Social Influence Flashcards
Paper 2
who investigated conformity
Asch
aim of Asch’s study
to investigate conformity through participants responses to group pressure in an unambiguous situation
method of Asch’s study
123 male American students tested in a group of 6 to 8 confederates
two large cards were shown one with a SINGLE STANDARD LINE and one with THREE COMPARISON LINES
participants were asked to select the matching line
results of Asch’s study
there were 18 trials
on the 12 critical trials the participants gave the wrong answer 1/3 of the time, agreeing with confederates
25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer meaning 75% conformed at least once
conclusions of Asch’s study
shows that people are influenced by group pressure
also shows a high level of independence as despite group pressure, the majority went against the group opinion
what are three brief evaluation points of Asch’s study
WEAKNESS - may only reflect conformity in 1950’s America (McCarthyism)
WEAKNESS - the task and situation are artificial
WEAKNESS - more reflective of individualist cultures and not collectivist cultures
explain three weaknesses of Asch’s study
1950s America was particularly conformist due to the government being dominated by McCarthyism - a movement to ostracise anyone with communist tendencies - this meant people were fearful of behaving differently from the majority
a study conducted in the UK in the 1980s investigating conformity only found one conforming response across 396 trials
this suggests that the Asch effect is not consistent over time
the task and situation are rather artificial - judging the length of a line with a group does not reflect everyday situations where people conform so the results may not explain more serious real world situations
Asch’s research is more reflective of conformity in individualist cultures
studies conducted in collectivist cultures such as China produce higher conformity rates than those carried out in individualist countries such as the USA and the UK (BOND AND SMITH)
therefore we may not be able to generalise Asch’s results to collectivist cultures
what are 3 social factors affecting conformity
group size
anonymity
task difficulty
what are 2 dispositional factors affecting conformity
personality
expertise
explain group size as a social factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
the more people there are in a group the greater the pressure to conform - Asch found that as group size increased, conformity levels increased up until 3 confederates (after which there was little difference)
the effect of group size depends on the tasks - when there is no obvious answer people conform when the group is 8+ people
explain anonymity as a social factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
when people could write down answers (were anonymous) conformity levels were lower
Huang and Li found that expressing opinions anonymously when with friends increases conformity
explain task difficulty as a social factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
if the comparison lines are more similar to the standard, the task becomes harder and conformity increased
people with more expertise are less affected by task difficulty
explain personality as a dispositional factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
internal locus of control leads to lower conformity because you feel personally responsible
when asked to rate cartoons, BURGER AND COOPER found that participants with a high desire for control (internals) were less likely to agree with a confederate when rating the same cartoons
one weakness is that locus of control does not have an effect on conformity in familiar situations, where your past behaviour is more influential than your locus of control
explain expertise as a dispositional factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
more knowledgeable people tend to be less conformist as found in the case of maths experts being less likely to conform to others’ answers to maths problems (LUCAS ET AL)
no single factor can explain conformity and this focusing on a single factor is simplistic
who investigated obedience
Milgram
aim of Milgram’s study
to see if people would obey an unreasonable order by delivering electric shocks
method of Milgram’s study
40 males between ages 20 and 50 volunteered for a study on memory
the ‘teacher’ was paired with the ‘learner’ (confederate)
the learner was strapped in a chair and wired with electrodes which could give an electric shock
the teacher was instructed to give a shock to the learner when a mistake was made
the voltage increased from 15V up to 450V
results of Milgram’s study
no participants stopped below 300V
5 participants stopped at 300V when the learner pounded on the wall
65% continued to 450V
participants also showed signs of anxiety and tensions biting nails and lips and three even had seizures
conclusions of Milgram’s study
obedience has little to do with disposition
factors in the situation made it very hard to disobey (Milgram identified 13 factors that influenced obedience including the location of the study, a new situation and not wanting to interrupt the experiment)
give three brief evaluation points of Milgram’s study
WEAKNESS - participants may not have believed the shocks were real
WEAKNESS - Milgram’s participants experienced considerable distress raising ethical concerns
