Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Conformity

A

A person’s behaviour or thinking changes because of group pressure. This pressure can be imagined or real

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

Social factors affecting conformity

A
  • group size
  • anonymity
  • task difficulty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How does group size affect conformity

A

People more likely to conform to behaviour of others when in a group of three or more due to increased pressure

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

How does anonymity affect conformity

A

Being anonymous reduces conformity as we will not face consequences of ridicule or disagreement

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

How does task difficulty affect conformity

A

People conform more when attempting a more difficult task as they lack confidence in there own judgement and look to others for guidance

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

Dispositional factors affecting conformity

A
  • personality
  • expertise
  • locus of control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How does personality affect conformity

A

Lower self esteem and social status can cause people to conform more as they look to others for guidance

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

How does expertise affect conformity

A

People with high expertise are less likely to conform as they have more confidence in their own ability

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

How does locus of control affect conformity

A
  • internal - people believe they have freedom of control to be successful so conform less
  • external - people believe their future is fixed despite their actions so conform more
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Asch DATE

A

1955

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

Asch AIM

A
  • study conformity
  • see if people would choose an incorrect, unambiguous answer to conform
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Asch METHOD

A
  • 123 American male students
  • 1 naïve P tested with 6-8 confederates with P near end
  • had to say which line was same length as X (A, B or C)
  • confederates have right answers first then wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Asch RESULTS

A
  • in 12 critical trials naïve Ps gave wrong answer 36.8%
  • 25% Ps never conformed, 75% confirmed at least once
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Asch CONCLUSION

A
  • people influenced by group pressure
  • Asch effect - to what extent people conform in unambiguous situation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Asch STRENGTH

A
  • lab study
  • high control of variables, able to carefully alter specific factors (group size), standardised procedures, can be replicated and verified
  • high internal validity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Asch WEAKNESSES

A
  • results may only be relevant to 1950s America
  • senator McCarthy led McCarthyism to identify and ostracise people with communist tenancies, similar study in UK (1980) - only 1 P conformed in 396 trials
  • Asch effect may not be consistent over time
    _
  • artificial task
  • judging length of line isn’t common, real life task, people may be willing to conform when task unimportant, naïve P in group with unknown people
  • results can’t be generalised to when results are conformity are important
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Obedience

A

Acting in response to a direct from an authority figure

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

Milgram’s agency theory DATE

A

1963

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

Milgram’s agency theory parts

A
  • social hierarchy
  • agency
  • proximity
  • authority
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Milgram’s agency theory SOCIAL HIERARCHY

A
  • most societies are structured in a way that means people take orders from those above them
  • we are agents for them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Milgram’s agency theory AGENCY

A
  • agentic state - we act on behalf of somebody else and follow orders blindly, we feel no responsibility
  • autonomous state - we behave based on our moral principles, have free will, are responsible for our actions
  • agentic shift - moving from autonomous to agentic state
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Milgram’s agency theory PROXIMITY

A
  • closeness
  • obedience decreases as proximity to the person you’re harming increases - guilt
  • obedience increases as proximity increases to authority figure
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Milgram’s agency theory AUTHORITY

A

Uniform makes authority figure more legitimate

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

Milgram’s agency theory STRENGTH

A
  • research support
  • Blass and Schmitt (2000) showed film of Milgram’s experiment who blamed ‘experimenter’ over ‘teacher’ for harming learner
  • students recognised legitimate authority of experimenter caused obedience
25
Q

Milgram’s agency theory WEAKNESSES

A
  • can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience in experiment
  • 35% of Ps didn’t go to max 450V
  • social factors can’t fully explain obedience
    +
  • gives people excuse for ‘blind’ obedience
  • in Holocaust, racist and prejudice Nazis were doing more than following orders
  • theory potentially dangerous as it excuses people who did terrible things
26
Q

Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory parts

A
  • authoritarian personality
  • cognitive style
  • originates in childhood
  • displaced hostility
27
Q

Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory PERSONALITY

A
  • exaggerated respect for authority
  • far more likely to obey orders
  • look down on people with low social style
  • very aware of their position in social hierarchy
28
Q

Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory COGNITIVE STYLE

A
  • think ‘black and white’
  • prefer rigid stereotypes
29
Q

Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory ORIGINATES IN CHILDHOOD

A
  • nurture over nature
  • overly strict parenting, strong discipline, critical
  • conditional love, high standards
  • child will feel hostility but can’t store to parents
30
Q

Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory DISPLACED HOSTILITY

A
  • offload anger and frustration to people lower on social hierarchy - scapegoating
31
Q

Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory WEAKNESSES

A
  • theory based on flawed questionnaire
  • F-scale has response bias - any answer yes would increase score
  • challenges validity, based on poor evidence
    +
  • evidence based on correlation data
  • can’t claim authoritarian personality caused greater obedience
  • other factors may explain link between authoritarian personality and obedience
    +
  • can’t explain all cases of obedience
  • millions of Germans displayed high obedience but didn’t have same upbringing
  • probably social factors that also affect obedience
32
Q

Bystander behaviour

A

The more people present in an emergency situation, the less likely they are to help

33
Q

Prosocial behaviour

A

Actions which are beneficial to others but may not necessarily benefit the helpers

34
Q

Social factors affecting prosocial behaviour

A
  • presence of others
  • cost of helping
35
Q

How does presence of other affect prosocial behaviour

A

The more people who are around, the less likely any one person is to help

36
Q

How does cost of helping affect prosocial behaviour

A

People weigh up cost of helping vs the cost of not helping (danger to self vs guilt)

37
Q

Dispositional factors affecting prosocial behaviour

A
  • similarity to victim
  • expertise
38
Q

How does similarity to victim affect prosocial behaviour

A

If we feel we have something in common we are more likely to help (same race)

39
Q

How does expertise affect prosocial behaviour

A

If we feel like we have specialist knowledge for that situation, we are more likely to help (nurse in medical situation)

40
Q

Piliavin DATE

A

1969

41
Q

Piliavin AIM

A
  • investigate bystander effect in natural setting
  • see if changing certain characteristics will affect extent of help that came
42
Q

Piliavin METHOD

A
  • 4 students on NYC subway train
  • 103 trials (journeys)
  • 1 male played victim who collapsed after 70 seconds
  • 38 trials - victim acted drunk, smelled of alcohol, brown paper bag with alcohol bottle
  • 65 trials - victim was sober and disabled (black cane)
  • two researchers recorded how long help took
  • 1 researcher acted as ‘modal’ who would help after 70/150 seconds if nobody else did
43
Q

Piliavin RESULTS

A
  • disabled helped 95% of the time
  • drunk helped 50% of the time
  • disabled victims helped faster - 87% in first 70 seconds
  • 17% drunk victims helped in first 70 seconds
  • larger groups more likely to help
44
Q

Piliavin CONCLUSION

A
  • certain characteristics affect whether they are helped - seeming more deserving (disabled) or less deserving (drunk)
  • number of people doesn’t affect willingness to help
45
Q

Piliavin STRENGTH

A
  • more realistic results
  • Ps not aware they were being studied, displayed more naturalistic behaviour
  • high ecological validity and realism
46
Q

Piliavin WEAKNESSES

A
  • biased sample
  • urban sample, all comfortable on subway in their environment, regularly see hurt people
  • behaviour may not apply to them
    +
  • maybe culturally biased
  • conducted in America (individualist culture), people expected to deal with their own problems, in collectivist cultures, may have been more help
  • research can’t be generalised to explain bystander affect across different cultures
47
Q

Antisocial behaviour

A

Behaviour which is harmful to others and society

48
Q

Crowd

A

Large temporary gathering with common focus

49
Q

Collective behaviour

A

Behaviour that emerges when a group creates an identity

50
Q

Deindividuation

A

Process of losing our identity and self-awareness when we are part of a group (take on their personality)

51
Q

Social factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour

A
  • social loafing
  • culture
52
Q

How does social loafing affect crowd and collective behaviour

A

Presence of others affects behaviour, in a group of people, some people put less effort in as individual effort can’t be identified

53
Q

How does culture affect crowd and collective behaviour

A

Collectivist societies like china have less social loafing than individualist societies like USA as they do things for the group’s benefit

54
Q

Individualist

A

Thinking about how you will benefit when making decisions

55
Q

Collectivist

A

Making decisions with reference to the groups needs

56
Q

Dispositional factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour

A
  • personality
  • morality
57
Q

How does personality affect crowd and collective behaviour

A

People with external locus of control are more likely to be influenced by crowd, internal more likely to follow personal norms

58
Q

How does morality affect crowd and collective behaviour

A

Idea of being right and wrong, people with high ‘moral strength’ will be less likely to go along with crowd and will speak up for what they believe in

Psychology (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions