Studied by 3 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
conformity
a form of social influence. occurs when people change their behaviour as a result of group pressure. it can be real or imagined and can come from one person or a group of people
aschs study - aim
to investigate the effect of group pressure on an individual’s opinion in situations where the answer is unambiguous
aschs study - sample
123 male american students who did not know the true aim of the study
aschs study - procedure
ppts sat in a semi circle in a group of 6-8 male confederates (actors)
the men were shown 2 large cards, one with a single standard line and the other with 3 comparison lines
men took turns to call out which one of the three lines matched with the standard line
real ppt always answering second to last
there was a fairly obvious answer to the task, the confederates were instructed to call out the incorrect answer. asch was interested in whether ppts would stick to what they believed whats right or follow the majority and go along with their decisions
18 trials in total. the first few the confederated gave correct answers. on the 12 critical trials they all gave the same wrong answer
aschs study - findings
on the 12 critical trials, ppts gave the same wrong answer 36.8% of the time. so they agreed with the wrong answer given by confederates. 75% conformed at least once
aschs study - conclusion
individuals are influenced by group pressure even when the answer is unambiguous
asch study - strength
a strength is that it has high reliability because the study was a lab experiment with high control meaning it is easy to repeat the study in order to gain consistent results into conformity
aschs study - weaknesses
a weakness of aschs study is that the task is artificial because the task of matching line lengths does not reflect everyday situations of conformity. the task was trivial and meaningless so ppts may have conformed more compared to if the task has severe consequences. this suggests the results of aschs line study may be difficult to generalise to real life situations of conformity
another weakness of aschs experiment is that the sample is not representative of all culture because the research was conducted in america which is an individualist culture. collectivist cultures may have been more likely to conform because they believe in the good of the group. this suggests the results of aschs experiment into conformity may be difficult to generalise to all cultures
social factor affecting conformity: group size (AO1)
in one of aschs variations he found that with 2 confederates conformity was 13.6%, with three conformity was 31.8%. the more people in the group, the more likely people are to conform due to greater pressure. however adding more confederates after 3 made little difference to conformity rates
social factor affecting conformity: group size (AO3)
a weakness of group size is that it has different effects depending on the type of task. in aschs study there was an obvious answer but when there was no obvious answer then group size does matter. people do not conform with 1 or 2 others but do conform when the group has 8-10 people. this suggests that the task may affect whether or not people conform in relation to group size
social factor affecting conformity: anonymity (AO1)
anonymity = no one knows who you are. asch did a variation of his study where ppts were able to write their responses down anonymously. he found that conformity rates decreased
social factor affecting conformity: anonymity (AO3)
a weakness of anonymity as a social factor affecting conformity is that asch used a group of strangers. huang and li found that the effect of anonymity changes if the group are friends who are expressing opinions anonymously would conform more than if they were strangers. suggesting that anonymity may not be the only factor to consider and is dependent on whether you know the people or not
social factor affecting conformity: task difficulty (AO1)
in one of aschs variations of the study, he made the task harder by making the standard and comparison lines more similar in length. he found that conformity increased. people feel less confident about their answer and look to the group for the right answer
social factor affecting conformity: task difficulty (AO3)
a weakness of aschs study into task difficulty is that the task is artifical because the task of matching line lengths does not reflect everyday situations of conformity. the task was meaningless so ppts may have conformed more compared to if the task had severe consequences. this lowers the validity of the research into task difficulty as a social factor affecting conformity
dispositional factor affecting conformity: personality (LOC) (AO1)
LOC is a personality trait which refers to a persons perception of personal control over their behaviour. there is a scale of LOC, internal and external
internal LOC
they believe that they control what happens to them and their behaviour is caused by their own personal decisions and effort
external LOC
they believe that what happens to them is determined by external factors such as the influence of others, luck or fate. they are more conformist because they take less responsibility for their actions compared to internal
dispositional factor affecting conformity: personality (LOC) (AO3)
rts personality as a dispositional factor affecting conformity was conducted by burger and cooper. they showed ppts a set of cartoons and asked them to rate them in terms of funniness. a confederate sat with them giving their ratings out loud for some of the cartoons. they found that those with an external LOC conformed more to the confederates ratings than those with internal LOC. this suggests that an individuals disposition can affect whether they conform
dispositional factor affecting conformity: expertise (AO1)
expertise increases confidence in opinions and knowledge. this means that people may be less likely to conform if they have expertise. lucas et al found that when judging answers to maths problems, people who rated themselves good at maths were less likely to conform than those who were less confident
dispositional factor affecting conformity: expertise (AO3)
a weakness of expertise is that there is an alternative explanation. group size is a social factor which suggests people conform due to how many people are present when someone is considering conforming whereas expertise argues that individuals conform due to a lack of opinions and knowledge. therefore expertise may not be the only factor to consider when explaining conformity
obedience
a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority
milgrams study - aim
to investigate whether an individual would give somebody a potentially lethal electrical shock if told to do so by and authority figure
milgrams study - sample
40 american male volunteers (who were told the study was on memory). aged from 20-50 years and from a range of jobs
milgrams study - procedure
ppts drew their roles out of a hat
a confederate ‘Mr Wallace’ always ended up as the learner while the true ppt was always the teacher
an experimenter (another confederate) directed the study
the ppts were told they could leave at any time
the learner was strapped to a chair with electrodes which would electrocute him (the ppt saw this) when the ppts gave a shock from the other room
the teachers job was to administrate a learning task and deliver fake electric shocks to the learner if the learner got a question wrong.
the shocks began at 15 volts and increased by 15 each time to a maximum of 450 volts
the experimenter used prompts if the teacher refused (this tested obedience to authority)
“please continue (or please go on)
“the experiment requires that you continue”
“it is absolutely essential that you continue”
“you have no other choice you must go on”
milgrams study - findings
all ppts went to at least 300 volts, with only 12.5% stopping at that point. 65% if ppts continued to the maximum of 450 volts showing high levels of obedience
milgrams study - conclusion
ordinary people are obedience to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way. it’s not necessarily evil people who commit evil crimes but ordinary people just obeying orders
milgrams study - weaknesses
a problem with milgrams study into obedience is that it raises ethical issues because ppts were deceived as they were told this was a memory experiment and not told the true aim. it also caused psychological harm to ppts as they believed they have caused harm to the learner (in some case they thought they had killed him). this questions the value of milgrams study into obedience and reduces the reputation of psychology
a weakness of milgrams experiment into obedience is that it has gender bias because the research was only conducted on males. this is a problem because research has shown hat females are more likely to obey as they are more submissive than males therefore its difficult to generalise the findings from milgrams research into obedience
a weakness of milgrams research could be that its prone to demand characteristics because it was in a lab setting and ppts may have changed their natural behaviour to help the researcher. for example by giving electric shocks as they believed this is how they were supposed to act in the experiment rather than because they were being obedient to the authority figure. this could have reduced the validity of milgrams research into obedience
social factors affecting obedience: milgrams agency theory, agency and authority (AO1)
this where people may move from being in a state where they take personal responsibility for their actions (autonomous state) to a state where they believe they are acting on behalf of an authority figure (agentic state). this is known as an agentic shift. when an individual is in the agentic state they lose sense of personal responsibility and see themselves as carrying out the wishes of a more knowledgeable authority figure. if a person is in an agentic state they will be more likely to obey
social factors affecting obedience: milgrams agency theory, culture - social hierarchy (AO1)
