Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
A person’s behaviour or thinking changes because of group pressure. This pressure can be imagined or real
Social factors affecting conformity
- group size
- anonymity
- task difficulty
How does group size affect conformity
People more likely to conform to behaviour of others when in a group of three or more due to increased pressure
How does anonymity affect conformity
Being anonymous reduces conformity as we will not face consequences of ridicule or disagreement
How does task difficulty affect conformity
People conform more when attempting a more difficult task as they lack confidence in there own judgement and look to others for guidance
Dispositional factors affecting conformity
- personality
- expertise
How does personality affect conformity
Lower self esteem and social status can cause people to conform more as they look to others for guidance
How does expertise affect conformity
People with high expertise are less likely to conform as they have more confidence in their own ability
Asch DATE
1955
Asch AIM
- study conformity
- see if people would choose an incorrect, unambiguous answer to conform
Asch METHOD
- 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
Asch RESULTS
- in 12 critical trials naïve Ps gave wrong answer 36.8%
- 25% Ps never conformed, 75% confirmed at least once
Asch CONCLUSION
- people influenced by group pressure
- Asch effect - to what extent people conform in unambiguous situation
Asch STRENGTH
- lab study
- high control of variables, able to carefully alter specific factors (group size), standardised procedures, can be replicated and verified
- high internal validity
Asch WEAKNESSES
- 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
Obedience
Acting in response to a direct from an authority figure
Milgram’s agency theory DATE
1963
Milgram’s agency theory parts
- social hierarchy
- agency
- proximity
- authority
Milgram’s agency theory SOCIAL HIERARCHY
- most societies are structured in a way that means people take orders from those above them
- we are agents for them
Milgram’s agency theory AGENCY
- agentic state - we act on behalf of somebody else and follow orders blindly, we feel no responsibility, more likely to be obedient
- autonomous state - we behave based on our moral principles, have free will, are responsible for our actions, less likely to be obedient
- agentic shift - moving from autonomous to agentic state when confronted with person perceived as having legitimate authority
Milgram’s agency theory PROXIMITY
- closeness
- obedience decreases as proximity to the person you’re harming increases - guilt
- obedience increases as proximity increases to authority figure
Milgram’s agency theory AUTHORITY
Uniform makes authority figure more legitimate
Milgram’s agency theory STRENGTH
- 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
Milgram’s agency theory WEAKNESSES
- 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
Adorno’s authoritarian personality DATE
1950
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory parts
- authoritarian personality
- cognitive style
- originates in childhood
- displaced hostility
- F-scale
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory PERSONALITY
- 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
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory COGNITIVE STYLE
- think ‘black and white’
- prefer rigid stereotypes
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory ORIGINATES IN CHILDHOOD
- nurture over nature
- overly strict parenting, strong discipline, critical
- conditional love, high standards
- child will feel hostility but can’t store to parents
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory DISPLACED HOSTILITY
- offload anger and frustration to people lower on social hierarchy - scapegoating
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory F-SCALE
Theory based on F-scale questionnaire which aimed to find out if people had an authoritarian personality
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory STRENGTH
- supporting research
- Adorno gave 2,000 students F-Scale - respondents with strict parenting + physical punishment more obedient to authority as adults.
- increases validity
Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory WEAKNESSES
- theory based on flawed questionnaire
- F-scale has response bias - any answer yes would increase score
- challenges validity, based on poor evidence
+ - 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
Bystander behaviour
The more people present in an emergency situation, the less likely they are to help
Social factors affecting bystander intervention
- presence of others
- cost of helping
How does presence of others affect bystander intervention
The more people who are around, the less likely any one person is to help
How does cost of helping affect bystander intervention
People weigh up cost of helping vs the cost of not helping (danger to self vs guilt)
Dispositional factors affecting bystander intervention
- similarity to victim
- expertise
How does similarity to victim affect bystander intervention
If we feel we have something in common we are more likely to help (same race)
How does expertise affect bystander intervention
If we feel like we have specialist knowledge for that situation, we are more likely to help (nurse in medical situation)
Piliavin DATE
1969
Piliavin AIM
- investigate bystander effect in natural setting
- see if changing certain characteristics will affect extent of help that came
Piliavin METHOD
- field experiment
- 4 male 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
Piliavin RESULTS
- 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
Piliavin CONCLUSION
- certain characteristics affect whether they are helped - seeming more deserving (disabled) or less deserving (drunk)
- number of people doesn’t affect willingness to help
Piliavin STRENGTH
- more realistic results
- Ps not aware they were being studied, displayed more naturalistic behaviour
- high ecological validity and realism
Piliavin WEAKNESSES
- 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
Prosocial behaviour
Actions which are beneficial to others but may not necessarily benefit the helpers
Antisocial behaviour
Behaviour which is harmful to others and society
Crowd
Large temporary gathering with common focus
Collective behaviour
How people act when part of a group with an identity
Social factors affecting collective behaviour
- social loafing
- deindividuation
- culture
How does social loafing affect collective behaviour
Presence of others affects behaviour, in a group of people, some people put less effort in as individual effort can’t be identified
How does deindividuation affect collective behaviour
- process of losing our identity and self-awareness when we are part of a group
- take on group’s personality so act as the group do
How does culture affect collective behaviour
Collectivist societies like china have less social loafing than individualist societies like USA as they do things for the group’s benefit
Individualist
Thinking about how you will benefit when making decisions
Collectivist
Making decisions with reference to the groups needs
Dispositional factors affecting collective behaviour
- personality
- morality
How does personality affect collective behaviour
People with external locus of control are more likely to be influenced by crowd, internal more likely to follow personal norms
How does morality affect collective behaviour
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
