Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

school > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

1
Q

conformity

A

matching the behaviour and beliefs of others in order to fit in

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

compliance

A

going along with the majority, even if we do not agree in private

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

normative social influence

A

compliance because of a need to fit in

occurs when we wished to be liked by the majority group, so we go along with them even if we may not agree with them

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

internalisation

A

to agree with others both in private and public

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

informational social influence

A

when we do not know how to behave
others provide the information so we conform by adopting their beliefs and behaviours

a person will conform because they genuinely believe the majority to be right as we look to them for the right answer

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

identification

A

temporarily adopting the behaviours of a role model or group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

deinviduation

A

loss of personal self awareness and responsibility as a result of being in a group

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

bystander effect

A

when we fail to help another in need

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

situational factors

A

features of a situation that influence whether or not we intervene in an emergency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

personality factors

A

features of an individual that influence how likely they are to intervene in an emergency

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

diffusion of responsibility

A

when we believe others will help so we don’t have to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

pluralistic ignorance

A

when we interpret the situation according to others’ reactions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

blind obedience

A

when we comply with orders of an authority figure without question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

locus of control

A

the extent to which we believe we have control over our behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

authoritarian personality

A

a type of personality that is respectful of authority and rigid in beliefs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

prosocial behaviour

A

behaviour that is seen as helpful, kind, cooperative, and peaceful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

antisocial behaviour

A

behaviour that is seen as unhelpful, aggressive, and destructive

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

individualistic culture

A

a culture that emphasises independence, autonomy, and individuality

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

collectivist culture

A

a culture that emphasises group membership, interdependence, and cooperation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

bystander intervention

A

when we help others in need

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

situational factors

A

diffusion of responsibility
noticing the event
pluralistic ignorance
cost of helping

22
Q

personal factors

A

competence
mood

23
Q

diffusion of responsibility

A

we feel less personally responsible when there are more people around to potentially help

if we are in a crowd when an emergency happens, the larger the crowd the less likely we are to help

we assume others will help and we diffuse our responsibility onto them

24
Q

noticing the event

A

we are less likely to notice events in a large crowd compared to when we are on our own

25
Q

pluralistic ignorance

A

when in situations, we often look to others and react based on what other people are doing

we look to others to help us interpret the situation

if no one is helping, we assume the event is not an emergency

26
Q

cost of helping

A

the higher the costs, the less likely we are to help

costs can include time, effort, danger

27
Q

competence

A

if we feel able enough then we will help

28
Q

mood

A

we are more likely to help if we are in a good mood than in a bad mood

the more we see ourselves as similar to a victim the more likely we are to help

29
Q

aim of Piliavin et al (1969): Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? study

A

to investigate helping behaviour in a natural environment, and understand the conditions in which people are more likely to help

30
Q

procedure of Piliavin et al (1969): Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? study

A
  • New York subway (field experiment)
  • Approx 4500 passengers
  • Between 11am and 3pm
  • 4 groups of 4 students used
  • Covert observation
31
Q

results of Piliavin et al (1969): Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? study

A
  • 62/65 times the victim had a cane the passengers helped before the model
  • 19/38 time the victim appeared drunk the passengers helped before the model
  • 81/103 trials the victim was helped before the model planned to help
  • In 60% of the trials, more than one person help
  • 90% of the first helpers were male
  • 64% of the first helpers were white
  • 68% of helpers who aided the white victim were also white
  • 50% of white passengers came to the aid of a black victim
  • There was a tendency for same race helping if the victim appeared drunk
32
Q

conclusions of Piliavin et al (1969): Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? study

A
  • we are more likely to help an ill victim than a drunk victim
  • men are first helpers more than females
  • people offer help in bigger groups
  • diffusion of responsibility does not always happen
33
Q

evaluation of piliavin et al

A

G: there was a large sample size of 4500 participants, however they only used male model/victims

R: piliavin kept the procedure the same for each of the trials, but because it was in a natural environment it was hard to control extraneous variables

A: demonstrates that diffusion of responsibility does not always happen

V: in a natural environment so high in ecological validity. participants did not know they were being observed, so they were more likely to act naturally and show less demand characteristics

E: no consent from participants as it was a covert observation. also there was deception, as the victim wasn’t really ill/drunk or in need of genuine help.