most societies are structured in a hierarchical way. certain people have more authority than others because of the hierarchy. younger children obey olders, older children obey parents, parents obey the courts, courts obey government. the higher up the hierarchy, the more authority people have. obedience to authority is a social norm in most cultures and we are taught from a young age to respect that legitimate authority
social factors affecting obedience: milgrams agency theory, proximity (AO1)
refers to how far or close you are to someone. in milgrams variations when the teacher and learner were in the same room obedience fell from 65% to 40% and when they had to force their hand onto a shock plate, decreased to 30%. the closer the people are to the victim, the greater the moral stairn - individuals have an increase sense of personal responsibility, therefore are less likely to obey
milgrams agency theory - strength
rts milgrams agency theory comes from blass and schmitt. they showed students a film of milgrams study and asked them to identify who was responsible for the harm to the learner. they identified the experimenter as being to blame as he was the legitimate authority figure as the experiment. this supports milgrams agency theory because it shows people recognize legitimate authority as a cause of obedience
milgrams agency theory - weaknesses
one weakness of the agency theory is that it excuses people who blindly follow destructive orders. mandel claims its offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that nazis simple obeyed orders. the theory ignores the prejudice and racism that would have occurred in germany at the time and would have played a part in genocide. this limits the use of milgrams agency theory and is dangerous as it allows people to believe they are not fully responsible
an alternative explanation of obedience is adornos authoritarian personality. this is a dispositional explanation which suggests that individuals obey due to their personality type having a rigid cognitive style, an exaggerated respect for authority and look down on people with an inferior personality rather than obeying because an individual is in an agentic state. therefore milgrams agency theory may not be the only explanation of obedience
dispositional factors affecting obedience: adornos authoritarian personality (AO1)
adorno believe that personality type determines whether or not someone is likely to obey. in his research adorno found that having an authoritarian personality makes and individual more likely to obey. these people have an exaggerated respect for authority, they have a rigid cognitive style, they look down on people of inferior social status (scapegoating). adorno believed that the authoritarian personality is rooted in childhood
rigid cognitive style
an individuals way of thinking. thosw with authoritarian personality like things to be ‘black and white’ something is either good or bad. for example they feel uncomfortable with the idea that some men are bullies and women are emotional. they prefer to believe in rigid stereotypes that all ment are bullies and all women are emotional
scapegoating
those with hostility have a need to displace their anger onto something else to relieve anxiety. people with an authoritarian personality have a lot of hostility. as they disapprove of those with low status, they show anger towards them
originates in childhood
adorno believes authoritarian personality is made rather than born through overly strict parenting, strong discipline, critical of their children’s behaviours, extremely high standard of achievement, offer conditional love (only receive love if they behave correctly). children learn morals through identification with the same sex parent. so a child with strict parenting internalizes these feelings and expects everyone to behave like this. at the same time they feel hostility towards their parents because of the high standards and conditional love. instead of taking the hostility out on parents, they take it out on those who are inferior
adornos authoritarian personality - weaknesses
a problem is that the research is based on a questionnaire. this is a problem because people may have lied about their answers to prevent themselves in the best possible light for example lying on questions to not present themselves as a fascist which reduces the validity of the f scale and research into authoritarian personalities
another weakness is that the research is based on correlations. correlations only show a link between an authoritarian personality and levels of obedience. there may be a third factor such as level of education that could be responsible which lowers the validity of the research
an alternative explanation of obedience is milgrams agency theory. it is a social explanation which suggests individuals obey due moving from an autonomous state to an agentic state where they believe an authority figure is taking responsibility for their actions rather than obeying because of their personality type. therefore adornos authoritarian personality may not be the only explanation of obedience
prosocial behaviour
to act a way that promotes the welfare of others. this includes bystander behaviour.
