Social Influence Flashcards
Social influence
The defect other people have on our behaviour. This includes conformity, obedience and social loafing.
Conformity
A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as the result of group pressure.
Sherif 1935
Aim-to discover the effect on judgement of listening to other people.
Method- he asked pros to estimate how far a spot of light moved when they were sitting in an otherwise completely dark room. In fact the light didn’t move at all, but owing to an optical illusion called the AUTO-KINETIC EFFECT it did appear to.
Results- individually the ptps gave a variety of estimates, which differed quite widely from each other’s. However, after being allowed to undertake the same task in groups of three, their estimates became more similar until finally that were very close.
Conclusion- the ptps used other people’s opinions to help them form a judgement in an ambiguous situation.
Auto-kinetic effect
An optical illusion, in which a spot of light on a screen appears to move, when in actual fact fact it doesn’t.
Asch 1951
Aim- he wanted to know whether people could be influenced by other people’s opinions to give an answer they knew to be wrong. In this way it would be possible to see if people were conforming.
Method- ptps were shown sets of four lines. For each set, the ptp had to say whether line A,B or C was the same length as the test line. When tested alone, the ptps rarely made a mistake (the error rate was less than 1%). However, ptps also had to give their answer as part of a group. The rest of the group was instructed to give incorrect answers for some of the tests.
Results- on 32% of the trials where the rest of the group gave the wrong answer, the ptps gave the same wrong answer as the rest of the group, rather that the obviously correct answer. In fact 74% of the ptps gave at least one wrong answer.
Conclusion- the only reason for this 32% error rate was hearing the incorrect answers previously given. Those who have the incorrect answers told Asch they knew their answer was wrong but did not want to go against the group. This clearly demonstrates conformity.
Obedience
Following the orders of someone we believe to have authority
Conformity
A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as the result of groups pressure
Milgram 1963
Aim- Milgram wanted to see how far people would obey an unreasonable order
Method- 40 male ptps volunteered to take part in what they thought was an experiment about memory and learning. In this experiment they were made to believe they were giving an electric shock to a “learner” every time he got an answer wrong. The learner was a confederate and the shocks weren’t real. In fact the response to the shocks were recorded and then played to the ptps. However, the ptps, who played the role of the teacher didn’t know this because of how convincing the experiment seemed. The ptps was seated in front of a “shock generator” that had 30 switches marked from 15 volts up to 450 volts.
The learner has to remember pairs of words, and the ptps had to deliver a shock that increased in severity with each mistake the learner made. As the shocks increased, the ptps heard the learner groan in pain, protest and eventually yell to be released. This was just a recording. After doing a lot of yelling the learner fell silent. This melted the ptps want to stop, so the experimenter would provide verbal prods such as “the experiment requires that you continue”.
Results- prior to the experiment, Milgram asked psychiatrists how far they thought the ptps would go. The consensus was that no more than 1% of them would deliver a 450 volt shock. However, despite the ptps suffering a lot of distress (three of them actually had a seizure) they all delivered 300 volt shocks, and 65% went all the way to a 450 volt shock.
Conclusion- people are prepared to obey quite extraordinary orders if they think the person giving them is in a position of authority.
Hofling et al. 1966
Aim- to see if people would follow an unreasonable order in their normal work environment.
Method- he contacted 22 nurses individually by phone. Claiming to be a doctor, he instructed them to give a patient twice the maximum dosage of a drug called “Astrofen”.
Results- of the 22, 21 were prepared to follow his orders, despite the max dosage being clearly marked on the bottle.
Conclusion- nurses are likely to obey the instructions of a doctor even when there may be bad consequences for a patient.
Bickman 1974
Aim- he wanted to know I people would be more likely to obey an order if it came from someone in uniform.
Method-he had actors dress as either a security guard or in a casual jacket
They each asked people sitting in a park to pick up some litter.
Results- what he found was that 80% of people obeyed the “guard” compared with 40% when the actor was in a casual jacket.
Conclusion- wearing a uniform will increase the sense that a person is a legitimate authority figure.
Socialisation
The way we are raised to behave and the things we are taught to accept as normal.
Buffer
Something that creates a distance between the teacher and the learner.
Deindividuation
The state of losing our individuality and becoming less aware of our own responsibility for our actions.
Anonymous
Being able to keep our identity a secret.
Zimbardo 1969 (car)
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 what people did as they passed by.
Results- immediately people started stealing parts off the car in New York, within 2 weeks there was very little of it left. In Palto Alto, the only time it was touched was when someone lowered the bonnet when it was raining to stop the engine from getting wet.
Conclusion- the deindividuation caused by living in a big city leads to an increase in antisocial behaviour.
