Social Influence

Question 1

What you need to know

Answer 1

Definitions of conformity, obedience, social loafing and deindividuation.

Description and evaluation of studies of conformity, obedience, social loafing and deindividuation.

Explanation of factors affecting conformity, obedience, social loafing and deindividuation.

Explanation of factors affecting Bystander Intervention

Description and evaluation of studies of Bystander Intervention including

Latane and Darley

Batson

Piliavin

Schroeder

Contemporary and practical implications of studies of social influence and their benefits and drawbacks

Question 2

Social Influence

Definition

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Conformity intro

Answer 3

Conformity refers to the way in which our thoughts and actions are affected by the presence of those around us. Although we are sometimes aware of this happening it can also be unconscious. Consciously we may look to people in our lives for guidance, while unconsciously we may copy or mirror others without realising it.

Psychologists are interested in why and how we conform.

Question 4

Conformity

Definition

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Factors that affect conformity:

Answer 5

• Need to be right: conform more if we think the others have Superior knowledge

When in a situation and we’re unsure of the correct things to do, or say we’ll see what other people are doing and assume they’re correct this will lead us to copy them. This is especially true if we think they have superior knowledge

e. g. through age or experience
* Need to be liked: conform more with people who we want to belong with

Humans have a strong desire to be socially accepted. This means we’re likely to do or say things that make us popular with a group.

The extent to which we conform will vary depending on who we’re with at the time

E.g. may go to a move when we don’t like it because being with them is important

Group Size

In Sherif’s study - the larger the group the more conformity

Difficulty of the Task

Asch found that when the task was more difficlt people were more likely to conform with the condederates.

Unanimous majority

Asch made the task more difficult and increased the number of confederates giving wrong answers. Both led to greater conformity. Whereas there was another person giving a correct answer, or the task was easier, conformity levels went down.

• Ambiguity of the task
• Personality factors eg age, non conforming

Question 6

Sherif Study

[conformity]

Answer 6

Aim: to discover the effect on judgment of listening to other people

Method: he asked participants 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 autokinetic effect) it did appear to

Results:

• individually the participants gave a variety of estimates, which differed quite widely from each others.
• in groups of 3 their estimates became more similar until finally they were very close.

Conclusion: the participants used other people’s opinions to help them form a judgement in an ambiguous situation

Question 7

Asch Study

[conformity]

Answer 7

Aim: to see whether people could be influenced by other people’s opinions to give an answer they knew to be wrong (and are therefore conforming)

Method: white American college students were shown sets of 4 lines. For each set the participant had to say whether line A or B or C was the same length as the test line.

• When alone
• When in groups

Confederates were told to give some wrong answers

Results:

• When tested alone they rarely made a mistake – error rate less than 1%
• When tested in groups 32% of the time the rest gave a wrong answer the participant gave the same wrong answer even when it was obviously right. 74% of the participants gave at least 1 wrong answer

Conclusion: people’s opinions can be changed as a result of group pressure

The only reason for this 32% error rate was hearing the incorrect answers previously given.

Those Participants told Asch they knew their answer were wrong but didn’t want to go against the group. This is true conformity.

Question 8

Eval Conformity

Answer 8

Asch criticised Sherif. He argued that Sherif’s study was flawed because there was no right or wrong answer (the light didn’t actually move). The situation was ambiguous. The distances the light had moved was not known by the participants. So this did not demonstrate conformity. A’s study made sure there was a right or wrong answer.

Weakness

• Both were conducted in laboratories this means neither were natural situations for participants so they may have behaved in unnatural ways. They are low in Ecological validity (not true to everyday life).
• Participants were deceived (not told it was a conformity experiment) this therefore is an ethical issue but would have ruined the experiment if they had been told.

Strengths

Laboratory experiments are the most scientific research methods. Allow a lot of control over the variables. Asch was able to alter the variables e.g. he made the task more difficult and increased the number of confederates giving wrong answers. Both led to greater conformity. Whereas there was another person giving a correct answer, or the task was easier, conformity levels went down.

