Social Psychology Flashcards
Group Polarisation
the strengthening of attitudes of individuals when in groups who hold similar attitudes
Group polarisation - empirical evidence
Those without racist views speaking about race issues leads to increased acceptance - and vice versa (Myers & Bishop, 1970)
Judges tend to take the extreme course of action when people are present (65%) vs when they are alone (30%) (Main & Walker, 1973)
Theories why group polarisation occurs
persuasion, comparison, differentiation
Persuation - group polarisation
Changing attitudes due to rational arguments presented by others
Comparison - group polarisation
Change attitude to conform with group norms, especially if they are socially desirable
Differentiation - group polarisation
Alter views to align with the decisions their group should be making
Groups that aren’t affected by group polarisation
Well established groups/ groups discussing well-known problems
Social facilitation
increased performance due to presence of others (Triplett, 1898)
Social inhibition
decreased performance due to presence of others
Triplett, 1898
Yerkes & Dodson (1908)
Perform best with moderate levels of arousal
Simple/well-known tasks - high level of arousal
Difficult/new tasks - low levels of arousal
Diffusion of Responsibility
the assumed reduction in responsibility if others are present
Bystander Effect
the tendency for individuals to be less likely to intervene if others are present
Kitty Genovese Case (1964)
Example of diffusion of responisibility, bystander effect 38 people heard the murder, noone called for help
Darley and Latane (1968)
Diffusion of responsibility, bystander effect - found that all participants who were alone went for help, 85% in first 80 seconds
62% in the group went for help, 31% going quickly
Five Stage Decision Model (1970)
- Notice the situation
- Interpret it as an emergency
- Accept some personal responsibility to intervene
- Consider the best form of intervention
- Decide how to implement their intervention
Stage 1 - 5 stage decision model (1970)
Notice the situation - Darley & Batson (1973): 10% of people who were late assisted, compared to 65% who were early
Stage 2 - 5 stage decision model (1970)
Interpret it as an emergency - Clark & Word (1972): all participants helped, regardless of being in a group when explicitly stated, vs 30% who heard a crash
Stage 3 - 5 stage decision model (1970)
Accept some personal responsibility to intervene - Darley & Latane, 1968
Stage 4 - 5 stage decision model (1970)
Consider the best form of intervention - Cramer et al., 1998 - more help from those trained in 1st aid
Stage 5 - 5 stage decision model (1970)
Decide how to impliment their intervention - Bryan & Test, 1967 - social learning is important
Conformity
tendency to adjust one’s thoughts feelings, and behaviour to be in alignment with those of a certain group/individual; conformity is required in society to established norms, accepted behaviour
Asch (1955) - findings
75% agreed with an incorrect response at least once
33% agreed with incorrect responses 1/2 the time
24% didn’t conform at all
- all reported feeling some degree of self doubt
- those who conformed - aware that their responses were wrong, went along because they didn’t want to hinder results/generate disharmony/conflict
- Felt conspicuous/crazy when they gave the wrong answer
Factors affecting conformity
Group size - conformity increases up to 4 members Unanimous views Group is a valuable source of info Normative influence Cultural background Social loafing Deindividuation
Conformity - Berns et al., 2005
Conforming responses showed activity in perception area of brain vs area for conscious thought - exposure to majority position had influenced perception
Conformity - Eagly & Carli, 1981
Women generally more compliant than men due to differences in sex roles (interpersonally-orientated; more predisposed to conform)
Conformity - Tanford & Penrod, 1986
Jurors don’t want to be in ‘opposition’ to other jurors - 95% of cases determined by the first vote of juror
Obedience
Following the commands of an authoritative figure/ rules from society
Compliance
involves altering behaviour in respose to a request to do so (may not involve authoritive figure)
Milgram (1963) - shock experiment findings
No one stopped administering shock before 300v
65% continued to administer shocks at 450v
5 participants refused at 300v
Milgram (1963) - Empirical support
Mantell (1971) - 85% obedience rate
Kilham & Mann (1974) - 28% full obedience rate
Ancona & Preyson (1968), Miranda et al., (1981) - high percentage of obedience
Milgram - female studies
Similar findings when participants were female
Obedient women constantly reported high levels of stress
Factors influencing obedience
Proximity to the ‘learner’
Proximity to the authority
Authority of the experimenter
Proximity to ‘learner’ - obedience
closer, the less likely they were to administer shocks
Proximity to the authority- obedience
less obedience when the experimenter was removed
Authory of the experimenter - obedience
higher obedience when the authority was perceived as legitimate
Reasons to obey authority - obedience
Belief in legitimate authority
Committment to the successful outcome of the experiment
Lack of disobedient models - isolation meant that there were no social norms.expected behaviours
Lack of personal responsibility - didn’t feel accountable
Milgram (1963) - ethics
Didn’t obtain informed consent, used deception, participants mental health wasn’t safeguarded (Milgram, 1974 - approaching a stae of nervous collapse), didn’t let the participants know they could withdraw - pressured to stay in the study
Zimbardo (1971)
Stanford Prison Experiment - explored the phenomenon of the effect of status/role, situational effects on behaviour
Findings - SPE (1971)
Suggested we all have tendencies to act one way or another - decided by our sitation and environment
Demonstrated the effect of power and status on behaviour
Attribution Theory
Suggests people attempt to understand the behaviour of others by attributing feelings, beliefs and intentions to them
Internal/Dispositional Attribution -Heider (1958)
Infer that internal motives (attitudes, personality) are responsible for behaviour
External/Situational Attribution - Heider (1958)
External means responsible for behaviour (peer pressure)
Fundamental Attribution Error - Heider (1958)
Favouring internal attribution rather than external attriubtion (bias)
- trying to make sense of social world
Jones & Harris (1973) - Attribution theory
Internal attribution is stronger than external attribution
Self-serving bias - attribution theory
distort facts in order to protect self-esteem (De Michele et al., 1998)
- focus on external rather than internal
Kelly (1973) - Causal Attribution Theory
(covariation model, 1967)
People make causal inferences to explain behaviour
Covariation (Kelly, 1973)
Info gained from multiple observations, at different times and observations
Can percieve the covariation of the observed cause and effect
- persons
- time
- entities
Attribution theory - strengths
- can be applied to individuals of any age/environment
- sense of control in env
- explains the effect of societal/cultural norms on behaviour
Attribution theory - weaknesses
- feedback influences perception
- perception of events differ for ind and observer
- biases and social consensus change perception
Cognitive dissonance - Festinger (1957)
Cognitive dissonance - feelings of tension when we hold conflicting views/opinions
Examined the relationship between cognition and behaviour
- conflict causees discomfort; leads to alteration in either attitudes, beliefs/behaviours to reduce discomfort
Suggests inner drive to hold attitudes and beliefs in harmony
Priniciple of Cognitive Consistency - Festinger (1957)
Seeking consistency between cognitions
- may ignore/change attitude; alteration = consistency
If someone is induced into do something conflicting with their opinion, they will change their opinion to align (Festinger, 1957)
Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) - Cognitive Dissonance
Dissonance is greatest when there isn’t compensating reasons for the behaviour
- those paid $1 to lie experienced cognitive dissonance, whereas those paid $20 to lie didn’t (ample compensation)
Covariation model
consistency, consesus, distinctiveness
Consistency - Covariation Model
Does the person behave the same way every time the situation occurs?
Consensus- Covariation Model
do people behave in the same way?
Distinctiveness - covariation model
Does the person behave the same way in all situations?
