Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

psychology > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

1
Q

aim of aschs study

A

conformity due to group pressure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

results of aschs study

A

36.8% agreed and gave wrong answer
25% never gave wrong answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

conclusion of aschs study

A

people influenced by group pressure
also high level independence
participants went against group opinion
resisting pressure to conform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

weakness of aschs study

A

relevant to 1950s america
conformist times
mccarthyism so scared to behave differently
asch effect only applicable in some situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

weakness of aschs study

A

artificial task and situation
doesn’t reflect everyday situations as it’s with strangers
trivial task
may not be generalised to situations where not conforming consequences are more important

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

weakness of aschs study

A

reflective of individualist cultures eg in america and uk
some cultures focus much more on community eg putting family in consideration when choosing a partner
conformity in collective cultures increased
more oriented to group needs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

dispositional factors to conformity

A

about you
your disposition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

social factors to conformity

A

features of surrounding areas hat make you feel stronger pressure
depends on group around you

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

social factor: group size

A

more people greater pressure up to a point
2 confederates 13.6%
3 confederates 31.8%
adding confederates made little difference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

weakness of social factor: group size

A

diff effects based on task eg music preferences
group side does matter as there’s no right answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

social factor: anonymity

A

conformity lower

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

weakness of anonymity

A

study was with strangers
anonymity effect changes if group of individuals are friends
people conform more

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

task difficulty

A

harder it is uncertainty of answer increases
people feel less confident and look for others for right answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

weakness of task difficulty

A

may not be true for everyone
greater expertise may be less affected by task difficulty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

personality

A

locus of control
external means they do not control things that happen to them
on a continuum
burger and cooper 1979: asked to rate cartoons of funniness
with confederate shouting ratings
internal control less likely to conform than external

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

weakness of personality

A

locus of control no effect on conformity in familiar situations
more affected by how you behaved in past
shows that personality is affected by other factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

expertise

A

increases confidence in opinions and knowledge
lucas et al 2006 : those who rated themselves better at maths were less likely to conform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

weakness of expertise

A

simplistic as it only focuses on one single factor
being an expert may not be sufficient eg you might want to be liked

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

obedience

A

a type of social factor that causes a person to act in response to a direct order from authority figurr

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

agency theory

A

acting as an agent for authority figure because they assume its their responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

agentic state

A

acting on behalf of someone
no responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

autonomous state

A

behave according to own principles
responsible for own actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

agentic shift

A

change from autonomous to agentic state
when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

social hierachy in agency theory

A

people progressively more authority
agreed by society
allows society to function smoothly
strong social norm in cultured