bystander effect
when help is not given in a certain social situation so is not prosocial
piliavins study - aim
to investigate bystander behaviour in a natural setting
piliavins study - procedure
4 researchers board a new york subway train (always at the same stop)
they did 103 trials
one of the researchers always played the male victim who stood next to a pole in the centre of the carriage
after 70 seconds the victime staged a collapse and remained on the floor until there was help
on the 38th trial the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle in a brown bag (drunk condition)
on the 65th trial he appeared sober and carried a cane (disabled condition)
in all other aspects he behaved the same
two of the researchers were observers who noted what the people around did and how long it took until people began to help
the fourth researcher was a model who would step in an help after 70-150 seconds if no one else helped
piliavins study - findings
the disabled person was helped 95% of the time but the drunk man was only helped 50% of the time. 87% of the time on the disabled victim trial they were helped in the first 70seconds which was only 17% for the drunk man people were just as likely to offer help when the carriage was full rather than empty
piliavins study - conclusion
the results show that certain characteristics of a victim determine whether prosocial behaviour will occur (helping behaviour)
piliavins study - strength
a strength is that the study has high ecological validity because it took place in a real environment because the study was carried out on a new york subway and the passengers did not know they were taking part in an experiment so their helping behaviour is true to real life. this increases the validity of the study
piliavins study - weakness
a weakness is that it has low control over extraneous variables because it was a field experiment in a real life environment which makes it difficult to control extraneous variables such as whether people were in a rush, which could have affected prosocial behaviour which lowers the validity
another weakness is that it raises ethical issues. one ethical issue is deception because it was a covert observation, people didnt know they were being watched and didnt know the collapsed man was an actor. due to this there is a further issue with lack of informed consent from the ppts. this devalues the study into prosocial behaviour and decreases psychologys reputation
social factors affecting prosocial behaviour: presence of others (AO1)
a reason people may not help in situations is because of the bystander effect or bystander behaviour. the more people there are in a situation, the less likely people are to help. this is because in an emergency situation, we have to assume full responsibility for helping a person in need as there is no one else which an help. when others are present the responsibility of helping is divided or shared amongst the group (diffusion of responsibility)
social factors affecting prosocial behaviour: presence of others (AO3)
rts was conducted by darley and latane. they conducted an experiment in which ppts were having a conversation over the intercom. some ppts were only speaking with one other student (confederate), others were in a group with four confederates. during the conversation one of the students seemed to have an epileptic fit. the ppt was more likely to get help if they were on their own in the conversation compared to when they were in a group. this supports the presence of others because it shows that when other people are present prosocial behaviour is decreased and responsibility is diffused
social factors affecting prosocial behaviour: cost of helping (AO1)
research suggests that before helping someone people weigh up the costs and rewards. the cost of helping someone could be danger, effort, the time it may take and embarrassment. the costs of not helping could be guilt and blame from others. reward could be feeling good about yourself
social factors affecting prosocial behaviour: cost of helping (AO3)
a problem with the cost of helping is that it may not be the only factor considered in a situation. for example shotland and straw found that when bystanders saw a man and woman arguing in the street, 65% helped when the woman yelled ‘get away from me, i dont know you’ compared to only 19% when she yelled ‘get away from me, i dont know why i ever married you’. suggesting that cost of helping may be too simplistic as the only factor affecting whether people help others
dispositional factors affecting prosocial behaviour: similarity to victim (AO1)
when a bystander feels similarities between them and the person in need of help, research suggests that they are more likely to offer assistance. if people are the same gender, similar age levels or other characteristics in common people find it easy to empathise with those in need of help because they think they are similar to us. this means we can put ourselves in their shoes and imagine how they are likely to be feeling in the situation. by assisting them we are likely to feel better because out stress about the situation is reduced.
dispositional factors affecting prosocial behaviour: similarity to victim (AO3)
Levine et al conducted a study to explore the impact of similarity to the victim on prosocial behavior. Manchester United football fans were asked to recount their experiences as supporters and then walk across a college campus. Along the way, they encountered a runner who appeared injured, either wearing a Manchester United t-shirt or a Liverpool t-shirt. The fans were more likely to help the runner if he wore a Manchester United t-shirt. This suggests that people are more inclined to assist those they perceive as similar to themselves, demonstrating that similarity to the victim is a significant factor in prosocial behavior.
