Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology 204 > 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

Social Influence

A

Change in Feeling, Thinking and Doing due to the real, imagined or implied presence of other

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

Conformity

A

Adjust behaviour to match norms

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

Compliance

A

Change behaviour at others’ request

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

Obedience

A

Change due to authority’s demands

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q 
Muzafer Sherif (1936)
- Autokinetic effect
A

Estimate light movement
Participants maintained what the group had established as what was being the norm
At first, estimates were all over the past, together focused on a particular estimate and finally, alone estimate was established throughout the rest of the trials

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

Autokinetic effect summary

A
  • Results converge towards a norm
  • Informational influence: search for understanding
  • Private conformity: internalisation, lasting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q 
Solomon Asch (1951)
- Line Judgement Task
A

Match the line
Group Setting: 75% conformed at least once (av rate. 50%)
Control setting:

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

Line Judgement Task Summary

A

Results - group pressure

  • Normative Influence: social approval
  • Public conformity: no internalisation, short-lived
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Reasons for conforming

A 
Information influence
- need to know/be correct
- private
Normative influence
- need to belong
- public
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Foot-in-the-door technique

A

Agree to small request -> comply to large request

Change in self-perception

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

Door-in-the-face technique

A

Reject large request -> accept small request

Reciprocal concession

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

Pique technique

A

Odd request -> disrupt refusal script

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

Milgram Experiment

A

Effect of punishment on learning
Random Assignment (Learner v Teacher)
Wrong response -> shock
Increasing intensity

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

Obedience Summary

A

Authority demands -> change in behaviour

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

Bib Latane (1981) - Social Impact Theory

A

Influence of others on our FTD
Social Impact = Strength, Immediacy, Number
Operates According to Psychosocial Law
Decreases as targets increase

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

Strength x Immediacy x Number

A

Asch - More confederates -> more conformity

Perceived Proximity -> closer an authoritative figure gets to you

17
Q

Psychosocial Law

A 
Diminishing marginal returns 
Gawker Study (1969, Milgram) - Varied group size, 1 to 2 people compared to 14 to 15, given intersection to look up
18
Q

Decreases as targets increase

A

Lecture vs. Office Hours
Bystander Effect - less people more likely to help, more people less likely or slower
Tug of War - Diffusion of Responsibility (more people, less effort, just yourself, more effort)

19
Q

Tipping Study (Freeman et al. 1975) - Party size 1 to 6, percentage of tip

A

As party size increases, individual contributions decreases

20
Q

Social Impact Theory Summary

A

Explain social influence
- Social impact = strength x immediacy x number
> status, proximity and size jointly -> FTD
- Psychosocial law
> Each additional source -> less added impact
- Decreases as targets increase
> increase in targets diffuses social impact

21
Q

Presence of Others Summary

A

Social facilitation - mere presence, evaluation apprehension

Social inhibition - drive theory, strengthen dominant response

22
Q

The Billiards Study

A

Novice vs Pro

Skilled Players improved with audience, unskilled players had a weakened performance with an audience

23
Q

Jogging Study (Worringham & Messick, 1983)

A

Absent vs Mere Presence vs Evaluation - mostly sped up when person was watching you

24
Q

Explanations of Presence of others

A

Mere presence of others - boost in how we perform

Evaluation apprehension - concern over approval/disapproval -> performance

25
Q

Social Facilitation - Real World

A

Team New Zealand - recovery from tip, Grant Fox - 126 points in single tournament, Wilt Chamberlain - 100 points

26
Q

Norman Triplett (1898)

A

Bicyclists were faster in competition than in practice

27
Q

Performance in Groups

A

Individuals in Groups -> Social Loafing
Effort: Individual > Group
Diffusion of Responsibility
Less Accountable

28
Q

Social Loafing

A

When we are in a group full of others, everyone puts in less effort

29
Q

Cheering Study (Latane et al. 1979)

A

Volume of cheering/clapping changed depending on the number of people

30
Q

Loss due to effort or coordination?

A

A bit of lack in coordination but social loafing occurred during the constant stream of noise in Latane et al.’s follow up study

Psychology 204 (14 decks)

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