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
proximity
increased proximity lower levels of obedience greater proximity increases moral strain person feels increased sense of personal responsibility and less willing
26
strength of agency theory
research support blass and schmitt 2000 showed students milgrams study and asked them who’s responsible blamed experimenter rather teacher due to legitimate authority students recognised legitimate authority as cause of obedience
27
weakness of agency theory
doesnt explain why there isnt 100% obedience 35% didnt obey in milgrams study social factors cannot fully explain
28
weakness of agency theory
excuses people who blindly follow destructive orders ignores role of racism and prejudice dangerous as it allows them to believe they are not personally responsible
29
authoritarian personality
strong respect for authority look down on lower status cognitive style of thinking in black and white rigid stereotypes
30
cause of authoritarian personality
made rather than born overly strict parenting parents expect absolute loyalty and high standards of achievement conditional love we learn moral values through identification with our parents values so internalises these values
31
scapegoating
hostility to be displaced onto others displaced onto lower status
32
weakness of adornos theory
based on flawed questionnaire f scale 2000 middle class white americans results formed basis of theory response bias- answer yes instead of no would end up with higher authoritarian score lacks validity based on poor evidence
33
weakness of adornos theory
data evidence is correlational cannot challenge authoritarian personality causes great obedience levels may be caused by third factor eg low level of education
34
weakness of adornos study
dispositional explanation on its own cannot explain all cases of obedience authoritarian personality cannot explain millions of people in Germany who displayed highly obedient and prejudiced behaviour would mean same upbringing if German culture was highly authoritarian we would expect all Germans to have an authoritarian personality but some didn’t dispositional explanation alone can’t explain
35
aim of pilliavins study
bystander behaviour in natural setting if certain characteristics would effect extent of help
36
method of piliavins study
ny subway train 103 trials 70 secs in collapse 38 trials alcohol smell and bottle (drunk) 65 trials sober and disabled (black cane) two researchers observed and noted model would step in and help after 70-150 secs of no help
37
results of pillavins study
disability 95% help (87% in first 70s) drunk 50% (17% first 70s) quicker for disabled
38
conclusion of piliavins study
more deserving looking more help number of people have no effect on willingness to help in natural
39
strength of piliavins study
not aware they were being observed true to life behaviour lab - ppl feel they ought to behave in a certain way may be unrealistic high in validity
40
weakness of piliavins study
urban sample prob accustomed to emergencies city more common to see injured or beggars or needing help some may be more used to ignoring them may not be typical of all ppl
41
strength of piliavins study
qualitative data noted down remarks explains why shows some ppl are too distressed or never came face to situations like this despite their willingness to help shows value of having both data
42
presence of others (social) affecting bystander behaviour
amount of help inversely proportional to no of ppl darley and latane intercom study discussion with students over intercom one of the students have epileptic fit and call for help if participant alone 85% reported seizure if with 4 other bystanders then 31%
43
evaluation of presence of others as a social factor
research found that helping rates not affected by others some events show us that ppl can be helpful may be that when it is an emergency no of ppl do not have an effect not always negative effect on pro social behaviour
44
cost of helping as a social factor
cost of helping: possible danger to yourself effort time it would take possible embarrassment because you misjudged situation cost of not helping: guilt blaming yourself balance between the two costs as well as rewards cost reward model
45
evaluation of cost of helping as a social factor
not only one factor also included interpretation of situation eg if not emergency then no help eg shotland and straw study 65% intervened when woman claimed she didn’t know man but 19% intervened when woman revealed she was married to man
46
similarity to victim as dispositional factor
piliavin et al found a race effect white bystander more likely to help white victim more likely to sympathise with them treat them how you would have wanted to be treated
47
evaluation of similarity to victim as a dispositional factor
similarity alone can not explain why bystanders help in emergency situations sometimes no similarities similarity may increase chance of help but if costs are too high or ambiguous situation then no guaranteeing to help
48
expertise as a dispositional factor
possess knowledge that will decrease cost of helping necessary skills may be pressured internally
49
evaluation of expertise as a dispositional factor
expertise may not always matter eg group that received red cross training are as much as likely to help as the group that didn’t but may affect quality of help
50
antisocial behaviour
harmful distress eg graffiti or noisy crowd
51
collective behaviour
emerges when a group comes together different to behaviour when individuals alone group creates its own identity
52
link between anonymity and antisocial behaviour
behaviour rules by social norms no identification causes to lose normal restraints loss of responsibility for own actions irrational behaviour
53
deindividuation
psychological state where individual loses sense of personal indetity take on group identity
54
pro social behaviour
beneficial to others
55
social loafing as a social factor
ppl in group put less effort individually deindividuation- reduced personal identity so no one needs to work as hard because no one will know what the other ppls contribution is latane study undergraduates asked to shout as loudly as they can by themselves or 6 ppl larger group less noise
56
evaluation of social loafing as a social factor
negative affects of group do not apply to all kinds of tasks eg brainstorming actually benefit from a group of ppl working together
57
culture as a social factor
individualist cultures focus on own needs collectivist cultures decisions made with needs of the group one study us and china one identifiable group task and one where they weren’t individual effort same on both tasks for china but not for us
58
evaluation of culture as a social factor
generalisations about a country variations diff religion groups in us or political simplistic
59
personality as a dispositional factor
locus of control internal more likely to follow own norms rather than social
60
evaluation of personality as a dispositional factor
not all research has shown that personality matters whistle blowing tested to see if they would speak out against unethical behaviour those who did scored similar to those who didn’t on personality test weak explanation for conformity to group norms
61
morality
greater moral strength means they believe in set principles on right and wrong less affected by social norm created by crowd as less concerned about their own welfare or others opinion strong moral strength can resist social pressure
62
evaluation of morality as dispositional factor
supported by real life evidence 1943 nazi germany young woman executed for spreading anti nazi willing to sacrifice own life for a principle

psychology (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions