Social Influence Flashcards
asch’s study - aim
to investigate group pressure in an unambiguous situation
asch’s study - method
123 american men. two cards - one with a standard line and the other with three comparison lines. there were 12 critical trials where confederates gave the wrong answer.
asch’s study - results
on the critical trials, the true participant gave the wrong answer 1/3 of the time. 25% never gave a wrong answer.
asch’s study - conclusion
people are influenced by group pressure, though many can resist.
asch’s study - evaluation points
child of the times - only reflective of conformity in 1950’s America, much less conformity in 1980 UK study (Perrin and Spencer)
artificial task - the task was trivial and the situation involved strangers, so it doesn’t reflect everyday situations
cultural difference - results can’t be generalised to collectivist cultures where rates are higher (Bond and Smith)
conformity - social factors
group size - two confederates = 13.6% conformity, three confederates = 31.8%, more than three made little difference
anonymity - writing answer down is anonymous, and conformity is lower
task difficulty - if comparison lines more similar to standard this makes task harder, conformity increases
social factors in conformity - evaluation points
group size - depends on task: when no obvious answer then no conformity until group is 8+ people
anonymity - strangers vs. friends: if participant are friends or opinion is anonymous conformity is higher
task difficulty - expertise: people with more expertise are less affected by task difficulty
conformity - dispositional factors
personality - high internal locus of control, conform less. Burger and Cooper found internals less likely to agree with a confederate’s ratings of a cartoon.
expertise - more knowledgeable people conform less. Lucas found that maths experts less likely to conform to others’ answers on maths problems.
dispositional factors in conformity - evaluation points
personality - familiarity of situaiton: control is less important in familiar situations (Rotter)
expertise - no single factor: maths experts may conform in a group of strangers in order to be liked
milgram’s study - aim
to investigate if Germans are different in terms of obedience
milgram’s study - method
40 male volunteers. ‘teacher’ instructed by experimenter to give a shock if ‘learner’ answered a question incorrectly’.
milgram’s study - results
no participant (teacher) stopped below 300 volts. 12.5% stopped at 300. 65% stopped shocked to 450V. extreme tension, e.g. three had seizures.
milgram’s study - conclusion
obedience related to social factors not disposition, e.g. location, novel situation
milgram’s study - evaluation points
lacked realism - participants may not have believed shocks were real (Perry)
supported by other research - Sheridan and King found 100% females followed orders to give fatal shock to a puppy
ethical issues - participants distressed, caused psychological harm; such research brings psychology into disrepute
agency (agentic vs. autonomous states)
agentic state: follow orders ith no responsibility
autonomous state: own free choice
authority (agentic shift)
agentic shift: moving from making own free choices to following orders (occurs when someone is near an authority figure)
the social hierarchy (milgram’s agency theory)
some people have more authority than others. hierarchy depends on society and socialisation.
proximity (milgram’s agency theory)
participants were less obedient in Milgram’s study when in the same room as the learner due to increased ‘moral strain’
social factors in obedience - milgram’s agency theory - evaluation points
research support - Blass and Schmitt showed students a film of Milgram’s study, and they blamed the experimenter rather than the participants
- can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience in Milgram’s study
obedience alibi - the agency theory offers an excuse for destructive behaviour, which is potentially dangerous
authoritarian personality (adorno’s theory)
- some people have a strong respect for authority and look down on people of lower status
- rigid stereotypes anddon’t like change
- strict parents only show love if behaviour is correct, and parent’s values are internalised
- hostility felt towards parents for being critical is put onto people who are socially inferior
dispositional factors in obedience - adorno’s theory - evaluation points
lack of support - authoritarian personality measured on F-scale, which has response bias
correlational results - can’t say authoritarian personality causes greater obedience
social and dispositional - germans were obedient but did not all have the same upbringing, so social factors must also be involved
piliavin’s subway study - aim
to investigate if characteristics of a victim affect help given in an emergency
piliavin’s subway study - method
male confederate collapsed on subway, 103 trials; victim appeared to be drunk or disabled (had a cane)
piliavin’s study - results
disabled victim given help on 95% of trials compared to 50% helped when drunk
help was as likely in crowded and empty carriages
pilliavin’s study - conclusion
characteristics of victim affects help given
number of onlookers doesn’t affect help in natural setting
pilliavin’s subway study - evaluation points
high realism - participants didn’t know their behaviour was being studied, so acted more naturally
urban sample - participants from the city so may be used to emergencies
qualitative data - observers noted remarks from passengers giving deeper insights into why
social factors in prosocial behaviour
presence of others - the more people present the less likely someone will help. Darley and Latané found that 85% on own helped person with seizure but only 31% in a group of four
cost of helping - includes danger to self or embarassment. also costs of not helping e.g. guilt or blame
social factors in prosocial behaviour - evaluation points
depends on situation - in serious emergencies response correlated to sverity of situation (Faul et al.)
