Social Influence Flashcards
Piliavin
Wim: To see if the appearance of the victim would influence helping behaviour.
Method: Paliavin had an actor pretend to collapse on a train. His appearance was altered several times and the amount of help they received was recorded by an observer.
Results: When the victim had a walking stick he revived help within 70 seconds, 90% of the time. When he had an ugly facial scar this dropped to 60% and when he appeared drunk ,it dropped to 20%.
Conclusion: People are more likely to offer help to someone similar to themselves rather than someone they for relate to. Batson claims this is due to empathy for people like ourselves , causes more distress to see them suffering and helping them relieves the distress.
Evaluation: HEV - natural setting so behaviour was natural.
Unethical because it may cause people distress.
Batson et al.
Aim: To discover of the similarity of a victim to the bystander will affect whether or not they receive help.
Method: Participants watched a woman who they thought was receiving electric shocks Each participant was made to think that the woman was either like themselves or not. They were given the chance to replace her , stop her suffering.
Results: More participants were prepared to take her place when they thought they were similar than dissimilar.
Conclusion: People are more likely to help someone they feel similar to rather than someone they can’t relate to. Bats on claims this is because we fell greater empathy for people like ourselves and distress when they suffer. Helping them relieves this distress.
Evaluation:
Schroeder
Aim: To explore different reason for bystanders not helping.
Method: They studied the findings and conclusions from previous pieces of research.
Results: They were able to provide an alternative explains ruin for why bystanders did nothing to help when others were present.
Conclusion: bystanders are distressed and concerned about victims , but when people are present they believe someone else might be more capable of helping or can help more easily than themselves.
Evaluation:
Latané and Darley
Aim: To see if people are less likely to help in an emergency when others are present.
Method: They had participants sit in a room either alone or in threes ,while completing a questionnaire. While the participants were doing this smoke began to pour in the room.
Results: of the participants sat alone 75% went to tell someone within 6 minutes , whereas only 38% of these in groups did.
Conclusion:
If there are other people around you, it will make it less likely that you will react in an emergency.
Evaluation: - LEV: artificial setting , so people may behave differently.
Milgram - obedience
Aim: to see how far people will obey an unreasonable order.
Method: 40 participants were lead to believe they were paired with a learner as a teacher, they were administrating shocks every time the learner was wrong. As the voltage increased to a dangerous amount the experimenter continued to in courage the teacher.
Results: all participants delivered 300 volts , suffering a lot of distress ( 3 had seizure) , 65% delivered 450 volts.
Conclusion: people are prepared to obey extraordinary orders if they think the person giving them is in a position of authority.
Obedience definition
Following the orders of Somebody who we believe to have authority.
Conformity definition
A change in behaviour including conformity obedience and socials loafing for example. Changing behaviour or opinions as the result of group pressure.
Asch - conformity
Aim: to see whether people could be influenced by other people’s opinions to give an answer they knew was wrong.
Method: Participants were shown sets of four lines and were asked which of a , b or c matched the test line. When alone participants they rarely made a mistake. However , when tested as part of a group, the rest of the group ha to give incorrect answers.
Results: 32% of the trails ,with a group , the participant gave the same wrong answer as the rest. 74% of the participants have at least 1 wrong answer.
Conclusion: only reason for 32% error rate was hearing the wrong answers before. Those who have answers told Asch they knew they were wrong but did not want to go against the group.
This clearly demonstrates conformity.
Sherif -
Aim: to see the effect on judgement of listening to others.
Method: he asked participants to estimate how a spot of light moved when they were sitting in otherwise completely dark room. In fact the light didn’t move at all, but due to an optical illusion called the autokenetic effect t did appear to.
Results: individually the participants have a variety of estimates, which differed quite widely. However, in groups of threes, their estimates became more similar , until very close.
Conclusion: the participants used other opinions to help them form a judgement in an ambiguous situation.
Deindividuatuon
: state of losing our sense of individuality and becoming less aware of our own responsibility for our actions.
Zimbardo - deindividuation
Aim: to see if people in a big city behave in a more antisocial way than people in a small town.
Method: He parked a car in each place with its bonnet up , as if it had broken down, and observed people as they passed by.
Results: immediately people began stealing parts off the car on New York , and within two weeks there was very little left. In Palto Alto, someone lowered the bonnet to keep it dry during the rain, otherwise it was untouched.
Conclusion: deindividuation caused by living in a big city leads to an increase in antisocial behaviour.
Diffusion of responsibility
In a group of people there is less need for the individual to act because doe one else who is present could also do something.
Bystander apathy
Doing nothing in an emergency when someone is in need of help.
By standing empathy:
putting yourself in someone else’s position psychologically and understand how that person feels.
Social loafing
: putting less effort into doing something when you act with others doing the same thing
