Social Influences Flashcards
Describe Asch’s study.
Aim: To investigate group pressure in an ambiguous situation.
Method: 123 American men.
Two cards: standard line and three comparison lines.
12 critical trials where confederates gave the wrong answer.
Results: On critical trials the participants the wrong answer 1/3 of the time.
25% never gave the wrong answer.
Conclusion: People are influenced by group pressure.
Though many can resist.
Evaluate Asch’s study.
Child of the times:
Only reflective of conformity in 1950s America, much less conformity in 1980 UK study (Perrin and Spencer).
An artificial task:
Task was trivial and situation involved strangers so doesn’t reflect everyday situations.
Cultural differences:
Results can’t be generalised to collectivist cultures where rates are higher (Bond and Smith).
What are the social factors that affect conformity?
Group size:
Two confederates = 13.6% conformity, three confederates = 31.8%, more than three made little difference.
Anonymity:
Writing answer down is anonymous and conformity lower.
Task difficulty:
If comparison lines more similar to standard this makes task harder, conformity increases.
Evaluate the social factors of conformity.
Group size -> Depends on task:
When no obvious answer then no conformity until group 8+ people.
Anonymity -> Strangers versus friends:
If participants are friends or opinion is anonymous conformity is higher.
Task difficulty -> Expertise:
People with more expertise less affected by task difficulty.
What are the dispositional factors that affect conformity?
Personality:
High internal locus of control, conform less.
Burger and Cooper found internals less likely to agree with a confederate’s ratings of a cartoon.
Expertise:
More knowledgeable people: conform less.
Lucas found maths experts less likely conform to others’ answer on maths problems.
Evaluate the dispositional factors of conformity.
Personality -> Familiarity of situation:
Control is less important in familiar situations (Rotter).
Expertise -> No single factor:
Maths experts may conform in a group of strangers in order to be liked.
Describe Piliavin’s subway study.
Aim:
To investigate if characteristics of a victim affect help given in an emergency.
Method:
Male confederate collapsed on subway, 103 trials.
Victim appeared to be drunk or appeared to be disabled (had a cane).
Results:
Disabled victim given help on 95% of trials compared to 50% helped when drunk.
Help was as likely in crowded and empty carriages.
Conclusions:
Characteristics of victim affects help given.
Number of onlookers doesn’t affect help in natural setting.
Evaluate Piliavin’s subway study.
High realism:
Participants didn’t know their behaviour was being studied, so acted more naturally.
Urban sample:
Participants from the city so may be used to emergencies.
Qualitative data:
Observers noted remarks from passengers giving deeper insights into why.
What are the social factors that affect prosocial behaviour?
Presence of others:
The more people present the less likely someone will help.
Darley and Latané found that 85% on own helped person with seizure but only 31% in a group of four.
Cost of helping:
Includes danger to self or embarrassment.
Also costs of not helping e.g. guilt or blame.
Evaluate the social factors of prosocial behaviour.
Presence of others -> Depends on situation:
In serious emergencies response correlated to severity of situation (Faul et al.).
Cost of helping -> Interpretation of situation:
If it is a married couple arguing only 19%
intervened versus 85% intervened if attacker
appeared to be a stranger (Shotland and Straw).
What are the dispositional factors that affect prosocial behaviour?
Similarity to victim:
Help more likely if victim is similar to self, e.g. Manchester fans helping people wearing Man U shirt (Levine et al.).
Expertise:
People with specialist skills more likely to help in
emergencies, e.g. registered nurses helping a workman (Cramer et al.).
Evaluate the dispositional factors of prosocial behaviour.
Similarity to victim -> High costs:
High costs or ambiguous situation means help isn’t forthcoming.
Expertise -> Affects only quality of help:
Red cross trained were no more likely to give help
than untrained people, but gave higher quality
help (Shotland et al.).
Describe Milgram’s study.
Aim:
To investigate if Germans are different in terms of obedience.
Method:
40 male volunteers.
‘Teacher’ instructed by experimenter to give a shock if “learner’ answered a question incorrectly.
Results:
No participant (teacher) stopped below 300 volts.
65% shocked to 450V.
Extreme tension, e.g. three had seizures.
Conclusion:
Obedience related to social factors not disposition, e.g. location, novel situation.
Evaluate Milgram’s study.
Lacked realism:
Participants may not have believed shocks were real (Perry).
Supported by other research:
Sheridan and King found 100% females followed orders to give a fatal shock to a puppy.
Ethical issues:
Participants distressed, caused psychological harm. Such research brings psychology into disrepute.
Describe Milgram’s agency theory.
Social factors of obedience
Agency:
Agentic state: Follow orders with no responsibility.
Autonomous state: Own free choice.
Authority:
Agentic shift: moving from making own free choices to following orders, occurs when someone is in authority.
Culture - The social hierarchy:
Some people have more authority than others.
Hierarchy depends on society and socialisation.
Proximity:
Participants less obedient in Milgram’s study when in same room as learner, increasing ‘moral strain’.