Question 9

Give an introduction to Obedience

Answer 9

While there are positive reasons for obedience (obeying authority figres can keep us safe and allows society to run smoothly) in history there have been many situations in which authority figures have given people unreasonable orders with terrible consequences (such as genocide).

Psychologists are therefore very interested in why we obey orders even when we feel they’re wrong.

Question 10

What is the Definition of Obedience?

Answer 10

Following the orders of someone we believe to have authority

Question 11

Factors that affect obedience:

Answer 11

The 5 factors that affect obedience are: [BLAGS]

Buffers

Legitimate authority

Agentic state (not feeling responsible)

Gradual commitments

Socialisation

Buffers

“something that creates distance between the teacher and learner (e.g. a wall or another person administering the shocks).

Buffers shield the person from the consequences of their actions on the victim. For example in Milgram’s study, the ‘learner’ was in another room.

Legitimate authority

we have faith in people we believe to be in positions of authority such as when we unquestionably obey a Doctor because we believe in his superior knowledge, or in Milgram’s experiment where the Yale professor in the lab coat made the participants put faith in what he was telling them to do.

Agentic state (not feeling responsible)

when acting on behalf of someone else people don’t feel as guilty or responsible for their actions. Milgram said that in his experiment people lost their sense of responsibility for their own actions. The participants were just acting on behalf of someone else; they were just doing what they were told. This stopped them from feeling they would be blamed for what they did.

Gradual commitment

Slowly increasing your demands of someone so the severity of their actions doesn’t seem as large

e.g. as the shocks in Milgram’s study started quite low and increased by such small steps it was difficult for the participants to know where to draw the line. After all if you have given someone 150 volts already, why not 165?

Socialisation

“the way we are raised to behave and the things we are taught to accept as normal”

Throughout our lives, and especially when we are young, we are taught to obey authority figures, such as parents and teachers. This means that it becomes a normal thing to do.

Question 12

Milgram study

[obedience]

Answer 12

Aim: to see how far people would obey an unreasonable order

Method: 40 male participants were asked to take part in what they thought was a memory and learning study. They were made to believe that they were giving an electric shock to a ‘learner’ (really a confederate) every time he got an answer wrong. Each wrong answer increased the severity of the shock. The shocks weren’t actually real but the participants didn’t know this.

They were seated in front of a shock generator that had 30 switches marked from 15 to 45 volts.

The learner had to remember pairs of words, and if the learner got it wrong the participant had to deliver a shock that increased in severity with each mistake

As the shocks increased, the participant heard a recording of the learner

• Groan in pain,
• Protest
• Beg to be released
• Eventually fell silent.

If the participant tried to stop so the experimenter would provide verbal prods such as ‘the experiment requires that you continue/, ‘you must go on’

Results: Despite the participants suffering a lot of distress (three of them actually had a seizure!) they ALL delivered 300 volts and 65% of the went all the way to 450 volts.

Conclusion: people are prepared to obey quite extraordinary orders if they think the person giving then is in a position of authority

Question 13

Evaluate Milgram’s experiment

Answer 13

This experiment brings up several ethical concerns, such as the removal of

the right to withdraw (participants were led to believe they had to continue);

deception (they were deceived about the nature of the experiment), and

distress and harm.

The experiment was very distressing for the participants. It has been argued that participants realised that the shocks weren’t real, but this doesn’t explain why the stress reactions of the participants were so high.

The experiment could be said to be low in ecological validity because it took place in a lab setting but it has been replicated in many other situations with similar results.

Question 14

Describe the Hoffling study

[obedience]

Answer 14

Aim: to see if people would follow an unreasonable order in their normal work environment

Method: Hofling contacted 22 nurses individually by phone claiming to be a doctor. He instructed them to give a patient twice the maximum dose of a drug called Astrophen

Results: 21 of the 22 followed his order. Even though the max dose was on the bottle

Conclusion: nurses are likely to obey the instructions of a doctor even when there may be bad consequences for a patient

Question 15

Evaluate the Hofling study

Answer 15

Strength

Hofling’s study was an experiment conducted in a real life setting. It had the benefit of being scientific while reducing the artificiality of a laboratory setting.

