Social influence Flashcards
what was the aim of Asch’s study?
to investigate conformity in group pressure in unambiguous situations, through ppts responses
what was the method of Asch’s study?
- 123 male students tested in a group
- groups of 6 to 8 confederates
- two cards were presents, one standard line, and 3 comparison lines
- they had to match the standard line with one of the 3 comparison lines.
- confederates went last or next to last
- 18 trials, 12 were critical (where the confederates gave the wrong answer)
what were the results of Asch’s study?
- on critical trials, the ppts gave the wrong answer 1/3 of the time (agreeing with the confederates)
- 25% of the ppts never gave the wrong answer
what was the conclusion of Asch’s study?
- people are influenced by group pressure.
- though there was a high level of independence despite group pressure
one evaluation of Asch’s study?
- (weakness) it only reflects conformity in the 1950s in the USA
- Perrin and spencer repeated the study in 1980 in the UK and found just one conforming response in 396 trials
- this suggests that the Asch effect is not consistent over time.
another evaluation of Asch’s study?
- (weakness) they had an artificial task
- the task was trivial and strangers were involved so it doesn’t reflect everyday situations.
- results conducted cannot explain more serious world conformity situations
EXTRA: evaluation of Asch’s study?
- (weakness) Asch’s research is more reflective of conformity in individualist cultures.
- studies conducted in collectivist countries (like china) produce higher conformity rates than in individualist countries (like the USA and UK) (bond and smith)
- suggests that Asch’s study cannot be generalised to collectivist countries.
what do social (factors) mean?
conformity occurs because of real or imagined pressure from others
how is group size a social factor?
- the more people, the more pressure to conform
- Asch found, more than 3 confederates made a little difference (2 confederates 13.6%) (3 confederates 31.8%)
how is anonymity a social factor?
- when writing answers down conformity was lower (because they were anonymous)
how is task difficulty a social factor?
- task difficulty: if comparison lines are more similar to the standard line, the task becomes harder, and conformity increases.
evaluation of group size
- depends on the task, when no obvious answer then no conformity unless more than 8 ppt were in group
evaluation of anonymity
- if ppts are friends and opinion is anonymous conformity is higher (Huang and li)
evaluation of task difficulty
- people with expertise are less affected by task difficulty
what do dispositional (factors) mean?
the characteristics of a person
how is personality a dispositional factor?
- internal locus of control leads to lower conformity.
- burger and cooper found internals, less likely to agree with confederates ratings of the cartoon.
how is expertise a dispositional factor?
- more knowledgeable people, conform less
- Lucas found math experts less likely to conform to other’s answers on maths problems.
evaluation of personality
- control is less important in familiar situations (rotter)
evaluation of expertise
- no single factor to explain conformity, e.g. maths experts may conform in a group of strangers in order to be liked
what was the aim of Milgram’s study?
to investigate if people obey an unreasonable order (to deliver electric shocks)
what was the method of Milgram’s study?
- 40 male (20-50 age) volunteered
- ‘teacher’ pared with ‘learner’ (confederate)
- teacher instructed by the experimenter to give a shock if the learner answered a question incorrectly
- experimenter gave ‘prods’ to continue.
- intensity increased from 15 to 450 volts
what were the results of Milgram’s study?
- no participants stopped below 300 volts
- 5 stopped at 300 volts when the learner pounded on the wall (12.5%)
- 65% continued to 450 colts
- participants showed extreme tension e.g 3 had seizures.
what was the conclusion of Milgram’s study?
obedience has little to do with dispostion
- factors in the situatiion made it difficult to disobey e.g experimenter wearing a coat (authority figure)
one evaluation of Milgram’s study?
- (weakness) lacked realism
- participants may not believed the shock was real.
- ppts voiced suspicious about the shocks (perry)
- this suggests that milgran participants just went along and werent really obeying orders
another evaluation of Milgram’s study?
- (strength) it is supported by other research
- sheridan and king found 100% females followed orders to give a fatal shock to a puppy.
- suggests that Milgram’s results were not faked but represented a genuine obdedience.
EXTRA: one evaluation of Milgram’s study?
- (weakness) the study has ethetical issues
- milgram ppts experiencsed considerable sidstress
- he could have caused psychological damage to his ppts
- because they thought they were causing pain to the learner
- this suggests that whether his research should have been carried out or not
what is the agentic state (social factors of Milgram’s agency theory)?
followers orders with no responsibility
what is the autonomous state (social factors of Milgram’s agency theory)?
makes their own free choice + feel responsible for their own actions
what is the agentic shift (social factors of Milgram’s agency theory)?
- moving from making their own choice (autonomous state) to following orders (agentic state)
- occurs when someone is in authority
how does culture affect obedience?
- in the social hierarchy, societies have a hierarchy with some people having more authority than others
- hierarchy depends on society and socialisation
how does proximity affect obedience?