STRENGTH - other studies have found similar levels of obedience
explain one strength of Milgram’s study
other studies have found similar levels of obedience
SHERIDAN AND KING found that 100% of females followed orders to give what they thought to be a fatal shock to a puppy
this suggests that Milgram’s results were not false but represented genuine obedience
explain two weakness of Milgram’s study
participants may not have believed that the shocks were real
PERRY listened to the original tape recordings made during the study and reported that participants often voices their suspicions about the shocks
this suggests that participants went along with the study because they didn’t want to spoil it
participants experienced considerable distress
Milgram could have caused psychological damage to his participants by making them think that they were causing pain to the leaner
this raises ethical issues as to whether his research should have been carried out
what does Milgram’s agency theory explain
obedience in terms of the power of others and social factors
what are the 4 key points of Milgram’s agency theory
agency - the two states :
agentic state - person follows order with no sense of personal responsibility
autonomous state - person makes their own free choices and feels responsible for their own choices
authority - the term agentic shift is used to describe the change from autonomous state to agentic state
the shift usually occurs when a persons sees someone else as a figure of authority
culture - societies tend to have a hierarchy with some people having more authority than others in this way culture socialises us to respect the social hierarchy
proximity - in Milgram’s further studies he found that if a teacher was physically closer to the learner they were less obedient
give three brief evaluation points of Milgram’s agency theory
STRENGTH - there is other research support
WEAKNESS - the theory can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience
WEAKNESS - the theory gives people an excuse for ‘blind’ obedience
explain one strength of Milgram’s agency theory
there is other research support
BLASS AND SCHMITT showed a film of Milgram’s study to students who blamed the experimenter rather than the teacher for harm inflicted upon the learner
therefore the students recognised the legitimate authority of the experimenter as the cause of obedience
explain two weakness of Milgram’s agency theory
the theory can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience
in Milgram’s study 35% of the participants didn’t continue up to the maximum 450V
this means that social factors don’t fully explain obedience
agency theory gives people an excuse for ‘blind’ obedience
Nazis who were racists and prejudiced were doing more than just following orders - MANDEL 1998 claims that it is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggests that the Nazis simply obeyed orders
this means that agency theory is potentially dangerous as it allows people to not always think they are personally responsible
who devised the theory of authoritarian personality
Adorno
what did Adorno’s theory aim to explain
tried to explain the causes of obedience in people’s personality
what are the 4 key points of Adorno’s theory
authoritarian personality - some people have an exaggerated respect for authority; they are more likely to obey orders and look down on those of an inferior social status
cognitive style - people with an authoritarian personality have a rigid style of thinking, believe in stereotypes and don’t like change
childhood origins - authoritarian personality originated from having overly strict parenting and receiving conditional love
the child identifies with parents moral values and feels hostility towards them which can’t be expressed due to fear of reprisals
scapegoating - Freud suggested that people who have this hostility displace this onto people who are social inferior and this is known as scapegoating
the anger is offloaded to relive their anxiety and hostility
give three brief evaluation points of Adorno’s theory
WEAKNESS - based on a flawed questionnaire
WEAKNESS - evidence is based on correlational data
WEAKNESS - the authoritarian personality cannot explain all cases of obedience
explain 3 weaknesses of Adorno’s theory
the theory was based on a flawed questionnaire
Adorno’s F-scale used a response bias such that anyone who answered yes received a higher authoritarian score
this challenge the validity of the theory as it is based on poor evidence
the data is correlational so we cannot claim that an authoritarian personality is the CAUSE of greater obedience levels, a third factor could be involved
this suggests that other factors may explain the apparent link between obedience and the authoritarian personality
the authoritarian personality cannot explain all cases of obedience
millions of Germans displayed highly obedient and prejudiced behaviour but didn’t have the same upbringing and same personality
this means that there are probably social factors affecting obedience as well as dispositional ones (eg personality)
prosocial behaviour
acting a way that promotes the welfare of others and may not benefit the helper
who investigate prosocial behaviour
Piliavin
bystander behaviour
the presence of others reduces prosocial behaviour
aim of Piliavin’s study
to investigate if certain characteristics of a victim would affect whether people will help a bystander in a natural setting
