social influence Flashcards
social influence
the process by which our thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by pother people
conformity
changing what we do, think or say in response to real or imagined group pressure
sherif 1936
argued that people use the behaviours of others to decide what to do
research into conformity
factors why people conform
group size
anonymity
task difficulty
dispositional factors
personality:locus of control
Internal LOC
they feel they are in control of their own behaviours
e.g. if they got a Job after an interview it is bc they were well prepped and had all the skills relevant for the job
less likely to be influenced by others
external LOC
believe they do not have control over their behaviour
e.g.they believe they were successful at a job interview bc the interviewer wasn’t in a good mood or they were lucky with the questions they were asked
more likely to conform with other people bc they are much more influenced by the behaviour of other people
research:LOC
burger and Cooper
showed participants series of cartoons and asked to rate in terms of funniest
participants with an external LOC were more likely to agree with confederates
evaluation of burger and cooper
research suggests that LOC does not seem to affect conformity in similar situations
suggest that dispositional factors are not the only factors tor that influences conformity
expertise
out own skill set
expertise research
Lucas et al found that people who are good art maths had more of an intrnal LOC
Obedience
Milgrams agency theory
people act on two levels
autonomous
agent
autonomous
Behaving voluntary and willing to take responsibility for their actions
agent
believe that they are acting on the behalf of others
agenctic shift
moving from autonomous state to an agencntic stage and vice versa
culture
belief and expectations of our society
milgrams study
participants told to delivery shocks from teacher
teacher not in same rooms-40%
teacher in the room 30%
strength of milligrams variations
blass and shmitt showed a film of milligrams study to students and asked which one was responsible for the harm tom the learner
found that students blames the experimenter rather than the participant and indicated it was due to legitimate authority
weakness of milligrams study
other research shows that the behaviour of nazis cant be explained in terms of authority and agency theory
Mandell
authoritarian personality
Adorno et al
authoritarian personality which makes them obedient nd prejudiced
why are they som obedient
adorno et al claimed that these individuals were treated harshly as children causing them to feel hostile
scapegoating
participants hostility is unconscious , they act submissively towards authority figures and displace their hostility on to minority groups in there form of prejudice
f-scale
adorno et al devised a questionnaire known a the facism scale which measures characteristics
obedience +respect for authority are the most important + virtues children should learn and opposite for the other end
participants told to rate from 1-6
They found a positive correlation between authority personality and obedience towards with authority figures, this suggests that people with autorian personalities are likely to show higher levels of obedience
evaluation of adorno
strength
milgram + elms carried out a study with milgrams participants
-took 20 obedient participants (who carried out the final shock level) and 20 defiant participants
each participant completed the f-scale and sign nificxant differences between defiant and obedient participants
weakness
flawed questionnaire anyone who answered yes would end up with a higher authoritarian scale, response bias
this challenges this theory bc it is based on poor evidence
cant explain all obedience, nazis
pilivain subway study
drunk condition-50 %
elderly- 95%
victim stood at a pole and after 70 seconds they collapsed
prosocial behaviour
acting in a way that is beneficial to people
bystander apathy
when a person does nothing when someone needs help
bystander effect
social factors that explain it
-presence of others
-cost of helping
more people=less likely to help
cost of helping
possible danger to yourself
the effort that has to be made
time it may take
possible embarrassment
cost of not helping
guilt
blame from others
leaving someone in need of help
weakness of cost of helping
not actually just one social factor influences prosocial behaviour
Levine study
man united shirt
results we are more likely to help when we have something in common
weakness:in studies looked at their was no similarities to the victim at all
expertise
cramer et al
participants to sit in a corridor, someone fell off ladder
found that nurses were more likely too help
weakness
espertise is more important in deterring the quality of help
shotland +heinold compared to people who had received Red Cross training and those who not. Found both equally likely to help but quality of help differed
social loafing
putting in less effort into doing something when you are with others
deindividuation
reduces personal identity when we are in a group so no one needs to work as hard bc no one will know what the other peoples contribution is
ringleman
asked participants to pull rope individually and with a group
found ppl pulled harder when pulling the rope on their own
this is bc of social loafing and motivation losses
Latan et al
social facilitation
individualistic cultures
focused on individual needs
decisions based on what is best fro you
USA or Uk
collectivist cultures
focused what is best fro the group
CHINA or Korea
earley
tested wether cultural differences in social loafing.
participants from thin or usa hd to complete task.
found American spit more effort in when they were identifiable
weakness
not always possible to generalise
personality
one study looked at whistle blowing
participants reported to see if they would report unethical research
-people who spoke out had very similar characteristic scores to those who didn’t whistle blow
this suggests personality isn’t a strong explanation fro collective behaviour
morality
some people have stronger mental compass than others
people are less affected by the social norms if they have a strong collective behaviour
milgrams study in morality
professor refused to do more than 150 volts as he believed it went against his morals
2 social factors affecting bystander behaviour
presence of
cost of helping
2 dispositional factors affecting bystander behaviour3 factors that make people less likely to show social loafing
smaller groups
deindividuation
when people lose their sense of identity
individuality
who we are, personality, morals
2 dispositional factors that affect collective behaviour
personality and morality
Piaget language on thought
thought before language
s+weakness of Piaget language about thought
s-early development isn’t random
children already have some underatsnding
w-saphir whole
Sapir wharf on thought
language before thought
s+weakness of Sapir wharf
s- research snow 27
w-just bc one group has more words doesn’t mean words came first
4 main reasons why animals communicate
survival
reproduction
territory
food
example of an animal using communication for survival
vervet monkeys
2 design features of language
productivity
displacement
3 functions of eye contact
regulating flow of convo
signalling attraction
express emotion
how does the amount of touch acceptrable in different countries
British society more restricted than those in western countries
3 things that affect personal space
gender status cultural norms
what are serviceable habits
behaviours adaptive to our distant ancestors
eg wringing of nose and baring teeth
what is CNS
included in the brain and spinal cord. spinal cord transfers into and from peripheral nervous system and also part of there reflex arc
what is the peripheral nervous system
transmits info to and from the brain to the body
made rum of somatic and autonomic nervous system