- ptts are less obedient in Milgram’s study when in the same room as a learner
- increasing ‘moral strain’
- if the teacher was physically closer to the learner the teacher was less obedient.
one evaluation of Milgram’s agency theory
- (weakness) it doesn’t explain all findings and why there isn’t 100% obedience. in Milgram’s study, 35% of the participants didn’t go up to the maximum shock of 450 volts.
- this means that the social factors cannot fully explain obedience in the study
another evaluation of Milgram’s agency theory
- (weakness) agency theory gives people an excuse for ‘blind’ obedience.
- nazi who were racist and prejudiced were doing more than just following orders.
- this means that agency theory is potentially dangerous as it excuses people
what did Adorno believe?
Adorno believed that unquestioning obedience was due to a psychological disorder and tried to find its cause in an individual’s personality (disposition)
what are the characteristics of an authoritarian personality?
- exaggerated respect for authority figures
- hierarchy with people showing obedience to those with more power.
- Hostile to those seen as inferior intolerant of weakness
- Will expect obedience from those lower in the social hierarchy
- More likely to show obedience to direct orders from a person perceived as having authority or higher up in the social hierarchy
- Exaggerated respect for authority figures
how and when is authoritarian personality originated?
- develops if have overly strict parents.
- Those who show how strong discipline and are critical of their behaviour.
- He believes it is something that is made not something you are born with (nature not nurture)
- Freud said we learn our moral values through identification with our parent’s values - expects all people to act like this.
- The child feels some hostility towards the parent’s high standards and conditional love. Can’t express as they fear appraisal
- Conditional love - child only receives love if they behave correctly.
how does a person with an authoritarian personality think?
- have a particular way of thinking
- They like things to be black and white
- They believe in rigid stereotypes. This is called a rigid cognitive style.
what is meant by Scapegoating?
- people who are hostile will displace their anger onto something else.
- Authoritarian personality will displace someone they feel are inferior and this is called scapegoating.
- This relieves anxiety and hostility
- It makes you feel better when you offload.
one evaluation of Adorno’s obedience theory
- one weakness is that Adorno’s idea of authoritarian personality was based on flawed questionnaire.
- The questionnaire was called f-scale.
- They used age scale with over 2000 middle-class white Americans and the results formed the basis of their theory.
- However subsequently the f-scale was quite strongly criticized, most notably because it has a response bias- anyone who tended to answer yes instead of no to the questions would end up with a higher authoritarian score . - This challenges the validity of the theory because it is based on poor evidence.
another evaluation of Adorno’s agency theory
- another weakness with the evidence is that the data is correlational.
- The theory is challenged because we cannot claim that authoritarian personality causes greater obedience levels.
- A ‘third factor’ may be involved, for example, both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education.
- This suggests that other factors may explain the apparent link between obedience and the authoritarian personality.
EXTRA: one evaluation of Adorno’s agency theory
- one weakness is that authoritarian personality cannot explain all cases of obedience
- germans were obedient but did not all have the same upbringing and same personality
- this suggests social and dispositional factors affect obedience
what is meant by prosocial behaviour?
Behaviour that’s beneficial to other ppl + may not necessarily benefit helper - you act in a way that promotes the welfare of others
what is meant by bystander effect?
- The observations that the presence of others (bystanders) reduce likelihood of help being offered in emergency situations.
- basically reduced bystander affect
what is the aim of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)
To investigate if characteristics of a victim affect wthere people will help a bystander in a natural setting.
what is the method of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)
- male confederate collapses on subway
- victim appareas drunk or disables with a cane
- 103 trails
- one confedrate was a model if no other help offered
- 2 observers recorded key inofrmation
what are the results of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)
- disabled victim given help in 95% of trials
- drunk victim 50% of trials was helped
- help was likely in crowded and empty carriages
what is the conclusion of Pilvian’s subway study? (prosocial behaviour)
- characteristics of victim affects help given
- in a natural emergncy willingness to help is not related to the number of witnesses
one evaluation of Pilvian’s subway study
- one strength was it had high realism
- participants didnt know their behaviour was being studied
- which means they behaved naturally
- suggests that the results of study are high in validty
another evaluation of Pilvian’s subway study
- one weakness is that it had an ubran sample
- ppts came mostly from the city
- meaning they may have been used to emergencies
- mean that their behaviour may not have been typical of all people
EXTRA: one evaluation of Pilvian’s subway study
- one strength is that they collected qualitative data
- 2 observes on each trial noted down remarks they heard from passengers
- This offered a deeper insight into why people did or did not offer help
how is the presence of others a social factor of prosocial behaviour?
- bystander effect states that the more people are present the less likely that help is given. -
- darley and latanè asked participants to have a discussion on intercom with others (confederates). one had an epileptic seizure and asked for help.
