social influence Flashcards
conformity
a change in our opinions or behaviour to fit in with social norms or as the result of perceived group pressure
dispositional factors
internal personal characteristics which may affect how a person will behave
informational social influence
changing behaviour or opinions because we think other people have superior knowledge to us
normative social influence
changing behaviour or opinions because we want to fit in and be accepted by others
social influence
the effect other people have on our opinions and behaviour
social factors affecting conformity
group size, task difficulty, anonymity
dispositional factors affecting conformity
personality, expertise
asch’s study aim
to investigate if people would conform to the opinions of others to give an answer they knew to be wrong
asch’s study design
a laboratory experiment in which there was control of possible extraneous variables and all procedures were standardised to ensure the study could be replicated easily. Participants were male American college students
asch’s study method
groups of 7 to 9 people were shown sets of 4 lines: a standard line and 3 other comparison lines. They were asked to state out loud which comparison line was the same length as the standard line. The correct answer was always clear.
there was only one real participant in each group. He was told the aim of the study was to investigate visual judgement. Unknown to him, the other members of the group were confederates working for the experimenter who had been instructed to give the same incorrect response for 12 out of the 18 sets of lines. Each real participant was always one of the last to answer so heard the majority of responses before he gave his own judgement. This was to put him under pressure to conform to the incorrect majority.
Asch recorded whether participants gave the correct answer or conformed by giving the same incorrect judgement as the group.
asch’s study results
participants conformed to give the incorrect answer of the group 36.8 per cent of the time. 76 per cent of participants conformed to the incorrect majority at least once. 24 per cent of the participants resisted the pressure to conform and gave the correct judgement in every trial.
conclusion of asch’s study
the results showed that people conform to fit in with a group, even when they know they are giving an incorrect judgement.
pros of asch’s study
+ Shows the role of social influence: when participants were tested alone, error in responses was 1%. When in a group, it rose to 36.8%. Since it manipulated the IV (alone or in a group) it was possible to show the effect of group pressure on behaviour
+ laboratory setting where high levels of control over extraneous variables
+ Modifications showed factors influencing conformity: eg: group size, giving your responses anonymously
+ laboratory setting, standardized procedures, replicable, so we can see if the results are the same , so they can be considered reliable
cons of asch’s study
- lacks ecological validity, we don’t know if these results would apply in a real life setting
- Task lacks personal significance, as the task was oversimplified and the decision had no real significance for the person. If there were real consequences, maybe the conformity levels were different
- culturally biased: represents the characteristics of US culture during the 50s. We might have got different results today.
obedience
following the orders of an authority figure
agency
the responsibility we feel for our own actions
agency theory
the idea that a person will obey an authority figure when they believe this authority figure will take responsibility for whatever the person does
milgram’s agency theory
We have learned from childhood to enter an agentic state and follow orders from authority figures.
Obedience is the result of SOCIAL factors, such as authority, proximity, culture
evaluating milgram’s theory
+ there is evidence supporting the theory, both from his own laboratory experiment, as well as from real life examples in history
- the theory explains obedience by focusing only on social factors. It ignores dispositional factors (personality)
- according to Adorno, personality with authoritarian characteristics, is more important in explaining obedience
authority
when a person is perceived to have the right to give orders
culture
a group of people who share similar customs, beliefs, and behaviour
proximity
how near or close something is to us
social factors affecting obedience
authority, culture, proximity
dispositional factors affecting obedience
self-esteem, confidence, intelligence, personality
adorno’s theory of the authoritarian personality
He supports that obedience is the result of a specific type of personality: the authoritarian personality due to childhood experiences
evaluation of adorno’s theory
+ there is evidence showing that people who score high on the F scale (authoritarian personalities), are also very obedient
- people with low education have been found to be very obedient. This is a criticism to the theory, because the theory says that obedience is only based on personality
- does not take into consideration how other dispositional factors such as intelligence and self esteem could affect obedience
- does not take into consideration social factors, such as authority, proximity, culture
- he has found a correlation between authoritarian personality and obedience. BUT, this does not mean that personality is the cause of obedience, since this is a correlational finding. There might be social factors that affect obedience
prosocial behaviour
actions that benefit other people or society
bystander apathy
doing nothing when someone is in need of help
bystander behaviour
the way that someone responds when they witness someone else in need of help
bystander intervention
when a person who witnesses a person in need offers help
social factors affecting bystander behaviour
the presence of others e.g diffusion of responsibility, the cost of helping
dispositional factors affecting bystander behaviour
similarity to the victim, expertise
piliavin’s subway study aim
to investigate whether the appearance of a victim would influence helping behaviour
piliavin’s subway study design
field experiment, little control of extraneous variables, participants were male and female passengers travelling in the subway in New York
piliavin’s subway study method
An actor pretended to collapse in the train carriage with his appearance altered.
In 38 of the trials his appearance was altered to be that of someone who was drunk; he smelt of alcohol and had a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a paper bag.
In 65 trials he appeared sober and carried a walking stick.
Researchers recorded how often and how quickly the “victim” was helped.
piliavin’s subway study results
When the actor was carrying a walking stick, he was helped within 70 seconds 95% of the time.
When he appeared drunk, he received help within 70 seconds 50% of the time.
piliavin’s subway study conclusion
A person’s appearance will affect whether or not they receive help and how quickly this help is given.
piliavin’s subway study evaluation
- Overlooked cultural factors (individualistic in america)
- Individual differences in helping (e.g people’s moral values)
- Differences between rural/urban environments (people friendlier in rural)
+ High ecological validity
+ Natural behaviour of participants
+ Important point shown: why some victims are not helped due to perceived cost of helping (examples?)
collective behavior
the way in which people act when they are part of a group
antisocial behavior
when people do not act in socially acceptable ways or consider the rights of others
social factors affecting collective behavior
social loafing, deindividuation, culture
social loafing
putting less effort into doing something when you are with others doing the same thing
deindividuation
the state of losing our sense of individuality and becoming less aware of our own responsibility for our actions
dispositional factors affecting collective behavior
personality (internal vs external locus of control), morality