Weakness

However it can still be argued that this experiment was lacking in ecological validity. The drug used was not a real drug, and the nurses weren’t allowed to discuss the request with anyone. This made the study less realistic, despite the apparent normality of the situation.

Question 16

Intro Social Loafing

Answer 16

When people are in groups, they do not put in as much effort as people doing the same task on their own. In a tug-of-war the more people there are pulling the rope the less effort they each put in. 5 people should be able to apply 5 times the force, but this doesn’t happen. When a group of people are all performing a task together, every person is being helped by others. As a result it is not possible to identify an individual person’s performance. This means they do not need to work as hard as they do on their own.

Question 17

Social loafing definition

Answer 17

Putting less effort into the same task when in a group rather than on your own

Question 18

Factors Social Loafing

Answer 18

Factors that affect social loafing: [SNC - ‘sneak’]

• Size of the group [Latane et al]
• Nature of the task you’re performing
• Culture to which you belong [Earley]

Question 19

Latane study

[social loafing]

Answer 19

Aim: To see whether being in a group would have an effect on how much effort participants put into a task.

Method: Researchers asked 84 participants to shout and clap as loudly as they could while they were

• -alone
• in a group of up to 6.

Each participant wore headphones so they couldn’t hear the others.

Results: The larger the group size, the less noise the participants made

Conclusion: People put less effort into doing something when they know others are contributing effort to the same task than they do when they are the only one.

Question 20

Earley Study

[social loafing]

[know this for your evaluation of Latane]

Answer 20

Aim: To see if culture makes a difference to social loafing

Method: Participants from the US and China had to complete tasks

• alone
• in groups

The level of social loafing was measured by how much effort was put in to the task in each condition by the participants.

Results: The American participants reduced the amount of effort they put in to the task when they were in groups, but the Chinese did not.

Conclusion: Social loafing does NOT exist in all cultures. In some cultures people are prepared to work just as hard for the good of the whole group even when they do not need to.

Question 21

Eval Social Loafing

Answer 21

Latane study could be criticised because the results can’t be generalised to other cultures. In the Earley study results showed that American people put in less effort but Chinese participants did not. People who live in Africa for example, might behave differently again.

Strength: Most of the research has taken place in a laboratory setting. This has the advantages of more control over the variables, and is replicable and objective.

Weakness: The studies are artificial though and low in Ecological Validity. E.g. clapping and shouting on demand is not an everyday activity.

Question 22

Intro Deindividuation

Answer 22

Festinger first used the term Deindividuation to refer to what happens when people lose their sense of individuality (our personality, conscience, values and so on).

An important part of this is our sense of right and wrong.

When deindividuation occurs people lose this, along with their sense of responsibility for what they do. They stop being able to judge whether their actions are right or wrong.

Most people behave in socially acceptable ways because of threat of punishment. However a person can only be punished if it is clear who is responsible, and if they’re identified.

Festinger said deindividuation is more likely to happen in a group because we become anonymous.

Once you join a group your identity becomes harder to distinguish and the threat of punishment decreases. If no one knows you you can’t be punished. This is why deindividuation leads to antisocial behaviour. It’s why mobs behave very differently from people on their own.

Question 23

Deindividuation definition

Answer 23

Not feeling as responsible for our actions when in a group

Question 24

Factors that affect deindividuation

Answer 24

Factors that affect deindividuation: [‘HUG’]

• Hiding your identity
• Wearing a Uniform
• Being part of a clearly identificalbe Gang / Group

Hiding your identity:

Anonymity increases antiscocial acts because people feel they’re not at risk of punishment because they can’t be identified. Lose your sense of your identity can lead to antisocial acts.

Wearing a Uniform:

Uniforms make us like everyone else in a group and discourage us from being individuals. There are roles we are expected to play indicated by uniforms (eg Doctor, Policeman, School pupil).Expected to behave like the group that the uniform represents. People can take on the identity and the norms of the group and lose their individual identity when wearing uniform.

Being part of a clearly identificable Gang / Group :

if we’re seen as belonging to a group then we’re expected to behave like other members of the group. Deindividuation occurs when we behave like the group we are in rather than like an individual.