method of Piliavin’s study
a male confederate collapsed on a NYC subway train, appearing as either drunk or disabled, with a cane
there were 103 trials and 2 observers
one confederate acted as a model to help the collapsed confederate if no help was offered
results of Piliavin’s study
the disabled victim was given help in 95% of trials
the drunk victim was helped in 50% of trials
help was as forthcoming in a crowded carriage as in a carriage with few people inside
conclusions of Piliavin’s study
characteristics of the victim affect whether they will receive help
in a natural setting the number of people who witness an emergency doesn’t affect their willingness to help
give three brief evaluation points of Piliavin’s study
STRENGTH - participants were not aware of their participation
STRENGTH - qualitative data was collected
WEAKNESS - most of the participants came from a city
explain two strengths of Piliavin’s study
participants were not aware of their participation
this meant that the subway train passengers did not know they were in a city and so behaved naturally giving the results high validity
this study collected qualitative data
two observers on each trial noted down remarks they heard from passengers, offering a deeper insight into why people did or didn’t offer help
explain one weakness of Piliavin’s study
the participants came mostly from a city
so they may have been more used to these types of emergencies
so their behaviour may not have been typical of all people (eg people from rural areas who don’t usually see this sort of event)`
what are two social factors affecting prosocial behaviour
presence of others
cost of helping
explain the presence of others as a social factor affecting prosocial behaviour and give an evaluation
bystander effect states that the more people are present the less likely that help is given
DARLEY AND LATANE asked participants to have a discussion on an intercom with other (confederates). One had an epileptic seizure and asked for help
if participants thought they were alone 85% reported the seizure compared to 32% if they thought that four others were present
however this depends on the situation and the cost of not helping - in very serious emergencies when immediate actions are needed help is given (FAUL ET AL.)
explain cost of helping as a social factor affecting prosocial behaviour and give an evaluation
decision of whether to help depends on costs
cost of helping includes danger to self or embarrassment
cost of not helping includes guilt, blame or leaving another in need
they balance the costs and rewards of helping
however, help depends o how the situation is interpreted such as SHOTLAND AND STRAW when a man and woman were arguing, people were more likely to intervene if the woman said that she didn’t know him than if she said that she didn’t know why she married him
what are two dispositional factors affecting prosocial behaviour
similarity to victim
expertise
explain similarity to victim as a dispositional factor affecting prosocial behaviour and give an evaluation
if you identify with a characteristic of the victim you are more likely to help them
LEVINE ET AL found that ManU fans were more likely to help a runner who had fallen over if they were wearing a ManU shirt as opposed to a Liverpool FC shirt
however, similarity may increase helping but if the costs are too high or the situation unclear this is not enough to guarantee helping
explain expertise as a dispositional factor affecting prosocial behaviour and give an evaluation
people with specialist skills are more likely to help in emergency situations that suit their expertise
CRAMMER ET AL found that registered nurses were much more likely to help a workman who had fallen off a ladder
however, expertise may not always matter
SHOTLAND AND HEINOLD found that people who had received red cross training were no more likely to help a victim who was bleeding a lot than people who had received no training but still gave higher quality help
what did le Bon suggest that a key feature of a crowd was
anonymity
how does anonymity lead to anti social behaviour
normally behaviour is ruled by social norms
when we can’t be identified we lose our normal restraints - we lose our normal sense of responsibility for our own actions
we cease behaving rationally and instead behave impulsively and antisocially
who investigated deindividuation
Zimbardo
aim of Zimbardo’s study
to investigate deindividuation in a study similar to Milgram’s
method of Zimbardo’s study
four female undergraduates had to deliver a fake electric shock to another student group 1 (individuated) - normal clothes, name tags and could see one another group 2 (deindividuated) - large coats with hoods, never referred to by name
results of Zimbardo’s study
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
conclusion of Zimbardo’s study
this supports the view that anonymity and deindividuation increases the likelihood of antisocial behaviour
give three brief evaluation points of Zimbardo’s study
WEAKNESS - deindividuation does not always result in antisocial behaviour
STRENGTH - research on deindividuation can be used to help manage crowds
WEAKNESS - antisocial behaviour may be due to crowding rather than collective behaviour
describe one strength of Zimbardo’s study
research on deindividuation can be used to help manage crowds
