social influence Flashcards
Define social influence
Conformity is a form of social influence. It occurs when a persons’ behavior or thinking changes as a result of group pressure. This ‘pressure’ from others may be real or imagined and can come from just one person or a group of people.
Outline and give an example of both types of conformity
If we are in an ambiguous situation, we will see what other people are doing and assume they are correct. We copy them especially if we believe others might be more intelligent than us. This leads to internalisation, where we genuinely believe this new behaviour is right. We now behave this way both publicly and privately. An example of when our behaviour changes because of informational social influence is when you go to a fancy restaurant and are given three sets of cutlery, you may not know how to use it. So, you see what other people are doing and assume they are correct. This leads to internalisation, meaning you genuinely believe others are correct. So, next time you go to a fancy restaurant with friends you know to start from the outside and work your way in.
In a social situation we have a strong desire to be accepted in the group. This means we might say or do things just to be popular even if we do not agree with it privately. An example of when our behaviour changes because of normative social influence is for example, if a friend cracks a really bad joke and everyone is laughing, you may laugh to fit in, even if you do not find the joke funny, and may not laugh at it in private.
Define the two different types of factors affecting conformity
Disopositional: you conform because you have a more conformist personality or are less confident. It is something about YOU- your disposition
Social: you conform because there are features of your surroundings that make you feel a stronger pressure from other people. The word social means other people
Outline and Evaluate Asch’s study
- The aim of the study was to investigate if people would be influenced by other people’s opinions to give an answer they knew to be wrong
- 123 male participants were shown sets of 4 lines
- For each set, participants had to say whether line A,B or C was the same length as the test line
- Each participant was tested along With 6-8 confederates who the naïve participant thought were just other students
- There were 18 trials in total
- Confederates were instructed to give the correct answer on the first few trials, but then the confederates were asked to give the same wrong answer on the 12 critical trials
- The naïve participant was always positioned as one of the last to give their response after hearing the majority of the groups incorrect responses.
- On 36.8% of the trails where the rest of the group gave the wrong answer, the participant conformed and gave the same wrong answer as the rest of the group, rather than the obviously correct answer
- 76% of the participants gave at least one wrong answer
- 24% of participants resisted the pressure to conform and gave correct answers in all 18 trails.
- Asch concluded that people conform to fit in with a group, even when they know they are giving an incorrect judgement
- One weakness of the study is that it uses a bias sample of American college students, all of roughly the same age. This means that the study lacks variety in its sample, and the results cannot therefore be generalized to females, or older/younger groups of people.
- Another weakness of the study is that the task used to investigate conformity was not an everyday task that people would have to make a choice in. This is a weakness because it means that the task of comparing line lengths lacks mundane realism and hence the study as a whole lacks ecological validity.
- One benefit of the study is that it was conducted in a laboratory environment. This is a strength because it means that any extraneous variables that may have affected the response of the naïve participant are controlled. Therefore Asch’s study has higher validity.
- Another strength of the study is that it demonstrates the extent to which people show conformity in social situations. When participants completed the line task alone, the error rate was less than 1%, however it rose to 36.8% when performed in a group setting. Interviews done afterward showed that participants knew they were right but said the wrong answer just to fit in with the group.
Explain the difference between conformity and obedience
Obedience is a type of social influence that causes a person to act in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority. There is also the implication that the person receiving the order is being made to do something that they would not have done without the order. Whereas, conformity is a form of social influence. It occurs when a persons’ behavior or thinking changes as a result of group pressure. This ‘pressure’ from others may be real or imagined and can come from just one person or a group of people
Explain how 3 social factors affect conformity
- Group size: We are more likely to adopt the behavior of others when we are in a group of 3 or more people who are behaving in the same way. We are likely to feel increased pressure to fit in when more people are behaving the same way than when we are in smaller group, showing normative social influence and hence leading to compliance.
- Task difficulty: We show higher levels of conformity when attempting a difficult task rather than an easy one. When we find something challenging, we may look to others to guide out decisions, because we lack confidence in our own judgements, showing informational social influence, and hence leading to internalisation.
- Anonymity: In public situations we are likely to face ridicule from others when they can see and hear what we do or say. However when we can express our opinions in private we are anonymous. This reduces concern about others disagreeing with us. Anonymity reduces normative social influence but doesn’t prevent conformity entirely.
