occur when social impact is divided among many strong and distant targets.
Explain how the social impact theory is relevant to conformity, compliance, and obedience.
conformity - when people view the other members as competent, they are more likely to conform in their judgments.
compliance - sources enhance their strength by making targets feel obligated to reciprocate a small favour.
obedience - is elicited when authority figures gain strength by wearing uniforms or flaunting their presigious affiliations.
Group members’ attitudes about a course of action usually becomes more moderate after group discussion.
FALSE - Group discussion often causes attitudes to become more extreme as the initial tendencies of the group are exaggerated.
Groups are less likely than individuals to invest more and more resources in a project that is failing.
FALSE - Although individuals often feel entrapped by previous commitments and make things worse by throwing good money (and other resources) after bad, groups are even more prone to having this problem.
Large groups are more likely than small groups to exploit a scarce resource that the members collectively depend on.
TRUE - Large groups are more likely to behave selfishly when faced with resource dilemmas, in part because people in large groups feel less identifiable and more anonymous.
When all members of a group give an incorrect response to any question, most people most of the time conform to that response.
FALSE
An effective way to get someone to do you a favour is to make a first request that is so large the person is sure to reject it.
TRUE
In experiments on obedience, most participants who were ordered to administer severe shocks to an innocent person refused to do so.
FALSE
As the number of people in a group increase, so does the impact on an individual.
FALSE
Conformity rates vary across different cultures and from one generation to the next.
TRUE
People seek out the company of others, even strangers, in times of stress. T/F
True - Research has shown that external threat causes stress and leads people to affiliate with others who are facing or have faced a similar threat.
Infants do not discriminate between faces considered attractive and unattractive in their culture.
FALSE - Two-month-old infants spend more time gazing at attractive than unattractive facing, indicating that they do make the distinction.
People who are physically attractive are happier and have higher self-esteem than those who are unattractive.
FALSE - Attractive people are at an advantage in their social lives, but they are not happier, better adjusted, or higher in self-esteem.
When it comes to romantic relationships, opposites attract.
FALSE - Consistently, people are attracted to others who are similar - not opposite or complimentary - on a whole range of dimensions.
Men are more likely than women to interpret friendly gestures by the opposite sex in sexual terms.
TRUE - Experiments have shown that men are more likely than women to interpret friendly opposite-sex interactions as sexual come-ons.
After the honeymoon period, there is an overall decline in levels of marital satisfaction.
TRUE - High marital satisfaction levels among newlyweds are often followed by a measurable decline during the first year and then, after a period of stabilization, by another decline at about the eighth year - a pattern found among parents and non-parents alike.
Distinguish between a group and a collective.
Define social facilitation. Explain how, according to Zajonc, the mere presence of others affects performance of different tasks.
Describe two alternative explanations for the social facilitation phenomenon.
The two alternative explanations for social facilitation phenomenon are mere presence theory, evaluation apprehension theory, distraction-conflict theory.
Mere presence theory is a theory holding that the mere presence of others is sufficient to produce social facilitation effects.
Evaluation apprehension theory proposes that performance will be enhanced or impaired only in the presence of others who are in a position to evaluate that performance.
Distraction-conflict theory is a theory holding that the presence of others will produce social facilitation effects only when those others distract from the task and create attentional conflict.
