Social facilitation Flashcards
Asch 1951
Conformity
Showed how people easily agree in a group even when they are wrong, also demonstrates various factors on conformity.
Zimbardo 1971
Identification
People are influenced by the situation and social roel expectations. “Sadistic guards” “passive prisoners” become extreme and stopped after 6 days
Milgram 1963
Obedience
Showed the power of the situation in influencing behaviour, 65% went up to 450V (kill someone) and 100% 275V
Hofling 1966
Obedience
Power of situation and of authority figure.
Nurses study 21/22
Moscivici 1976
Conformity
Often the minority can influence the majority if the are sure of themselves.
Out of date study
Obedience
Involved someone taking orders from a perceived authority figure.
Who are like to conform?
- If other people can see what they are doing.
- There are three or more in a group.
- All the others agree with each other.
How many percent did not obey in Milgrams electric shock study?
35%
Agentic theory
An explanation for obedience, individuals see themselves as AGENTS for a higher authority therefore not responsible for their own actions
Ambiguous task
A task which doesn’t have a clear answer
Asch paradigm
The method pioneered by Asch in which stooges are used to test the behaviour of an innocent participant.
Demand characteristics
People who try to interpret the situation the way they think the researches want them to.
Informational influence
Pressure to conform due to the belief that others know better and are more expert
Membership group
Group to which a person belongs
Family, friends, religion, ethnicity
Normative influence
Pressure to conform to a norm group through fear of rejection
Reference group
Group to which a person doesn’t belong but they aspire or admire and so are influenced by
Pop stars, film stars
Aschs Line discrimination task
- 7 participants in 1 group only 1 is naive the rest are stooges.
- the stooges where wrong on 12/18 trials.
- true participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials where confederates gave the wrong answer.
- 75% conformed at least once.
Evaluation of Asch’s study
- lacks ecological validity
- sampling issues (gender bias)
- lacks population validity (gender bias)
- deception and lack of conformed consent by the participants.
- he did debrief at the end.
- ethics not in place yet
- cultural bias
Jenness bean jar experiment
Conformity study
Successful, showed majority influence and proving that people are influenced by a group and is an example of informational social influence.
Normative influence
The desire to be liked and fit in with a group.
Informational influence
The desire to be right and therefore conform in situations where we lack knowledge.
Can lead to internalisation.
Milgrams shock study
PRODS USED
Tested the idea of why the Germans where willing to kill the Jews.
Prods: Please continue The experiment requires you to continue It is absolutely nessacary you continue You have no other choice but to continue.
Results of Milgrams shock study
- all participants went to 300V
- 65% went to 450V
Evaluation of Milgrams shock study
- lacks ecological validity
- artificial setting (Lab)
- sample bias (men used)
- can’t generalise
- shows blind obedience (jews&germans)
- standardised procedure
- wore a lab coat (authority figure)
Ethical issues with Milgrams study
- Deception
- 83.7% of people said they were happy they’d taken part
- 1.3% weren’t
- protection of participants ( showed signs of stress and psychological harm)
- he did debrief and interviewed them a year later
The agentic state
Feeling controlled by an authority figure lacking responsibility.
Sherif 1935
Conformity study
People change their opinions when in a group.
What is social influence?
Efforts by one or mine individuals to change the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions or behaviours of one or more others. (Baron et al 2006)
Social influence may occur though real or imagined pressure.
Example of a social/norm group?
Kitty genovese’s death
The by stander effect.
In a situation of ambiguity people will not act an look for guidance.
The diffusion of responsibility.
Define conformity
Crutchfield 1955 “yelding to a group pressure real or imagined”
It’s a form of social influence in which individuals might change there attitudes, beliefs or behaviours in order to adhere to existing social Norms as a result of real or imagined pressure.
Internalisation
Accepting the majority view and believing it to be correct.
Private acceptance, this is the deepest type of conformity an persists after the pressure is removed.
Sherif 1939
Internalisation
To investigate wether people are influenced by others when the answer is unclear
Autokenetic effect : groups of 3
They conformed to the majority an reached a group conclusion even through they weren’t asked to
Evaluation of sherif
- didn’t ask to reach a group Answer
- lab experiment high control over EVs
- artificial environment no ecological validity
- deception
Factors effecting conformity
SAT UP
S- size of majority (2=13% 3=33%) A- anonymity ( dropped by 12%) T- task difficulty (Perrin and spencer performed ii with British maths, chemistry and engineering students. U- unanimity ( partners dropped 5.5%) P- personality ( self esteem)
Factors effecting obedience
LAPPS
L- location (run down block dropped by 47.5%)
A- a peer administration ( rose to 92.5%)
P- proximity ( authority figure dropped to 20.5%)
P- proximity ( victim dropped to 40%)
S- social support ( group of 3 dropped to 10%) one stopper at 150 the other at 210
Autonomous state
Will obey a authority figure of there own conscious free to take responsibility for our actions, our normal operating state
Adorno et Al 1950 authoritarian personality
- submits to authority of those with higher position ( status/power)
- is hostile with those lower then them
- shows excessive blind obedience to authority
- preoccupation with power
Evaluation of authoritarian personality
Hym&sheatly found this is more common in the less educated an less economic status
Crutchfield said that genuinely submissive personality is linked to personality, conformity, obedience
Feldman and scheibe 1972
Defiance of authority
Students fill in a embarrassing questionnaire 2 groups identified social support
Evaluation of Feldman and sheibe
Loss of freedom, feel manipulated Role models&support Personal experience (one of Milgrams wouldn't go over 210V coz of Being in a concentration camp)
Zajonc et al 1969 cockroach study
Cockroaches ran down 2 paths one complicated and one straight the cockroaches were faster with an audience in the straight path bit slower in the complicated.
Define social facilitation
Is the enhancement of task performance caused by the mere presence of other people.
Define Social inhibition
Reduction of task performance caused by the mere presence of other people.
Arousal theory
When other people are around it causes us to be in a state of alertness or arousal. According to Zajonc this arousal acts as a drive to bring out the dominant response.
Michaels et al 1982 pool players
To investigate wether the presence of an Audience would affect a average or below average pool player
Average pool players increased there accuracy by 9% and the below average decreased by 11%
Evaluation of Michaels
Arousal theory supported by Zajonc’s cockroaches and Michaels
It doesn’t acknowledge cognitive processes, yarkes bids on law of too much arousal affects performance as arousal levels reach optimum level
Define Evaluation apprehension theory
Cottrell 1968 it isn’t the mere presence of others that causes arousal it’s the apprehension and anxiety of being evaluated or judged by others
Bartis et al 1988 knife uses
Bartis conducted a study to investigate whether or not evolution apprehension would lead to improvement in performance on a simple task and inhibition of performance on a complicated task
Evaluation of apprehension theory
- Supported by Bartis et al
- There is further support from studies were the audience where blind folded so no evaluation
- Doesn’t explain social facilitation in animals
- may not be the only cause of arousal there may be other factors such as distraction
Distraction conflict theory
Baron 1986 the presence of others is distracting causing the attention to become divided between the audience and task
Sanders et al 1978 digit copying task
Participants in the distracting condition made more mistakes on the complex task but less on the simple task
Evaluation of distraction conflict theory
Supported by Zajonc’s cockroaches
Supported by sanders distraction
Can be applied to any distraction stimuli
Can explain social facilitation in animals
