Social Influence Flashcards

1
Q

Social influence

A

The defect other people have on our behaviour. This includes conformity, obedience and social loafing.

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

Conformity

A

A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as the result of group pressure.

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

Sherif 1935

A

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.

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

Auto-kinetic effect

A

An optical illusion, in which a spot of light on a screen appears to move, when in actual fact fact it doesn’t.

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

Asch 1951

A

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.

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

Obedience

A

Following the orders of someone we believe to have authority

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

Conformity

A

A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as the result of groups pressure

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

Milgram 1963

A

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.

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

Hofling et al. 1966

A

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.

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

Bickman 1974

A

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.

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

Socialisation

A

The way we are raised to behave and the things we are taught to accept as normal.

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

Buffer

A

Something that creates a distance between the teacher and the learner.

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

Deindividuation

A

The state of losing our individuality and becoming less aware of our own responsibility for our actions.

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

Anonymous

A

Being able to keep our identity a secret.

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

Zimbardo 1969 (car)

A

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.

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

Zimbardo 1969 (shocks)

A

Aim- to see the effect of hiding the identity of ptps on the size of electric shocks they are prepared to give someone.

Method- female uni students were put into one of two groups when playing the role of the teacher. The first group had to wear laboratory coats with hoods to hide their faces and they weren’t introduced to each other. The second group wore their own clothes and name badges.

Results- the shocks given by the first group were twice as great as the shocks given but the second group.

Conclusion- being able to hide identity leads people to behave in crueller ways than they otherwise would because the person doesn’t know who they are. This means there are less likely to be any consequences for what they do.

17
Q

Mundane realism-

A

An everyday situation, that is life-like and not artificial.

18
Q

Closed-circuit television (CCTV)-

A

A television system often used for surveillance.

19
Q

Social loafing

A

Putting less effort into doing something when you are with others doing the same thing.

20
Q

Culture

A

A group of people (usually living in one place) who share similar customs, beliefs and behaviour.

21
Q

Latané et al. 1979

A

Aim- to see whether being in a group would have an effect on how much effort ptps put into a task.

Method- researchers asked 84 ptps to shout and clap as loudly as they could while they were alone or in groups up to 6. Each ptps wore headphones so that they couldn’t hear the others.

Results- the larger the group size the less noise the ptps made.

Conclusion- people put less effort into doing something when they k ow others are contributing effort to the same task than they do when they are the only one.

22
Q

Earley 1989

A

Aim- to see if culture makes a difference to social loafing.

Method- ptps form the US and China had to complete tasks alone and in groups. The level of social loafing was measured by how much effort was put in to the task in each condition by the ptps.

Results- the US ptps reduced the amount of effort they put in to the task when they were in groups, but the Chinese didn’t.

Conclusion- social loafing does not exist in all cultures. In some people are prepared to work just as hard for the good of the whole group.

23
Q

Latané and Darley 1968

A

Aim- to see if people are less likely to react in an emergency when there are others present.

Method- the had ptps sit in a room either alone or in threes while completing a questionnaire. While the ptps were doing this smoke started coming into the room.

Results- of the ptps 75% of those sitting alone went to tell someone about the smoke within 6 mins, whereas only 38% of those in groups of threes did.

Conclusion- if there are other people around you, it will make it less likely that you will react in an emergency.

24
Q

Diffusion of responsibility

A

In a group of people there is less need for the individual to act because someone else who is present could also do something.

25
Q

Piliavin 1972

A

Aim- to see if the appearance of the victim would influence helping behaviour.

Method- Piliavin hired a confederate to collapse in a train carriage. His appearance was altered several times and the amount of help he received each time was recorded by an observer.

Results- when the “victim” carried a walking stick, he received help within 70 seconds, 90% of the time. When he had an ugly facial scar, this dropped to 60%. When he appeared to be drunk, it dropped to 20%.

Conclusion- the appearance of the person needing help will affect whether and how quickly they get that help.

26
Q

Empathy

A

Being able to put yourself in someone else’s position psychologically and understanding how that person is feeling.

27
Q

Altruism

A

Helping someone without thinking of yourself, sometimes at great cost.

28
Q

Bystander apathy

A

Doing nothing in an emergency when someone is in need of help.

29
Q

Batson et al. 1983

A

Aim- to discover if the similarity of a victim to the bystander will affect whether or not they receive help.

Method- ptps watched a woman who they thought was receiving electric shocks. Each ptps was made to think the woman was either like themselves or not like themselves. They were then given the opportunity to take the woman’s place in order to stop her suffering.

Results- more ptps were prepared to take the place of the woman they thought was similar to themselves than dissimilar.

Conclusion- people are more likely to offer help to someone they believe is more similar to themselves in some way than to someone they cannot relate to. Batson claimed it is because we feel greater empathy for people like ourselves, and it causes us more distress to see them suffering. Helping them relieves this distress.

30
Q

Schroeder et al. 1995

A

Aim- to explore different reasons for bystanders not helping.

Method- they studied the findings and conclusions from many previous pieces of research.

Results- they were able to provide an alternate explanation for why bystanders did nothing to help when others were present.

Conclusion- bystanders are distressed and concerned about victims but, when other people are present, they believe that someone else might be more capable of helping, or can help more easily than themselves.

31
Q

Practical implications

A

Suggestions about behaviour in the real world beyond the research study, based upon what psychologists have discovered.