Social psychology Flashcards
(36 cards)
Describe Norman Triplett’s Observation - Impact of the presence of others on behaviour
Observation:
Noticed that cyclists rode faster when they raced against each other than when they raced around the clock.
He hypothesised = the presence of others boosts performance.
- Later tested this on adolescents who had to wind in a reel.
- he found that their performance was better when they were reeling it in when another person was present, than if they were alone.
Outcome:
- boost in performance in the presence of others = social facilitation (not always the case…)
- performed worse in the presence of others = social inhibition
Describe the diagram on relationship between arousal and performance
Yerks & Dodson:
- people generally work best = moderate level of arousal
- not sufficiently aroused / over-aroused = performance decreases
- on a graph = upside down U shape
The optimal level of arousal = depends on the type of task we undertake
* SIMPLE/WELL-LEARNED task > perform better with relatively HIGH level of arousal
* DIFFICULT/NEW task > perform better at LOWER level of arousal
Describe the case of Kitty Genovese
- Kitty Genovese was murdered outside her apartment in New York, 1964.
- 37 of her neighbours watched as she was brutally attacked and killed
- It took her 30 minutes to die, and no-one came to her assistance
- No one phoned the police
- 2 psychologists, Latane & Darley, began studying this phenomenon.
Describe Darley & Latane’s study
Aim
- To examine the diffusion of responsibility as an explanation of the failure to help in the presence of others
Procedure:
- 72 uni students (59 female, 13 male).
- participants were alone, placed in separate rooms but were able to communicate with each other via an intercom (can hear but not see each other)
- the experimenter then staged a simulated epileptic fit by playing a tape recording.
- the participants were led to believe that the person having a fit was in the next room.
3 experimental conditions were tested:
1. each participant were led to believe that they were the only one whose intercom was tuned in during the seizure
2. participants were led to believe that 2 other participants were tuned into (3 person group)
3. each participant was led to believe that 5 others were tuned in (6 person group
Outline Darley & Latane’s Findings
- The percentage of participants who helped depended on the number of students they thought were in the discussion group
- All the participant’s who thought they were alone with the epileptic person went to help - 85% went in the first 80 seconds
- Only 62% of participants who thought they were in a group with 6 other people went for help, with only 31% going quickly
(shows the bystander effect)
Define the Bystander Effect
= the more people there are in an emergency, the less likely it is that each person will try to help
- Darley and Latane believes this is due to the diffusion of responsibility
= if a person is alone, he or she accepts responsibility, but if several people are present, each assumes that the other will do something so he or she doesn’t need to take responsibility
Define social influence
= when we change our behaviour in response to other people
Describe Platow’s 2005 study on social influence
Study:
- university students listened to a tape of jokes
- half of the students heard ‘canned’ laughter when the joke was told, and the other half heard jokes without the ‘canned’ laughter
- in addition, half of EACH group was told that the tapes had been recorded at a show attended by students from their university , and the other half were told that the tape was recorded at a show attended by a political group (unimportant to the students)
Findings:
- students who heard the jokes believing that the recording was at the show attended by other university students rated the jokes as funnier than the other groups
- = the influence of the group is stronger if we identify with the group.
What is a ‘peer’?
- extremely important to us and can influence us greatly
- peer groups have their own social norms, e.g. dress code, music taste, attitudes towards sex and alcohol, bullying and their language/expressions not understood by others outside the group
- a peer and a friend are different - a student at a school may have many peers, but a few friends (year 12 cohort vs close friendship group)
Describe the impact of peer/peer groups
- the influence of peer groups start to increase around middle childhood until middle adolescents and then starts to decrease when the influence of our close on adolescent’s behaviour increases.
• social influence from peers is often given the negative label peer pressure (the pressure from the group on the individuals to think, feel or behave in certain ways, whether they want to or not)
• many people feel that peers are trying to exert pressure on the opposite direction to parents - research actually shows that parents and peers often agree on more important issues, such as decisions on education and careers and in ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ judgements. In more superficial areas, like music and clothing taste, they may disagree
• not all people react the same way to peer pressure - people who are ‘fringe’ members of the group are not sure of their social standing in the group and are more likely to be influenced by peer pressure than members who have higher social standing. They try to gain favour with the other members of the group acting in the way they think the group would approve
Define group polarisation
= when individuals are in groups with others who hold similar attitudes/beliefs, discussion within groups tend to strengthen their opinions of the members of that group.
- Group polarisation can help us understand the processes that can lead to actions, such as those of suicide bombers and young people joining ISIS
Describe what Meyers and Bishops said about group polarisation
when students who were low in racial prejudice talked together about racial issues, their attitudes became more accepting. However, when highly prejudiced students talked about the same issues, they became even more prejudiced.
