social influence Flashcards
define conformity
a form of social influence that occurs when a person’s behaviour or thinking change as a result of group pressure. the ‘pressure’ from others can be real or imagined and come from one or a group of people
name and define the two types of conformity
internalisation - the need to be right
compliance - the need to be liked
where does internalisation occur
- internalisation is when we look and copy others and assume they are correct when in an ambiguous situation
- happens especially when we believe others to be more intelligent than us
- this leads to internalisation where we genuinely believe the new behaviour to be right
- now behave this way both publicly and privately
give an example of when behaviour changes due to informational social influence
- when we are in a social situation and want to be liked
- may not know what cutlery to use when eating at a fancy restaurant
- look to someone with more experience or someone we think knows more
when does compliance occur
- in a social situation when we have a strong desire to be accepted into a group
- may say or do things just to be popular
- leads to compliance, shows the behaviour in public but may not agree in private
give an example of when our behaviour changes due to normative social influence
- someone makes a joke
- might not have found it funny
- laugh anyway to fit in with other people laughing
outline asch’s conformity study
aim: find out whether people could be affected by other peoples opinions and give an answer they knew was wrong
method: 123 male participants shown sets of four lines. had to say whether line A, B or C was the same as the test line. each naive ppt tested with 6-8 confederates. total of 18 trials and 12 critical trials where the confederates gave the wrong answer. naive ppt always positioned as one of the last to give response after hearing incorrect ones
results: 36.8% of trials where group gave wrong answer, ppt conformed and gave wrong instead of obviously correct answer. 76% of ppts gave at least one wrong answer. 24 ppts resisted pressure to conform in all 18 trials
conclusion: people conform to fit in w a group, even when they know they are giving incorrect judgement
give two strengths of asch’s conformity study
+ conducted as a lab experiment, allowed Asch to control all extraneous variables that may have affected the results, study can be easily replicated because standardised procedure used, increases validity of other variations of study too
+ demonstrates the extent to which people will conform in social situations, when line task was completed alone and there was no pressure to conform the error rate was less than 1%, rose to 36.8% when same task was performed in group setting, post-experiment interviews confirmed people conformed due to normative social influence to be accepted, ppts said they knew they were right but said the wrong answer to fit in
give two weakness of Asch’s conformity study
- results may only apply to america in 1950s, was an extremely conformist time so people were scared to disagree w majority, different study in 1980 in UK showed just one conforming case in 396 trials, suggests Asch’s study cannot be applied to current times
- Asch’s task and situation are both artificial + lack ecological validity, judging length of a line does not represent real life situations where people conform, people may be less willing to conform in situations w more important consequences, results cannot be generalised to everyday life where consequences are more important
name and define the factors affecting conformity
dispositional - characteristics of the individual that causes them to conform e.g. personality
social - features in the surroundings which urge conformity e.g. people
identify and explain the dispositional factors affecting conformity
personality - low self-esteem, low group status and low IQ are all linked to high levels of conformity
may feel more worried about doing smthng wrong, change their behaviour due to informational social influence since they want to be liked, may be affected by normative social influence + go along w some situations just to fit in
expertise - conformity is less likely in situations where we have a high level of expertise as we are confident in our own opinions and know what to do
experience + expertise increases confidence in ones opinions, so ppl w more expertise and knowledge tend to be less conformist, less experienced may give same answer as someone they believe is more intelligent, due to informational social influence
identify and explain the social factors affecting conformity
group size - more likely to adopt behaviour of others when in a group of three or more behaving the same way
larger group would lead to more pressure to conform to group’s opinion, more likely to change opinion to fit in and change their behaviour to normative social influence, asch found when there were only two confederates conformity to wrong answer was only 13.6 and 31.8 after three, adding more made little difference
task difficulty - higher levels of conformity when attempting difficult task
Asch found when task difficulty increased so did situation conformity, answer becomes less certain so ppl feel less confident + change behaviour due to informational social influence + fit into group
anonymity - we face ridicule in public situations, can express opinions in private when anonymous, reduces concern about others disagreeing w us, Asch found it reduces normative social influence but doesnt prevent conformity entirely, rest of the group didnt know their answers
identify whether the factors are:
- social or dispositional
- increases or decreases conformity
- normative or informational social influence
personality - dispositional, increases, informational
anonymity - social, decreases, normative
expertise - dispositional, decreases, informational
group size - social, increases, normative
task difficulty - social, increases, normative
What is meant by the term conformity? Use an example to illustrate your answer (2 marks)
Conformity is a form of social influence, where a person’s behaviour or thinking changes to fit in with group pressure. For example, if someone doesn’t like a certain type of food, they may say they do anyway, just because a friend does.
Identify one dispositional factor that can influence conformity. Explain why this factor is likely to affect conformity. (3 marks)
A dispositional factor is personality. People with a low self-esteem tend to conform more because they believe others are correct due to informational social influence.