34
Q

factors affecting conformity

A

personality factors:
- locus of control
- age

situation factors:
- size of group
- unanimity
- task difficulty

35
Q

internal locus of control

A

belief that we are in control of our behaviour

36
Q

external locus of control

A

belief that something else controls our behaviour

37
Q

obedience

A

following orders from a higher authority

38
Q

milgram (1963)

A
  • lab experiment
  • 40 volunteer males
  • shock from 15V to 450V
  • increase with wrong answers
  • 100% went to 300V

-65% of people went to 450V

39
Q

variations of milgram’s study: proximity

A

milgram told the participant to force the learner’s hand down onto a shock plate when they refused to participate after 150 volts

obedience fell to 30%

the participant is no longer ‘protected’ from seeing the consequences of their actions

40
Q

variations of milgram’s study: location

A

the experiment was moved to a set of run down offices rather than the impressive yale university

obedience dropped to 47.5%

this suggests that status of location effects obedience

41
Q

variations of milgram’s study: uniform

A

the role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat

obedience level dropped to 20%

42
Q

what are the two types of personality factors which can influence obedience

A

authotarian personality

agentic state

43
Q

agentic state

A

milgram came up with the agency theory

individuals are either in an agentic state or an autonomous state

someone in an agentic state believes they are acting on behalf of someone else and so are more likely to obey

someone in an autonomous state believes that they have free will and are unlikely to obey

44
Q

before zimbardo’s study, people believed in the dispositional hypothesis

what is that, and what did zimbardo agrue instead

A

dispositional hypothesis: prisons are horrible places because of the nature of people who live and work there

zimbardo argues that it is the situation that makes people act the way they do rather than their disposition

45
Q

two aims of Zimbardo et al (1973)

A

aim 1: to test the dispositional hypothesis

aim 2: to show how the taking of social rules would lead to excessive conformity to those rules

46
Q

method of Zimbardo et al (1973)

A

participants: 24 males

randomly allocated to guard or prisoner

guards: chose their own uniform, set the rules, designed the prison, not allowed to use physical punishment or physical aggression

prisoners: arrested from their homes, blindfolded, brought to the ‘prison’, dressed in a lesser uniform

47
Q

findings of Zimbardo et al (1973)

A
  • the experiment disintegrated very quickly
  • guards began to humiliate and punish the prisoners and many prisoners began to show signs of mental and emotional distress
  • on the second day, the prisoners organised a mass revolt and riot, as a protest about the conditions
    • guards worked extra hours and developed a plan to stop the riot using fire-extinguishers
  • after this, prisoners began to act passively
    • they began to feel helpless and no longer in control of their lives
  • the guards became more aggressive. every guard at some point behaved in an abusive, authoritarian way
  • all prisoners’ rights were redefined as privileges
  • they punished the prisoners with little or no justification
  • they verbally insulted the prisoners
  • the prisoners became institutionalised very quickly and adapted to their roles
48
Q

pathological prisoner syndrome

A
  • the loss of personal identity
  • the arbitrary control excersised by the guards
  • dependency and emasculation
49
Q

evidence of pathological prisoner syndrome

A
  • one prisoner left and replacement prisoner was introduced. he went on a hunger strike as a protest about the treatment of inmates, and as an attempt to be released. the other inmates saw him as a troublemaker rather than a fellow victim trying to help
  • stopped after just 6 days instead of the planned 14 days because of the pathological reactions of the participants
  • 5 prisoners had to be released even earlier because of extreme emotional reactions
50
Q

conclusions of Zimbardo et al (1973)

A
  • rejects dispositional hypothesis
  • the prison environment changed the guards behaviour
  • people conform to the roles they are expected to play
  • the roles we are given can shape our behaviour and attitudes
51
Q

evaluating Zimbardo

A

G: the sample was limited - only males took part, it was a small sample and they were all university students

R: there were lots of controls in place - the experiment was recorded so there could be inter-rater reliability

A: the study tells us about prison behaviour - it tells us that the situation in a prison can lead to negative behaviour

V: the prison was not real life - the prisoners had not committed real crimes and the guards had limited power. the participants all knew it was part of the study and may have shown demand characteristics

E: the study was unethical - there was lots of psychological harm, and it was very difficult for prisoners to withdraw, despite asking for ‘parole’

school (9 decks)

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