Describe what McCauley and Meyers said about terrorists
Terrorists = members of the groups whose beliefs become stronger and stronger and more firmly entrenched as a result of discussion with like-minded people
- a terrorist mentality does not come out of thin air, rather it arises when people with a shared grievance get together and talk in a group where there are no moderate influences
Outline the 3 processes of polarisation
- Persuasion - people change their mind as a result of the rational arguments presented by others
- Comparison - people change their mind to conform with group norms, especially when those norms are socially desirable
- Differentiation - a variation on comparison where people change their mind to fit in with their view of the sort of decisions their group should make
- these are all slightly different mechanisms, each probably operate independently, for producing the same effect: decisions are pushed further towards the extreme
Define conformity
= when we change our behaviour in response to group pressure (typically in a group that holds different perspectives to us)
Describe Asch’s experiment
Aim:
- to investigate the factors that results in group pressure to conform
Procedure:
- the participant would sit in a room with 6 other people and an experimenter
- the other ‘participants’ were confederates (deception)
- each participant was told the experiment was for ‘visual judgement’ (deception)
- the experimenter would show two cards to the confederates and participant:
1. had a vertical line
2. had 3 vertical lines
- the participants and confederates were asked to select the line from the second card that matched the length of the line in the first card
- in some trials, the incorrect lines were noticeably different (obvious which was right)
- the confederates answered incorrectly for the majority of the trials
- the participant had to decide between giving the same answers as the confederates (conforming) or to stand out
Findings:
- 75% conformed at least once during the trials
- 33% conformed in half or more of the trials
- 24% did not conform at all
- all reported experiencing some degree of self-doubt
- they didn’t want to spoil the experimenter’s results, create conflict or disharmony
- some of the participants who gave the correct response even apologised for their answer
- the participants who didn’t conform said they felt ‘crazy’ and like a ‘misfit’
Explain why we feel the need to conform?
Normative social influence = when we conform to group standards in order to be a part of and accepted by a group - especially friendship groups
- breaking these social norms can lead to disapproval or exclusion from the group
breaking social norms vid1
breaking social norms vid 2
Reasons why we conform
- Society requires that some conformity exists so that norms and standards can be established and agreed upon; otherwise behaviour could be unpredictable
- Children are socialised in to group norms and expected behaviours in different situations - teachers and parents are supposed to teach children what is expected
- Consequently, conformity means that people will ASSUME the behaviour of others in any particular social group without explicitly being told how to behave or act
- INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE = when we conform because we are in strange situations with people we don’t know or when situations are new to us.
Factors that influence why we conform
- Group size
= Conformity increases with the size of the group – up to a group of 4.
- A group size of 15 actually produced a lower conformity than did a group size of 3 according to Asch. - Degree of unanimity
= When others in a group are completely unanimous - ie agree completely, it is difficult to stand out.
- But it takes only ONE individual to disagree, and the amount of conformity is reduced - known as the ally effect - Informational influence
= When conformity results from a need for direction on how to respond to a situation because you are in unfamiliar territory –here you will accept others views when you are uncertain what to do - Normative influence
= When our response in a group situation is guided by one or more social norms so that we can be accepted by others because our concern is that we will be rejected. - Culture
= The highest levels of conformity are found in COLLECTIVIST cultures, and lower levels of conformity are found in INDIVIDUALISTIC cultures, because achieving personal goals is valued in individualistic cultures, and achieving group goals is highly valued in collectivist cultures - Deindivuation
= where people participate in anti-social behaviour that they would not normally participate in - Social loafing
= Tendency for the individual to make less of an effort when in a group activity than when working alone
Define obedience
= occurs when we follow the commands of someone with authority, or the rules or laws of our society.
Explain Milgram’s study - obedience
Aim:
- To find out whether individuals would obey an authority figure who was instructing them to inflict pain on another person.
Procedure:
- 40 male research participants between 20 and 50
- participants told that their study was on the ‘effects of punishment on learning’ (deception)
- the experimenter wore a white laboratory coat
- the participants were told that another participant (a ‘confederate’) had to draw a slip of paper, to determine who the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’ was. It was rigged.
- the learner is taken into another room and strapped to an electric shock machine (which the teacher/participant witnesses)
- the teacher is taken into the next room and given instructions: teach the learner to remember pairs of words.
- each time the learner makes a mistake, the teacher gives a brief electric shock which increases intensity (30 levers, 15-volt intervals, 15 - 450 volts)
- first error = 15 volts, increase to higher voltage each mistake
- the learner/confederate deliberately makes mistakes. By the 5th shock, they start to grunt out in pain. This continues until the learner is crying out in ‘agonising pain’, asking to be let out and complaining of a heart condition.
- if the participant questions the perceived authority figure (lab coat), they receive a standard answer that they must continue and have no other choice.
- afterwards, the participants were debriefed and informed that the confederates were not harmed.
Findings:
- none stopped administering the shocks before 300 volts
- 26 participants continued until the maximum 450 volts
- 5 participants refused to continue after 300 volts, when the learner began kicking the walls
Outline the factors that affect obedience
- social proximity
= the physical distance between people or closeness of the relationship
* the closer the ‘learner’ (victim) was to the ‘teacher’ (participant), the more likely that participant was to refuse administering the shock
* easier to obey an order to do something horrific when the victim is distant, and not nearby or visible
E.G. easier to drop a bomb than shooting someone - Legitimacy of authority figures
= an individual is more likely to be obedient when the authority figure is perceived as legitimate and having power.
* Milgram found that when an ‘ordinary person’ (without authority) gave orders, obedience dropped 20% compared to 60% when they had perceived authority. - Lack of personal responsibility
* Milgram assured the teachers that they were not responsible for the learner - removing any responsibility for what happens, ‘acting on orders’ - Commitment to successful achievement in the experiment (not as important)