- if participants thought they were alone 85% reported the seizure compared to 31% if they thought four others were present
how is the cost of helping a social factor of prosocial behaviour?
decision of whether to help depends on costs:
- cost of helping includes: danger to self or embarrassment
- cost of not helping includes:: guilt, blame and leaving another in need
- cost-reward model: balance between costs and rewards of helping
evaluation of the presence of others
it depends on the situation and the cost of not helping. in very serious emergencies help is given
evaluation of the cost of helping
- help also depends on how the situation is interpreted,
- e.g. man and woman arguing, 65% intervened when the woman shouted ‘i don’t know you’ but only 19% when shouting i’ don’t know why im married to you’
how is the similarity to victim a dispositional factor of prosocial behaviour?
- if you identify with a characteristic of victim you are more likely to help
- manchester united football fans were more likely to help a runner who had fallen over if the runner dressed in a manchester united shirt as opposed to a liverpool one
how is expertise a dispositional factor of prosocial behaviour?
- people with specialist kills are more likely to help in emergency situations that suit their expertise.
- registered nurses were more likely to help than non-medical students to help a workman who had fallen off a ladder
evaluation of similarity to victim
similarity may increase helping but for example if the costs are too high or the situation is ambiguous it is not sufficient to guarantee helping.
evaluation of expertise
in contrast people who had received red cross training were no more likely to help a victim who was bleeding a lot than people who had no training - though the red cross people have a higher quality of help.
what is crowd and collective behaviour?
- le bron suggests that being in a crowd creates anonymity, leading to antisocial behaviour.
- behaviour is ruled by social norms. when not identifiable (deindividuated) we lose our sense of responsibility and behave irrationally/aggressively
what was zimbardo’s aim? (crowd and collective behaviour)
to investigate deindividuation in a study similar to milgram’s
what was zimbardo’s method? (crowd and collective behaviour)
- 4 female undergraduates
- had to deliver a fake elctric shock to another student
- group 1: individuated group - person delivering the shock wore their normal clothes, name tags and could see each other.
- group 2: deindividuated group - person delivering the shock wore large coats with hoods, never referred to by name.
what were zimbardo’s results? (crowd and collective behaviour)
- the deindividuated group was more likely to press the button to shock the ‘learner’ in the other room.
- they held the shock button down twice as long as the individuated group
what was zimbardo’s conclusion? (crowd and collective behaviour)
- this supports the view that both anonymity and deindividuation increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviour
one evaluation of zimbardo’s study
- one weakness is that deindividuation doesn’t always lead to antisocial behaviour
- johnson and downing found that participants dressed as a nurse have fewer and milder shocks than those dressed in a KKK outfit but more shocks than those in their own clothes
- this shows that people take on group norms
another evaluation of zimbardo’s study
- one strength is that understanding deindividuation can be used to manage crowds
- at sporting fixtures crowd control can be achieved through using video cameras so people are more self-aware
- this can then reduce aggressive behavior of the crowd
EXTRA: one evaluation of zimbardo’s study
- another weakness is that antisocial behaviour may be due to crowding rather than collective behaviour
- when animals are packed together they feel stressed and act aggressively (freedman)
- so it may be overcrowding that creates antisocial behaviour as well as deindividuation
how is deindividuation a social factor of crowd and collective behaviour?
- group norms (social factors) determine the behaviour of the crowd - either prosocial or antisocial.
how is social loafing a social factor of crowd and collective behaviour?
- in a group, people individually put in less effort.
- being in a group reduces personal identity (deindividuation) so individual effort is not known.
- latanè etal. found participants made less noise individually when shouting in a group of 6 than when on their own.
how is culture a social factor of crowd and collective behaviour?
- individualist cultures (e.g. US,UK) focus on individual needs. collectives cultures (e.g. china, korea) focus on the needs of the group
- social loafing lower in collectivist cultures, e.g. Earley found chinese but not US people put in the same effort on a group tak regardless of whether they could or could not be identified
evaluation of deindividuation (social factor)
antisocial effects may be due to being packed together in small space (crowding), as researched by freedman
evaluation of social loafing (social factor)
social loafing is not a problem for creative tasks - in fact more people mean greater individual output
evaluation of culture (social factor)
making generalisations about cultures may be simplification of the way people behave since they are influenced by multiple factors.
how is personality a dispositional factor of a crowd and collective behaviour?
people with an internal locus of control are less likely to be influenced by others in a crowd.
how is morality a dispositional factor of a crowd and collective behaviour?
- morals are our sense of right and wrong.
- those with greater moral strength are more likely to have their behaviour guided by these morals than be influenced by the opinions/behaviour of others.
evaluation of personality (dispositional factor)
- not all research shows that personality matters.
- for example in one study ‘whist-blowers’ had similar scores on a personality test as non-whistle-blowers
evaluation of morality (dispositional factor)
- supported by history when the german sophie scholl was executed for distributing anti-nazi literature.
- she resisted the group norm and was willing to sacrifice her life for her moral values.