Question 25

Diener study

[deindividuation]

Answer 25

Aim: To see if children would commit more antisocial acts if they were anonymous

Method: 1300‘trick or treating’ children were split into two groups on Halloween:

• names and addresses
• anonymous

When the children went to the door the answering woman received a fake phone call, and left the children with a bucket of sweets, telling them to take one each.

An observer recorded the chldren’s behaviour.

Results: The children were more likely to steal sweets when anonymous than when they were identifiable and when in groups than alone.

Conclusion: Diener concluded that people are more likely to commit antisocial acts when they can’t be identified

Question 26

Zimbardo study

[deindividuation]

Answer 26

Aim: to see if living in a big city causes people to be more antisocial than living in a small town

Method: A car was deliberately parked with the bonnet up as if it had broken down:

• In a city (New York)
• in a small town (Palto Alto)

Then passers by were observed as they passed the car

Results:

• In the city people immediately began stealing parts off the car, and within 2 weeks there was very little of the car left!
• In the small town the only time the car was touched was when someone lowered the bonnet to stop the engine getting wet in the rain!

Conclusion: The deindividualtion caused by living in a big city leads to more antisocial behaviour

Question 27

Evaluation Deindividuation

Answer 27

Diener and Zimbardo (car study) evaluation

Both studies took place in a natural setting and are therefore high in Ecological validity.

We could criticise these studies on the basis of Ethics as the people were observed without the right to withdraw and deception was necessary, (neither the children or the passers by realised they were being observerd.) However the observation was carefully unobtrusive, and fits the BPS guidelines in that the particiapnts could’ve reasonably be expected to be observed in every day life.

Question 28

Zimbardo prison experiment

[deindividuation]

[Be familiar with this for general answers not off by heart]

Answer 28

Question 29

Zimbardo prison experiment

[Be familiar with this for general answers not off by heart]

Answer 29

Question 30

Intro Bystander Intervention

Answer 30

Bystander intervention is about the degree to which a person nearby (a bystander) will intervene when another individual needs help.

Psychologists interested in Social Influence have studied what causes a person to do nothing in an emergency when someone is in need of help - Bystander apathy

Latane and Darley for example believed that people don’t offer help in such situations as an attack (like the case of Kitty Genovese or Angel Torres), because of the presence of the other people around them.

Question 31

Bystander intervention and apathy definitions

Answer 31

Bystander intervention

When a person near by helps a person in need (in an emergency)

Bystander apathy

When a person near by does nothing (in an emergency) when someone is in need of help

Question 32

Factors that affect Bystander Intervention

Answer 32

Factors that affect Bystander intervention are:

[PACCD - ‘packed’]

• Pluralistic Ignorance
• Appearance
• Characteristics of the victim (such as whether they are similar to us)
• Costs and rewards
• Diffusion of Responsibility

Pluralistic Ignorance

When each bystander takes no action and therefore misleads others into thinking it isn’t an emergency. e.g. in Latane and Darley’s smoke filled room experiment

Appearance of the victim

Another factor that influences whether a Bystander will intervene is how the victim appears. Piliavin’s study illustrated how the appearance of a confederate on a train (who pretended to collapse) determined how much help he received.

Characteristics of the victim

Batson’s study showed how participants were more likely to offer help to someone they felt was similar to themselves, because they felt more empathy for the victim’s suffering.

Costs and rewards

When faced with a situation that requires action, people assess what it will cost them to help and what kind of reward they might expect to gain. If they decide that the costs are higher than the reward they might decide to do nothing.

Schroeder re-examined data on Bystander studies and found that while Bystanders might be genuinely concerned they weight up someone else’s abilities to help over theirs. It’s not ‘Apathy’ at all.

(Altruism occurs when people help purely because the person needs help. But this is highly debatable. Some psychologists believe there’s no such thing, and that really people just weigh up the costs and rewards of helping. )

Diffusion of responsibility

In a group of people there’s less need for the individual to act because they assume someone else will help e.g. Latane and Darley’s epilepsy study.

