Social Influence

Question 1

asch’s study - aim

Answer 1

to investigate group pressure in an unambiguous situation

Question 2

asch’s study - method

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

asch’s study - results

Answer 3

on the critical trials, the true participant gave the wrong answer 1/3 of the time. 25% never gave a wrong answer.

Question 4

asch’s study - conclusion

Answer 4

people are influenced by group pressure, though many can resist.

Question 5

asch’s study - evaluation points

Answer 5

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)

Question 6

conformity - social factors

Answer 6

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

Question 7

social factors in conformity - evaluation points

Answer 7

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

Question 8

conformity - dispositional factors

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

dispositional factors in conformity - evaluation points

Answer 9

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

Question 10

milgram’s study - aim

Answer 10

to investigate if Germans are different in terms of obedience

Question 11

milgram’s study - method

Answer 11

40 male volunteers. ‘teacher’ instructed by experimenter to give a shock if ‘learner’ answered a question incorrectly’.

Question 12

milgram’s study - results

Answer 12

no participant (teacher) stopped below 300 volts. 12.5% stopped at 300. 65% stopped shocked to 450V. extreme tension, e.g. three had seizures.

Question 13

milgram’s study - conclusion

Answer 13

obedience related to social factors not disposition, e.g. location, novel situation

Question 14

milgram’s study - evaluation points

Answer 14

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

Question 15

agency (agentic vs. autonomous states)

Answer 15

agentic state: follow orders ith no responsibility

autonomous state: own free choice

Question 16

authority (agentic shift)

Answer 16

agentic shift: moving from making own free choices to following orders (occurs when someone is near an authority figure)

Question 17

the social hierarchy (milgram’s agency theory)

Answer 17

some people have more authority than others. hierarchy depends on society and socialisation.

Question 18

proximity (milgram’s agency theory)

Answer 18

participants were less obedient in Milgram’s study when in the same room as the learner due to increased ‘moral strain’

Question 19

social factors in obedience - milgram’s agency theory - evaluation points

Answer 19

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

Question 20

authoritarian personality (adorno’s theory)

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

dispositional factors in obedience - adorno’s theory - evaluation points

Answer 21

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

Question 22

piliavin’s subway study - aim

Answer 22

to investigate if characteristics of a victim affect help given in an emergency

Question 23

piliavin’s subway study - method

Answer 23

male confederate collapsed on subway, 103 trials; victim appeared to be drunk or disabled (had a cane)

Question 24

piliavin’s study - results

Answer 24

disabled victim given help on 95% of trials compared to 50% helped when drunk

help was as likely in crowded and empty carriages

Question 25

pilliavin’s study - conclusion

Answer 25

characteristics of victim affects help given

number of onlookers doesn’t affect help in natural setting

Question 26

pilliavin’s subway study - evaluation points

Answer 26

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

Question 27

social factors in prosocial behaviour

Answer 27

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

Question 28

social factors in prosocial behaviour - evaluation points

Answer 28

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)

Question 29

dispositional factors in prosocial behaviour

Answer 29

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.)

Question 30

dispositional factors in prosocial behaviour - evaluation points

Answer 30

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.)

Question 31

deindividuation

Answer 31

crowds experience deinduviduation leading to reduced sense of responsibility and antisocial behaviour (LeBon)

Question 32

zimbardo’s study - aim

Answer 32

to study the effects of loss of individual identity

Question 33

zimbardo’s study - method

Answer 33

female participants told to deliver fake electric shocks

individuated group wore normal clothes

deindividuated group wore large coat with hood

Question 34

zimbardo’s study - results

Answer 34

deindividuated more likely to shock person and held down shock button twice as long

Question 35

zimbardo’s study - conclusion

Answer 35

this shows being anonymous increases aggression

Question 36

zimbardo’s study - evaluation points

Answer 36

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)

Question 37

reicher’s study - aim

Answer 37

to investigate crowd behaviour to see if it was ruly or unruly

Question 38

reicher’s study - method

Answer 38

studied newspaper and TV reports

interviewed twenty people, six in depth

Question 39

reicher’s study - results

Answer 39

riot triggered by polic raiding café which community felt was unjust

crowd threw bricks, burnt police cars but calmed when police left

Question 40

zimbardo’s study - conclusion

Answer 40

shows damage was rule-driven and targeted at police, reflecting social attitude of area

Question 41

zimbardo’s study - evaluation points

Answer 41

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

Question 42

social factors in crowd and collective behaviour

Answer 42

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)

Question 43

social factors in crowd and collective behaviour - evaluation points

Answer 43

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

Question 44

dispositional factors in crowd and collective behaviour

Answer 44

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

Question 45

dispositional factors in crowd and collective behaviour - evaluation points

Answer 45

whistleblowing - personslity made no difference (Bocchiaro et al.)

real examples - Sophie Scholl sacrifirced her life rather than following group behaviour