Psych:social influence

5.0(2)
studied byStudied by 20 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/52

flashcard set

Earn XP

Description and Tags

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

53 Terms

1
New cards
define conformity
a change in behavior or thoughts from indirect pressure .we do this because we feel the need to fit in to a social group
2
New cards
state the three types of conformity
internalization

identification

compliance
3
New cards
define compliance
going along with the majority although a person does not privatey agree
4
New cards
define internalization
mimicing other peoples behaviour because you do not know how to behave in a social situation
5
New cards
explain why we go through internalisation
this is because of informational social influence(copying other peoples behaviour because you do not know how to behave in a social situation)
6
New cards
explain why we go through compliance or identification
this is because of normative social influence(the need to be accepted and liked by a group)
7
New cards
define identification
changing ones behaviour/beliefs according to a group HOWEVER this only lasts for as long as the person is around the group
8
New cards
state the situational three factors that affect conformity
unanimity of the majority

task difficulty/ambiguity

size majority
9
New cards
what does size majority do
the greater the amount of people the more likely a person is to conform
10
New cards
what does task difficulty do
the harder the task the more likely a person is to look to others for an answer
11
New cards
what does unanimity do
the less people disagree the more likely a person is to conform
12
New cards
what personality factors affect compliance
authoritarian personality

pluralistuc ignorance
13
New cards
define what an internal locus control is
the belief that a person has a large amount of control over their behaviour
14
New cards
define what an external locus of control is
the belief that a person does not have a large amount of control over their actions
15
New cards
what are people with a high amount of an internal locus of control less likely to do
they are less likely to be influenced by others
16
New cards
what are people with a high amount of an external locus of control more likely to do
they are more likely to be influenced by others
17
New cards
what were the aims of asch’s study
to demonstrate the power of conformity in groups.
18
New cards
decribe the basics of asch’s experiment
* there were groups of 7-9 people were one was a participant and the rest were confederates
* the participant was always the last to answer
* one a participant had to write down their answers they were less likely to conform
19
New cards
define a confedrate
a researcher or other person who is acting in a study but does not know what the study is about.
20
New cards
state the results of asch’s trial
rate of conformity with one confederate;3%

rate of conformity with two confederates;13%

rate of conformity with three confederates;32%
21
New cards
define obedience
following orders from an authority figure
22
New cards
define blind obedience
following order given by and authority figure without question
23
New cards
Situational factors of obedience
Proximity of the victim

Proximity of the authority figure

Wether an authority figure is present

Legitimacy of context

Personal responsibility

Support of others
24
New cards
What is an authoritarian personality
Is respectful of authority

Has right wing attitude

Rigid beliefs
25
New cards
What is Adorno’s f-scale
A questionnaire designed to identify an authoritarian personality
26
New cards
authoritarian personality has ……..
* respect for authority figures


* rigid beliefs and attitudes


* a strong belief in justice


* right-wing politics


* aggressive to those inferior to themselves.

\
27
New cards
Momentum of compliance
when a person starts something they feels compelled to finish it
28
New cards
Define the bystander effect
*Bystander effect is when people don’t help someone because they believe others will help instead.*
29
New cards
Situational factors of the bystander effect
Cost of helping

Noticing the event

Pluralistic ignorance

Diffusion of responsibility
30
New cards
What it Pluralistic ignorance
Interpreting a situation based on others' reactions.
31
New cards
What are the personality factors that affect the bystander effect
Competence

Mood

Personality
32
New cards
Bystander effect case study
28 year old Kitty Genovese was stabbed and raped on the 13th of march 1964.Two weeks later, The New York Times published an article improperly  claiming that 38 witnesses saw or heard the attack, and that none of them called the police or came to her aid.
33
New cards
What were the aims of pilliavin et Al’s study
: to investigate helping behaviour in a natural environment, and understand the conditions in which people are more likely to help
34
New cards
Findings of pilliavin et Al’s study
* We are more likely to help an ill victim than a drunk victim
* Men are first helpers more than females
* People offer more help in bigger groups
* The Diffusion of responsibility does not always occur
35
New cards
Provide the strengths and weaknesses of Pilliavin et Al’s study
***G***: There was a large sample size of 4500 participants(strength). They only used male model/victims(weakness)