You and some friends are planning to meet up on Saturday afternoon. You want to go to the cinema but they want to go shopping. Outline one social factor that will influence whether or not you shopping with them. Explain how this factor will affect your behaviour in this situation. (4 marks)
A factor that will influence the behaviour is group size. If more than three people want to go shopping, there would be a higher chance of conforming to what the majority want to do. This is because they would want to fit in with the group due to normative social influence.
define obedience
a type of social influence that affects behaviour and responses to a direct order from a perceived authority figure
define:
- agentic state
- agentic shift
- blind obedience
- when a person acts on behalf of someone else and feels no personal responsibility for their actions
- the movement from the autonomous to agentic state
- a person doing what they are told without thinking for themselves
evaluate the agency theory
+ helps us understand historic behaviours, many soldiers seemed to be in the agentic state and claimed that they were simply following orders and the responsibility for their actions lay in the hands of their superiors, increases applicability of theory to understand real life scenarios
+ supporting evidence, 65% of ppts were prepared to give a shock of 450 volts when told perceived authority figure would take responsibility for their actions, ppts were in an agentic state, increases validity
- we dont all blindly follow orders, some people are less likely to enter the agentic state than others, study focuses only on social factors, doesnt take dispositional factors into consideration, which may be more important, decreases validity
identify and explain the social factors affecting obedience
authority - figure perceived to have more power due to position in social hierarchy, cause others to shift from the autonomous to agentic state
culture - the environment and beliefs someone is brought up with affects their level of obedience to authority, if hierarchies are enforced when they are younger they are more likely to be obedient
proximity - distance between the authority figure and learner affects obedience, further away the authority figure the lower the obedience levels
identify and explain the dispositional factors affecting obedience
authoritarian personality - personality type with extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for authority
strict parents - receiving only conditional love
anxious/anger - hatred towards strict parents
displacement - shifting feeling of anger onto people ‘inferior’ to them
explain authoritarian personality’s treatment of those inferior to them
scapegoating - prejudice + discrimination of minority groups
cognitive style - ‘black and white’ thinking, believe in rigid stereotypes e.g. men are bullies and women are emotional
evaluate the authoritarian personality
+ the methodology used to obtain results, a questionnaire, allowed large amounts of data to be obtained about a range of individuals, so they can quickly deduce whether someone has an authoritarian personality or not
- cannot explain all cases of obedience, millions of Nazi soldiers couldn’t have had the same upbringing and personality, must be social factors that affect obedience too
- there was only a correlation found, the cause and effect cannot be established and it cannot prove authoritarian personality causes high obedience as many obedient people didn’t experience an authoritarian upbringing, which reduces validity
define:
- prosocial behaviour
- bystander behaviour
- bystander intervention
- bystander apathy
Prosocial behaviour - acting in a way that is beneficial to others
Bystander behaviour - the way someone responds when witnessing someone in and emergency situation
Bystander intervention - witnessing and helping in an emergency situation
Bystander apathy - choosing not to help when witnessing an emergency
identify and explain the social factors affecting bystander behaviour
presence of others - we are more likely to help when we’re alone as the full responsibility on us, when other people are there we assume someone else will help them and there is a diffusion of responsibility
cost of helping - we usually weigh up the costs and rewards of helping, if the costs outweigh rewards we are less likely to help
identify and explain the dispositional factors affecting bystander behaviour
Similarity to the victim - we are more likely to help if we are similar to the victim e.g similar age, gender, or something in common
Expertise - we are more likely to help if they have expertise in the area, how is someone supposed to help someone drowning if they can’t swim?
Outline Piliavin’s subway study
aim: to see if the appearance of the victim influences how often and quickly they are helped
method: the confederate collapsed on the NY subway, there were 38 trials where the confederate was visibly drunk and 65 trials where the confederate was sober and with a walking stick
results: the drunk confederate received help 50% of the time and 17% within 70 seconds, while the walking stick confederate received help 95% of the time and 87% within 70 seconds
conclusion: bystanders judge whether or not to help someone based on their appearance
evaluate Piliavin’s subway study
+ A strength of the study is that it was conducted as a field experiment, so there was very little chance of the ppts showing demand characteristics, this increases the validity of the study as it shows how the ppts would naturally act in that situation
- The study was conducted in NYC, which is an urban area, so the people living there would probably be more familiar with emergency situations and would be more likely to help, means that Piliavin’s results don’t represent the wider population and apply to people in rural areas
- Some people just have a stronger sense of moral responsibility than others, which affects whether they help the victim or not, Piliavin ignores individual characteristics and dispositional factors and bases results solely on appearance of the victim, decreases validity of the results
define:
- antisocial behaviour
- collective behaviour
- prosocial behaviour
antisocial - acting in a way that isn’t socially acceptable e.g. violence
collective - the way people act in a group
prosocial - peaceful result of collective behaviour
identify and explain dispositional factors affecting collective behaviour
personality - internal locus of control means a person is more likely to take responsibility for their own actions and will control things that happen to them, while an external locus of control means they are more likely to follow group behaviour and will conform to those around them
morality - the sense of what is right or wrong, it may feel justified to engage in antisocial behaviour but they may not get involved due to consequences
identify and explain social factors affecting collective behaviour
social loafing - an individual putting in less effort into a task when the size of a group increases
deindividuation - losing our sense of individuality and becoming less aware of the responsibility of our own actions
culture - collectivist cultures differ from western ones as social loafing doesnt occur there, people in China work just as hard in a group even when its not necessary
