social influence Flashcards
aim of aschs study
conformity due to group pressure
results of aschs study
36.8% agreed and gave wrong answer
25% never gave wrong answer
conclusion of aschs study
people influenced by group pressure
also high level independence
participants went against group opinion
resisting pressure to conform
weakness of aschs study
relevant to 1950s america
conformist times
mccarthyism so scared to behave differently
asch effect only applicable in some situations
weakness of aschs study
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
weakness of aschs study
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
dispositional factors to conformity
about you
your disposition
social factors to conformity
features of surrounding areas hat make you feel stronger pressure
depends on group around you
social factor: group size
more people greater pressure up to a point
2 confederates 13.6%
3 confederates 31.8%
adding confederates made little difference
weakness of social factor: group size
diff effects based on task eg music preferences
group side does matter as there’s no right answer
social factor: anonymity
conformity lower
weakness of anonymity
study was with strangers
anonymity effect changes if group of individuals are friends
people conform more
task difficulty
harder it is uncertainty of answer increases
people feel less confident and look for others for right answer
weakness of task difficulty
may not be true for everyone
greater expertise may be less affected by task difficulty
personality
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
weakness of personality
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
expertise
increases confidence in opinions and knowledge
lucas et al 2006 : those who rated themselves better at maths were less likely to conform
weakness of expertise
simplistic as it only focuses on one single factor
being an expert may not be sufficient eg you might want to be liked
obedience
a type of social factor that causes a person to act in response to a direct order from authority figurr
agency theory
acting as an agent for authority figure because they assume its their responsibility
agentic state
acting on behalf of someone
no responsibility
autonomous state
behave according to own principles
responsible for own actions
agentic shift
change from autonomous to agentic state
when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
social hierachy in agency theory
people progressively more authority
agreed by society
allows society to function smoothly
strong social norm in cultured
proximity
increased proximity lower levels of obedience
greater proximity increases moral strain person feels
increased sense of personal responsibility and less willing
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
weakness of agency theory
doesnt explain why there isnt 100% obedience
35% didnt obey in milgrams study
social factors cannot fully explain
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
authoritarian personality
strong respect for authority
look down on lower status
cognitive style of thinking in black and white
rigid stereotypes
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
scapegoating
hostility to be displaced onto others
displaced onto lower status
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
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
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
aim of pilliavins study
bystander behaviour in natural setting
if certain characteristics would effect extent of help
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
results of pillavins study
disability 95% help (87% in first 70s)
drunk 50% (17% first 70s)
quicker for disabled
conclusion of piliavins study
more deserving looking more help
number of people have no effect on willingness to help in natural
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
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
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
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%
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
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
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
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
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
expertise as a dispositional factor
possess knowledge that will decrease cost of helping
necessary skills
may be pressured internally
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
antisocial behaviour
harmful
distress eg graffiti or noisy crowd
collective behaviour
emerges when a group comes together
different to behaviour when individuals alone
group creates its own identity
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
deindividuation
psychological state where individual loses sense of personal indetity
take on group identity
pro social behaviour
beneficial to others
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
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
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
evaluation of culture as a social factor
generalisations about a country
variations
diff religion groups in us or political
simplistic
personality as a dispositional factor
locus of control
internal more likely to follow own norms rather than social
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
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
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
