Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
A change in our behavior to fit in with social norms or as the result of perceived group pressure
Dispositional factors
Personal characteristics that may affect how a person will behave
Asch’s conformity study
Aim: To investigate if people would conform to the opinions of others even if they knew the answer was wrong
Method: 123 male participants shown sets of 4 lines and asked which line was the same as the test line. Each participant was tested alongside 6-8 confederate. In total there were 18 trials.
Results: On 36.8% if the trails where the rest of the group gave the wrong answer, the participant conformed. 24% resisted the urge to conform
Conclusion: People conform to fit in with a group
Asch’s conformity study: Eval
:) Lab experiment so high level of control over variables -> More reliable as easier to establish cause and effect
:( Lab so not natural situation -> participants might have been acting differently to real life -> less ecological validity
Informational social influence:
The need to be right. If we are in an ambiguous situation we will see what others are doing and assume they are correct. We copy them.
Normative social influence
The need to be liked. In a social situation we have a strong desire to be accepted into the group. We might say or do things just to be popular.
Dispositional factors affecting conformity
- Personality (low IQ=high conformity)
- Expertise (high expertise+low conformity)
Social factors affecting conformity
- Group size (bigger group=more conformity)
- Task difficulty (difficult task=more conformity)
- Anonymity (more anonymous=less conformity)
Obedience
When you follow the orders of an authority figure
Agency
The responsibility we feel for our own actions
Agency theory
The idea that a person will obey an authority figure when they believe that the authority figure will take responsibility for whatever the person does
Milgram’s obedience study
Aim: To see how far people would obey an unreasonable order
Method: 40 male participants volunteered to take part in what they thought was an experiment about memory and learning. They were told that they should shock the learner every time he got an answer wrong. The learner was a confederate and the shocks weren’t real. The participant was seated in front of a shock generator that had switches from 15V to 450V
Results: All 40 went to 300 volts and 65% went to 450 volts
Conclusion: People are prepared to obey dangerous orders if they think the person giving them is in a position of authority
Social factors affecting obedience
- Authority (More likely to follow orders from people who have authority as we trust them)
- Culture (Lower leaves of obedience in individualistic cultures vs collectivist cultures)
- Proximity (Closer to authority= higher obedience)
Dispositional factors affecting obedience
- Authoritarian personality
- Cognitive style (people who think in black and white prefer to have rigid stereotypes)
Authoritarian personality
Develops as a result of a lack of love from strict parents. The child grows up feeling anger towards their parents but is too anxious to fight against them. Instead they displace their feelings onto a person or group of people that they see inferior to themselves. This is scapegoating and leads to discrimination against minority groups
Pro social behaviour
Acting in a way that is beneficial to other people
Bystander intervention
When people offer help in emergency sitatuons
Bystander apathy
When people choose not to help
Social factors affecting bystander behaviour
- Presence of others (more likely to help others when we are alone than when others are present)
- The cost of helping (we weight up the cost and rewards of helping a person in need. Sometimes we decide that it is too costly to intervene)
Dispositional factors affecting bystander behaviour
- Similarity to victim (when there are more similarities, bystanders are more likely to help)
Expertise (More likely to help if they believe they have the skills required to help someone)
Piliavin’s subway study
Aim: To see whether the appearance of someone would influence helping behavior
Method: Someone pretended to collapse on the train. In 38 of the trials he appeared to be drunk and in 65 he appeared to be sober and have a walking stick
Results: When he was sober he received help within 70 seconds 95% of the time. When he was drunk he received help within 70 seconds 50% of the time
Eval. of Piliavin’s study
:) The study was carried out in a natural setting -> higher ecological validity
:( Conducted in America, this is an individualistic culture where people deal with their own problems -> cant be generalized for all cultures
Collective behaviour
People can behave differently when in groups or crowds than when they are alone
Antisocial behaviour
When people do not act in a socially acceptable way
Social factors affecting collective behaviour
- Social loafing (We assume that people work better when they are a team but this is not always the case. Individuals often put less effort into a group task as diffusion of responsibility occurs
- Deindividuation (When people lose their sense of individuality because they feel anonymous. People lose their sense of responsibility)
- Culture (Social norms within a culture can affect collective behaviour. In some societies such as China, people are preparers to work hard for the good of the people)
Dispositional factors affecting collective behaviour
- Personality (Some people have an internal locus of control which means they believe they can control the things that happen to them (taking the blame))
- Morality (Their sense of what is right and what is wrong- e.g if people do not trust the police they may feel justified in abusing officers in collective situations)
Social factors
External events which may affect how a person behaves