***R***: Piliavin kept the procedure the same for each of the trials(standardised procedure), but because it was in a natural environment it was hard to control extraneous variables(lack of control weakness)

A:*demonstrates that the diffusion of responsibility does not always happen(weakness*

***V***: In a natural environment so high in ecological validity. Participants did not know they were being observed, so they were more likely to act naturally and show less demand characteristics (strength)

***E***: no consent from the participants as it was a covert observation. Also there was deception, as the victim wasn’t really ill/drunk or in need or genuine help.(weakness unethical)
36
New cards
What is deindividuation(crowd behavior)
Loss of personal self-awareness and responsibility as a result of being part of a group.
37
New cards
What is pro social behavior
Behavior that is seen as help full
38
New cards
What is antisocial behavior
Destructive behavior
39
New cards
What do crowds do
They magnify levels of conformity which is why ordinary people can act like criminals in crowds
40
New cards
What is another argument for deindividuation
The feeling of anonymity making a person form a new identity
41
New cards
How do authority figures affect crowd behavior
They exert influence
42
New cards
What factors affect the influence an authority figure has over a crowd(3)
Proximity

Legitimacy

Power
43
New cards
are boys or girls more likely to conform
boys are less likely to conform
44
New cards
**Name two factors that affect how likely a bystander is to help a victim(4)**
Cost of helping

Noticing the event

Pluralistic ignorance

Diffusion of responsibility
45
New cards
what is pluralistic ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance is when an individual sees lots of others doing an action, and therefore assumes that action is acceptable.
46
New cards
what were the aims of Zimbardo et al’s study(1973)

1. ***to test the dispositional hypothesis***
2. ***To show how the taking of social roles would lead to excessive conformity to those roles***
47
New cards
describe the main facts of this study(1973)
* small sample size(all male)
* standardised procedure used
* The guards became more aggressive. Every guard at some point behaved in an abusive, authoritarian way. 
* Evidence of pathological prisoner syndrome
48
New cards
state four conclusions of zimbardo et al’s study
1\.Rejects dispositional hypothesis

2\.The prison environment changed the guards behaviour

3\.People conform to the roles they are expected to play

4\.The roles we are given can shape our behaviour and attitudes
49
New cards
what were the weaknesses and strengths of this study
**weakness was Genralisability :** The sample was limited – only males took part, it was a small sample and they were all university students

**strength was Reliability :** There were lots of controls in place – the experiment was recorded so there could be inter-rater reliability. There were rules put in place (although these were broken)

**strength was Application :** The study tells us about prison behaviour – it tells us that the situation in a prison can lead to negative behaviour

**weakness was ecological Validity :** The prison was not real life – the prisoners had not committed real crimes and the guards had limited power. The participants all knew it was part of the study and may have shown demand characteristics

**weakness was unethical :** The study was unethical – there was lots of psychological harm, and it was very difficult for the prisoners to withdraw, despite asking for “parole”
50
New cards
what is seriation
sorting objects into certain groups or categories
51
New cards
milgrams variations

1. **Proximity –** Milgram told the teacher to force the learner’s hand down onto a shock plate when they refused to participate after 150 volts. Milgram found that Obedience fell to 30%. The participant is no longer ‘protected’ from seeing the consequences of their actions.
2. **Change of location –** The experiment was moved to a set of run down offices rather than the impressive Yale University. Obedience dropped to 47.5%. This suggests that status of location effects obedience.
3. **Uniform** – The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience level dropped to 20%.
52
New cards

ways of preventing blind obedience

If some of the soldiers decided to be disobedient and rebelled then it may be that peer support would lower the obedience to the high-ranking soldier (1) because Milgram (1974) had two peers rebel in a variation of his study and found that obedience fell (from 65% to 10%) because the two peers refused to continue at various points during the study (1). •

If the distance between the high-ranking soldier and the other soldiers was increased so that he had to remotely give the orders from a different country then obedience could drop (1) because Milgram (1974) showed that if the authority figure had to give the verbal prods over the telephone rather than in person the obedience of participants dropped (from 65% to 22.5%) (1).

53
New cards