Explain the 2 dispositional factors affecting conformity
- Personality: Low self-esteem, low group status and low IQ have all been linked with high levels of conformity. These may lead to insecurity in social situations and assuming others have a better understanding of what to say or do. Therefore, we are more likely to look at others to follow what they do (informational social influence), so that people will like and accept us (normative social influence)
- Expertise: Conformity is less likely in situations where we have a high level of expertise as we are confident in our own opinions and know what to do. Older people are less likely to conform than younger people. With age and experience, we may come to feel more certain about our knowledge base so feel less pressure to conform. Expertise affects conformity due to informational social influence
Explain the 4 social factors affecting obedience
- Agency theory - proposes that an individual sometimes acts as an agent for someone else because they assume the person giving orders is taking responsibility
He proposed that the person is either in an:
- Agentic state: where they act on behalf of someone else, and would for example, follow orders blindly. The person feels no personal responsibility for their actions
- Autonomous state: where they behave according to their own principles and feel responsible for their own actions - Authority - Milgram used the term agentic shift to describe the change from an autonomous to an agentic state. He proposed the shift occurs when a person perceives someone else as a greater figure of authority. This other person has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy. in most social groups when one person is in charge, others defer this person and shift from autonomy to agency
- Culture - The culture in which we live influences how we are brought up to think about authority figures. Some research has found lower levels of obedience in individualistic cultures compared to collectivist cultures. This is because collectivist cultures place greater importance on group values and respecting authorities, whereas individualistic societies place value on independence and individual freedom. This means culture may affect obedience levels because it influences how people respond to authority figures
- Proximity - proximity refers to how far away something is. When we are in close proximity to an authority figure it appears we are more likely to obey them. In Milgram’s study more people followed orders when the experimenter gave instructions in the same room than over the phone.
Proximity to the consequences of our actions also affects obedience. Milgram found that the obedience dropped when participants had to physically touch the learner to shock them, rather than hit a switch that sent a shock through to another room
Dispositional factors affecting obedience:
Outline & evaluate Adorno’s Theory of Authoritarian Personality
- Adorno believed that an authoritarian personality develops because of strict parents who show their child very little love, raise an individual
- The child grows up feeling anger towards its parents but is too anxious to fight back against them
- Instead they displace their feelings onto a person or particular group they see as inferior to themselves
- This scapegoating results in prejudice and discrimination against such minority groups
- Another feature of an authoritarian personality is a particular way of thinking- ‘black and white’
- They prefer to believe in rigid stereotypes e.g. all men are bullies and all women emotional as they have a rigid cognitive style
- A weakness is that Adorno’s F-Scale questionnaire was criticized for being flawed as it enabled a response bias and if people tended to answer yes instead no to questions they would end up with a higher authoritarian score making them seem more prejudiced and therefore obedient. This questions the validity of authoritarian personality as a factor affecting obedience as it is based on poor evidence
- Another weakness is that Adorno only found a correlation. This means that he cannot establish a cause and effect relationship to suggest that high authoritarian personality causes high obedience. In fact, some of the most obedient participants did not experience authoritarian upbringing as predicted by Adorno. This reduces the validity of this factor affecting obedience
- A third weakness is that it cannot explain all cases of obedience. This is because the millions of Nazi soldiers who were all prejudiced and obedient in WW2 could not have had the same exact upbringing and personality. Therefore there must be some social factors too like Adorno’s own experience which can explain the high levels of obedience shown
Outline & evaluate evaluate Milgram’s agency theory
- Milgram said that normally, we feel responsible for our own actions and are free to choose how we behave (autonomous state)
- He said that we are more likely to follow orders in the agentic state (when we believe we are acting on behalf of an authority figure so we no longer feel accountable for our actions)
- Instead we see the responsibility being with the person who gave us the orders
The move from autonomous to agentic state is called agentic shift
One strength of Milgram’s agency theory is the supporting research evidence. It showed how 65% of participants were prepared to give a fatal electric shock of 450 volts to someone else when a perceived authority figure told them to do so. Milgram said that participants were in an agentic state on behalf of the experimenter because participants were being paid to perform a role and were told the experimenter would take responsibility for their own actions. This increases the validity of Milgram’s agency theory.