Question 33

Kitty Genovese and Angel Torres case studies

[bystander int]

[Use these in Evaluations and implications Allie]

Answer 33

Kitty Genovese Case Study

Young woman was stabbed in New York yards from her own house. She was attacked for over half an hour and then killed. No one called the police until afterwards, and then they arrived within 4 minutes. 38 neighbours were questioned by police and able to give a description of the murderer and say what happened. This means any one of them could have prevented the murder by calling the police. Yet not one of them did!

Angel Torres

Angel Torres, 78 was paralysed below the neck and left in a critical condition after being hit by a car when crossing the street. The driver of the car didn’t stop. The traffic camera showed 10 cars pass Torres lying on the ground. Two other turned around and went the opposite way. While the police said 4 people did call 911 but no one on the sidewalk immediately rushed over to see how he was. Torres was lying in the street for nearly a minute and a half before a police cruiser on its way to another call found him lying there.

Question 34

Latane and Darley study

(Epileptic)

Diffusion of Resonsibility study

Answer 34

Aim: To test the concept of Diffusion or Responsibility

Method: Students in booths. Communicate via an intercom. Students thought they were:

• Alone with the confederate
• With 2 other people
• With 5 other people

The confederate mentioned that he was epileptic and

later pretended to have a seizure.

Tested how quickly they responded within 4 minutes

Results:

Response within 4 minutes when students thought they were-

• Alone with the confederate- 85%
• With 2 other people - 62%
• 5 other people - 31%

Conclusion:

When the participant thought they were alone with the confederate they were far more likely to help, than when they thought they were in a larger group. This is an example of diffusion of responsibility: as the number of bystanders increases, the less chance the victim has of receiving help, as all of the responsibility is ‘diffused’ among them

Question 35

Latane and Darley study

[Pluralistic ignorance bystander int]

Answer 35

Aim: to see if people are less likely to act in an emergency when others are present

Method: participants were taken into a room in

• alone
• or in groups of 3

while filling in a questionnaire. While they were doing this the room began to fill with smoke (actually steam)

Results:

• alone 75% of people went to tell someone about it within 6 minutes
• In groups of 3 only 38% of people went to tell someone within 6 minutes

Conclusion:

If there are other people around you, it will make it less likely that you will react in an emergency. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance. People didn’t want to overreact in the presence of others. We use their behaviour as guidance: if they appear to be calm then there mustn’t be a problem

Question 36

Latane and Darley Evaluations

Answer 36

These studies were both Laboratory experiments, and were highly scientific. They are replicable, objective, value free and standardised. The control over the variables allowed the experimenters to rule out other extraneous variables.

However they were artificial. People might not behave this way in everyday situations (low in Ecological validity). Also participants might have tried to guess what the experiment was about and act accordingly (demand characteristics).

Ethical issues:

the participants were deceived in both studies. The smoke was not real and the actor wasn’t having a real seizure. BPS code of Ethics stipulates that research should safeguard particpants from harm and distress. Both of these situations could be potentialy very stresfful for participants. But the experiments wouldn’t have worked otherwise. It would be important to throughoughly debrief particiaptns afterwards

Question 37

Pilliavin study

[bystander int]

Answer 37

Aim: to see if a victim’s appearance influences helping behaviour

Method: Pilliavin used a confederate who pretended to collapse on a train, each time changing his appearance.

The amount of help he received was recorded by an observer.

Results:

Help within 70 seconds-

• with a walking stick = 90% of the time
• With an ugly facial scar = 60%
• When appearing to be drunk = 20%

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

Question 38

Evaluation Piliavin study

Answer 38

Piliavin’s study was a Field experiment. This study was high in ecological validity because it was a real life situation. There were no demand characteristics because people on the train didn’t know it was an experiment.

It’s harder to replicate and control than a laboratory experiment however, and to rule out extraneous variables. For example other factors than appearance could have affected people helping or not helping. This study lends support to the costs and rewards factor of Bystander Intervention e.g. the cane victim received for more help because the costs of helping were lower than for the drunk victim (danger, embarrassment). There are ethical issues involved such as bystanders not be briefed or debriefed, issues of consent, and also people may have left the situation distressed that they hadn’t helped.