at sporting fixtures there are often large crowds of people involved
in these situations, crowd control may be best achieved by making people feel more self aware and less deindividuated such as by using video cameras at matches so people can watch themselves
this shows that deindividuation can reduce antisocial behaviour in crowd situations
describe two weakness of Zimbardo’s study
one weakness of Zimbardo’s conclusion is that deindividuation doesn’t always result in antisocial behaviour
JOHNSON AND DOWNING (1979) conducted a similar study where female participants had to give shocks to a confederate - deindividuated participants either wore a KKK type gown or a nurse’s outfit and individuated participants wore their own clothes - nurses gave fewer and milder shocks than those in KKK robes but more shocks than individuate participants
antisocial behaviour mat be due to crowding rather than collective behaviour
FREEDMAN found that when animals are packed together, they feel stressed and act aggressively
so it may be due to overcrowding that creates antisocial behaviour as well as deindividuation
who carried out a case study on crowd and collective behaviour
Reicher
aim of Reicher’s case study
to investigate the behaviour of a crows to see if their behaviour was ruly or unruly
method of Reicher’s case study
he analysed newspaper, TV, radio and police reports of the St Pauls riots in 1980
interviewed 20 people immediately after the riot to understand exactly what happened, 6 of these were in detail
results of Reicher’s case study
riot was triggered by policemen raiding a cafe for drugs which was seen as an unjustified action
a grow of 300 to 300 fathered and attacked the police and other properties, throwing stones and bricks and burning police cars, the attack intensified and spread
when the police left, rioters calmed down and never moved beyond the St Pauls area
conclusion of Reicher’s case study
this shows that the crowd’s behaviour was rule-driven and anger was only expressed towards predictable targets, based on the social attitudes of the area
give three brief evaluation points of Reicher’s case study
STRENGTH - other research has come to similar conclusions about crowd behaviour
STRENGTH - provides ideas about how best to police such riots
WEAKNESS - case study is based on subjective data
explain two strengths of Reicher’s case study
other research has come to similar conclusions about crowd behaviour
research on football hooligans by MARSH also found that violence didn’t escalate beyond a certain point
this supports the view that crowd behaviour is rule driven and not out of control
this research provides ideas about how best to police riots like these
Reicher’s analyses suggest that increasing the police presence in riots does not always lead to a decrease in violence so it may be better to let local communities ‘police’ themselves
this shows that this research can have a positive effect in the real world
explain one weakness of Reicher’s case study
the case study is based on subjective data
Reicher based his account on eyewitness testimony of reporters and members of the crowd who may have had a biased perspective on the events that they had witnessed
this means that the data may lack validityr
what are three social factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour
deindividuation
social loafing
culture
explain deindividuation as a social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour and give an evaluation
group norms (social factors) determine the behaviour of the crowd and whether it is prosocial or antisocial
antisocial effects may be due to being packed together in a small space (crowding) instead of or in addition to deindividuation (Freedman) as found with rats
explain social loafing as a social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour and give an evaluation
when working in a group, people individually put in less effort
being in a group reduces personal identity (deindividuation) and individual contribution is unknown
however, social loafing is not a problem for creative tasks in fact they mean that people put in greater individual output
explain culture as a social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour and give an evaluation
individualist cultures focused on individual needs whereas collectivist cultures focused on the needs of the group
social loafing is lower in collectivist cultures - EARLEY found that Chinese people put in the same amount of effort into a group task regardless of whether they could be identified or not ; this was not the same of US participants
however, making generalisations about countries may be a simplification of the way people behave since they are influences by multiple cultures
explain personality as a dispositional factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour and give an evaluation
people with an internal locus of control are less likely to be influence by others in a crows
however not all research shows that personality matters
BOCCHIARO ET AL fond that people who were willing to speak out had very similar scores on a personality test to those who were unwilling to speak out
explains morality as a dispositional factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour and give an evaluation
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 or behaviour of others
this is supported by history
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