One weakness of Milgram’s agency theory is that we do not all blindly follow orders, so some people are less likely to enter the agentic state than others. Milgram’s theory only focusses on social factors that affect obedience, but other psychologists like Adorno have suggested that dispositional factors such as an authoritarian personality are more important in determining how obedient people are. Therefore reducing the validity of Milgram’s agency theory.
Define bystander behaviour
Prosocial behaviour is acting in a way that is beneficial to others. This is called bystander behaviour. A bystander is somebody who witnesses emergencies where other people need help. Bystander intervention is when people help. Bystander apathy is when they choose not to help
Explain the 2 social factors that affect bystander behavior
- The presence of others: We are more likely to help others when we are alone than when other people are present. If we are alone in an emergency situation we take full responsibility for helping a person because there is no one else who can assist. When other people are present, the responsibility for helping is shared between these people. This is called diffusion of responsibility - we may not help someone because we assume others will.
- The cost of helping: It’s suggested that we weigh up the cost and rewards of helping a person in need. In some circumstances we may decide it’s too costly to intervene. If the costs outweigh the benefits, we are less likely to intervene.
Explain the 2 dispositional factors that affect bystander behavior
- Similarity to victim: When there are similarities between a bystander and the person in need, bystanders are more likely to offer assistance. If someone is the same gender, similar age, or have something in common with us, we are more likely to help them
- Expertise: Bystanders are more likely to help others if they believe they have the skills required to help someone in a specific situation. People without necessary expertise may not offer assistance because they do not know how to help, and fear causing more harm than good. Bystanders may still be concerned about the victim but when other people are present, they believe that someone else might be more capable of helping
Outline and evaluate Piliavin’s Subway Study
- The aim was to investigate whether the appearance of a victim would influence helping behaviour.
- The method was, on a New York subway train, a confederate pretended to collapse. His appearance was altered in different ways. In 38 of the trails he appeared to be drunk- he smelt of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a paper bag
- In 65 trails he appeared to be sober and carried a walking stick
- Observers recorded how often and how quickly the victim was helped
- When the victim carried a walking stick, he received help 95% of the time
- When he appeared to be drunk he received help 50% of time
- Also people were more quick to help the man with the walking stick as 87% helped within 70 seconds, whereas only 17% helped the
apparently drunk man within 70 seconds - Piliavin concluded that a person’s appearance will affect whether or not they receive help and how quickly this help is given.
- One strength of Piliavin’s study is the type of experiment that was conducted. This is because in a field experiment, participants are more likely to display their natural behaviours, and less likely to display demand characteristics. Therefore, this increases the ecological validity of the study.
- Another strength of Piliavin’s study is that it was under the researcher’s control. This is because the researchers ensured that for each trial the confederate behaved in exactly the same manner so that the only thing different was their appearance. This means that the procedure was standardized and can be repeated to obtain similar results, which increases the validity of the study
- However, the type of experiment conducted could also be a weakness. This is because extraneous variables outside of the researchers control may affect the participants’ behaviour and response time. Therefore, this could decrease the validity of the study
- Another weakness of the study is the location it was conducted in. This is a weakness because NYC is a city within an urban area. People in cities are probably more used to seeing emergency situations, so may be less likely to help. This means that Piliavin’s study may not accurately predict bystander behaviour in a rural area, making results harder to generalise.
Describe the 3 social factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour
- Deindividuation:
It is the state of losing our sense of individuality and becoming less aware of our own responsibility for our actions
Most people behave in a socially acceptable way because if they didn’t they would face the consequences and punishments for their actions.
However when we are in a crowd and we behave like everyone else in the group, we become anonymous and we are no longer identified as an individual, and the threat of punishment for your actions decreases
- Social Loafing:
We often assume that working as part of a team is better than working alone, but this is not always true. Some individuals put less effort into completing a task as part of a group as they would when alone. This is known as social loafing. - Culture:
The social norm within a culture can affect collective behavior. Interestingly, social loafing does not occur in all societies. In non-western, collectivist cultures like China, people are prepared to work just as hard for the good of the group when they do not need to. This means it’s difficult to assume that that collectivist behavior will be the same in all cultures