Question 39

Shroeder study

[bystander int]

Answer 39

Aim: to explore the different reasons for bystanders not helping (‘Bystander apathy’)

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

Results: they provided an alternative explanation for why bystanders did nothing to help when others were present

Conclusion: They said that it wasn’t about ‘apathy’ at all but instead bystanders are distressed and concerned about victims but they believe that other people might be more capable of helping or can help more easily than themselves. They weigh up the costs and rewards

Question 40

Bateson et al study

[bystander int]

Answer 40

Aim: to discover if being similar to the victim affects whether or not they will get help

Method: participants witnessed what they thought was a woman receiving an electric shock.

Each Participant was made to think that the woman was either

• like themselves
• not like themselves

They were then given the opportunity to take her place to stop her suffering.

Results: more participants were prepared to take the place of the woman they thought to be similar to themselves than dissimilar

Conclusion: People are more likely to help someone they perceive as similar to themselves that they feel they can relate to.

Bateson concluded that this is because we feel greater empathy for people like ourselves, and it cause us more distress to see them suffering. Helping them relieves the distress.

Question 41

Practical Implications of studies of social influence

Answer 41

Conformity:

Studies of conformity have shown how hard it is for people to act differently to the rest of the group. This can have serious implications e.g. when 11 people in a jury think that a defendant is guilty, the 12th juror will agree with them even if she believes otherwise. It’s difficult to disagree with the majority.

Obedience

Milgram’s research has been able to provide one explanation for why soldiers charge of the Nazi death camps committed such atrocities. For example when questioned later some of them said they were just ‘obeying orders’ and weren’t responsible. This is an example of the Agentic state.

Social loafing

Social loafing has shown us that when people belong g to a group they reduce the amount of effort they put into a task. This is because it’s not possible to identify their performance. This explains the behaviour of student when given group tasks, such as a presentation. Some will do most of the work, while others will be able to coast, making very little contribution to the group at al.

Deindividuation

An implication of the research into deindividuation is that, when people are wearing uniforms in the workplace, they do not behave like individuals, but as members of a business or firm. People are made to wear uniforms so that they are easily identifiable eland are less likely to try to be different from others in their company. This is one of the reasons why children are required to wear school uniforms. It makes it harder for them to act independently, and so easier to be controlled by a set of rules that apply to everyone.

Bystander intervention

These studies help to explain why no one helps in situations where victims have been hurt, for example as in the case of Kitty Genoveve who was stabbed in New York yards from her house and in full view of 38 neighbours was attacked for over half an hour before anyone even called for the police. Similarly in 1993 2-year-old James Bulgur was abducted by 2 boys from a shopping centre. Witnesses who watched the abduction did nothing. They took him to waste ground and murdered him. Latane and Darley showed that when lots o people are around, it reduces the change of someone helping. It is hard to realise that there is an emergency when other people are doing nothing. (Pluralistic ignorance) Diffusion of responsibility would stop people from getting involved because everyone assumes someone else will do so.

Question 42

Social Influence Definitions

Answer 42

Social Influence

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

Conformity

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

Obedience

Following the orders of someone we believe to have authority

Socialisation

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

Legitimate authority

People we believe to have real power over us (e.g. security guard wearing a uniform)

Gradual commitment

Slowly increasing your demands of someone so the severity of their actions doesn’t seem as large

Buffers

Something that creates distance between the teacher and learner (e.g. a wall or another person administering the shocks)

Agentic state (not feeling responsible)

When acting on behalf of someone else people don’t feel as guilty or responsible for their actions

Social loafing

Putting less effort into the same task when you are with others doing the same thing rather than on your own

Deindividuation

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

Anonymous

Being able to keep our identity hidden

Diffusion of responsibility

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

Bystander apathy

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

Empathy

Being able to psychologically put yourself in someone else’s position and understand how they are feeling

Altruism

Helping someone without thinking of yourself, sometimes at great cost

Culture:

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

Mundane realism

An everyday situation that is life-like and not artificial