interpretation of situation - if it is a married couple arguing only 19% intervened versus 85% if attacker appeared to be a stranger (Shotland and Straw)
dispositional factors in prosocial behaviour
similarity to victim - help more likely if victim is similar to self, e.g. Manchester fans help people wearing Man U shirt (Levine et al.)
expertise - people with specialist skills more likely to help in emergencies, e.g. registered nurses helping a workman (Cramer et al.)
dispositional factors in prosocial behaviour - evaluation points
high costs - high costs or ambiguous situation means help isn’t forthcoming
affects only quality of help - red cross trained were no more likely to give help than untrained people, but gave higher quality help (Shotland et al.)
deindividuation
crowds experience deinduviduation leading to reduced sense of responsibility and antisocial behaviour (LeBon)
zimbardo’s study - aim
to study the effects of loss of individual identity
zimbardo’s study - method
female participants told to deliver fake electric shocks
individuated group wore normal clothes
deindividuated group wore large coat with hood
zimbardo’s study - results
deindividuated more likely to shock person and held down shock button twice as long
zimbardo’s study - conclusion
this shows being anonymous increases aggression
zimbardo’s study - evaluation points
not always anitsocial - prosocial group norm (e.g. nurses) leads to less antisocial behaviour than antisocial group norm (KKK) (Johnson and Downing)
real-world application - manage sporting crowds using video cameras to increase self-awareness
crowding - feeling packed together created aggression (Freedman)
reicher’s study - aim
to investigate crowd behaviour to see if it was ruly or unruly
reicher’s study - method
studied newspaper and TV reports
interviewed twenty people, six in depth
reicher’s study - results
riot triggered by polic raiding café which community felt was unjust
crowd threw bricks, burnt police cars but calmed when police left
zimbardo’s study - conclusion
shows damage was rule-driven and targeted at police, reflecting social attitude of area
zimbardo’s study - evaluation points
supported by research - football hooligans’ violence doesn’t escalate beyond a certain point (Marsh)
issues with methodology - sutdy is based on eyewitness testimony so data may be biased
real-world application - increasing police presence doesn’t lead to a decrease in violence
social factors in crowd and collective behaviour
deindividuation - group norms determine crowd behaviour
social loafing - when working in a group people put in less effort as you can’t identify individual effort. Latané et al. found participants individually shouted less when in a group or six than when tested alone
culture - Earley found Chinese people (collectivist culture) put in amount of effort even if amount can’t be identified. this is not true of Americans (individualist)
social factors in crowd and collective behaviour - evaluation points
crowding - being packed tightly together is unpleasant, may explain antisocial behaviour (Freedman)
depends on task - on creative tasks, e.g. brainstorming, people individually produce more when in groups
overgeneralised - people belong to more than one culture so hard to make generalisations
dispositional factors in crowd and collective behaviour
personality - high locus of control enables individuals to be less influenced by crowd behaviour
morality - strong sense of right and wrong helps resist pressure from group norms
dispositional factors in crowd and collective behaviour - evaluation points
whistleblowing - personslity made no difference (Bocchiaro et al.)
real examples - Sophie Scholl sacrifirced her life rather than following group behaviour