dispositional factors affecting prosocial behaviour: expertise (AO1)
bystanders are more likely to help others if they feel they have the skills or expertise to be able to help based on the situation. bystanders may still feel concern and distress observing someone else in trouble however when others are present they may believe thay someone else is more capable of helping
dispositional factors affecting prosocial behaviour: expertise (AO3)
research to contradict was conducted by shotland and heinold who compared those who had received first aid training with those who had not. when faced with an emergency situation in which someone was bleeding the researchers found that both groups were equally as likely to help regardless of where they had received first aid training (however expertise affected the quality of first aid training. this goes against expertise because it shows that individuals will still help even if they dont feel qualified to
crowd and collective behaviour
how people behave when in a group setting. when in a crowd people show anti social behaviour which is harmful to others including aggression, noisey and rowdy however other research has shown that crowds can behave prosocially and peacefully
social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour: deindividuation (AO1)
refers to what happens when people lose their sense of individuality and personal identity. psychologists have found that people can become deindividuated when in a crowd because they feel like they are anonymous as its hard to be identified. this leads people to lose their inhibitions and sense of responsibility for what they do. as a result they are less able to monitor their own behaviour and judge whether their actions are right or wrong because they behave as part of the crowd rather than an individual. when people are in crowds they look to others for them to guide their behaviour. this is because they feel they are anonymous within the group and no one knows who they are and so they think they can not be punished
social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour: deindividuation (AO3)
rts was conducted by zimbardo. ppts were in groups of four female individuals. each group was required to deliver a fake electric shock to another student (confederate). the groups were either individuated, had larger name tags, were introduced by name and saw each other while sitting at the shock machine. or they were deindividuated, so they wore large coats, with big hoods and covered their faces. it was found that they were more likely to give shocks to the learner if they were deindividuated. this supports deindividuation because it shows they were more likely to perform harmful acts when they were anonymous
social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour: social loafing (AO1)
the idea that individuals will put less effort into completing a task when they are part of a group compared to when they are completing it alone. when a group is completing a task together every individual is being helped by others within the group and this results in the diffusion of responsibility occurring as each individual does not have to work as hard. this results in each person ultimately contributing less towards the task. key factors reducing the likelihood of social loafing are when people are in a small group compared to large, if individuals are completing a task or activity they think is important, if the group is in competition with another. social loafing can also be reduced if each individual’s efforts are identified and evaluated within a group task
social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour: social loafing (AO3)
rts was conducted by latane. in his study 84 males were asked to shout as loudly as they could either on their own with one other person or in a group of six. when they were in a larger group, they made less noise than if they were on their own. this supports social loafing because it shows that individuals made less effort when in a large group as there was a diffusion of responsibility
social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour: culture (AO1)
the social norms within a culture can affect collective behaviour. social loafing does not occur in all societies. in collectivist cultures people are prepared to work just as hard for the good of the whole group even when they do not need to. in individualistic cultures they are focused on individual needs and therefore may be more likely to partake in social loading to reduce personal responsibility. this means it is difficult to assume that collective behaviour will be the same across all cultures
social factor affecting crowd and collective behaviour: culture (AO3)
rts was conducted by earley. us and chinese participants were compared on two types of group task. in one group they were individualized and in the other group they were deindividuated. the individual effort was the same in both tasks for the chinese ppts but not for the americans. as soon as the americans identities they increase their effort. this supports cultural differences because it shows that collectivist cultures are less likely to social loaf than individualistic cultures
dispositional factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour: personality (AO1)
rotter believed that some people have an internal LOC while others had an external LOC. if people had an internal LOC did poorly in an assessment or test they are likely to believe this was because they did not revise enough whereas people with external LOC would blame results on poor teaching or difficult questions. research found that people with an internal LOC take greater responsibility for their own behaviour and are more likely to decide how to behave based on their own idea of what is right and wrong. this means such people are less likely to conform to crowd and collective behaviours compared to those with external LOC
dispositional factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour: personality (AO3)
research to contradict was conducted by bocchiaro et al. ppts were tested to see if they would report researcher for conducting an unethical study by speaking out despite the silence of the crowd (whistleblowing). they found that people who were willing to speak out had similar scores on the personality test to those who didn’t speak out. this contradicts personality as it shows there must be another factor as to why some people stand out from the crowd and others don’t
dispositional factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour: morality (AO1)
whether a person engages in prosocial behaviour may depend on their sense of morality. morality is a sense of what is right and wrong. young people may not trust the police or believe they are there to protect them and their communities and may therefore feel justified in abusing or attacking them when in collective situations. however this is not the only factor to influence their behaviour.
dispositional factors affecting crowd and collective behaviour: morality (AO3)
a strengths of morality is that it is supported by evidence from real life cases. in germany sophie scholl was found guilty of spreading anti nazi literature. she stood up for what she believed and went against group pressure even though there was personal cost since she was later executed for treason. this supports morality because it shows people will stand out from the crowd if they believe this is the right thing to do
Note 
Flashcard (27)