social psych 3

conformity

a change in behavior or belief due to real or imagined social influence

informational social influence

conforming because we want to be correct

normative social influence

conforming because we want to fit in or be accepted

public compliance

agreeing publicly without changing private beliefs

private acceptance

actually changing personal beliefs to match the group

when does informational influence occur?

ambiguous situations, importance of accuracy, and when others are experts

autokinetic effect

the illusion that a stationary light is moving in darkness

sherif's autokinetic study (1936)

people developed shared estimates when judging an ambiguous light

rohrer et al (1954)

group estimates continued influencing participants one year later

pluralistic ignorance

incorrectly assuming others accept something when they privately disagree

bystander effect

people are less likely to help when more bystanders are present

diffusion of responsibility

assuming someone else will take responsibility for helping

propaganda

manipulating attitudes and behaviors through misleading or emotional information

social contagion

the rapid spread of behaviors or emotions through a crowd

mass psychogenic illness

physical symptoms spreading without an identifiable physical cause

injunctive norms

beliefs about what behaviors are approved or disapproved

descriptive norms

beliefs about what behaviors people actually perform

boomerang effect

when a message causes people to move toward the behavior it discourages

when does normative influence occur?

when we want approval or fear rejection

asch's line study (1951, 1956)

people gave incorrect answers to agree with a unanimous group

asch's study results

about 75% conformed at least once and 37% on critical trials

why did people conform in asch's study?

fear of rejection and desire to fit in

sherif vs asch

sherif studied informational influence in ambiguous situations; asch studied normative influence with obvious answers

amygdala

emotional processing, including fear and anxiety

right caudate nucleus

reward processing and learning

group unanimity

conformity increases when everyone agrees

true partner

a person who agrees with the participant's correct answer

compromise partner

a person who breaks group unanimity without necessarily giving the correct answer

public response

conformity increases when answers must be given publicly

prior commitment

committing to an answer beforehand reduces conformity

baron et al (1996)

accuracy importance reduces conformity in eyewitness identification

cultural factors

collectivistic cultures generally show more conformity than individualistic cultures

social impact theory

social influence depends on strength, immediacy, and number

strength

the importance, status, and cohesiveness of the influencing group

reference group

a group whose opinions are important to an individual

immediacy

the physical and temporal closeness of social influence

number

the number of people applying social pressure

milgram et al (1969)

more people looking up caused more passersby to look up

social impact theory: group size

influence increases with group size but eventually levels off

compliance

agreeing to a direct request

foot-in-the-door technique

getting agreement to a small request before making a larger request

freedman and fraser (1966)

small household survey increased agreement to a larger request

safe driving study

small sign commitment increased agreement to display a large sign

foot-in-the-door works best for

long-term compliance

consistency principle

people want their actions to match previous commitments

door-in-the-face technique

making a large request first followed by a smaller request

reciprocity norm

the expectation that people return favors or concessions

cialdini et al (1975)

rejecting a large volunteer request increased agreement to a smaller zoo trip request

door-in-the-face works best for

short-term compliance

deviance

behavior that violates group norms

schachter's johnny rocco study (1951)

groups pressured deviants to conform and eventually ignored them

idiosyncrasy credits

freedom to deviate earned through valued group membership

psychological reactance

resisting when personal freedom is threatened

brehm and weintraub (1977)

children wanted restricted toys more when barriers prevented access

worchel et al (1975)

threatened freedom increased support for co-ed dorms

zellinger et al (1974)

restricting books can increase people's desire to read them

romeo and juliet effect

parental opposition can increase romantic attraction

driscoll et al (1972)

parental interference increased romantic feelings

pennebaker and sanders (1976)

restrictive bathroom signs could increase prohibited behavior

obedience

following a direct order from an authority figure

when is obedience most likely?

legitimate authority, authority presence, high status, and distant victims

milgram's obedience study

65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock

why did people obey milgram?

pressure from an authority figure despite personal discomfort

burger (2009)

partial replication found obedience rates similar to milgram's

milgram vs burger

milgram allowed shocks to 450 volts; burger stopped at 150 volts for ethical reasonsgroup

social norms

shared expectations for how group members should behave

social roles

expected behaviors associated with a person's position in a group

social facilitation

the strengthening of the dominant response when others are present

dominant response

the most natural or likely response in a situation

social facilitation on easy tasks

performance improves

social facilitation on difficult tasks

performance worsens

zajonc et al (1969)

cockroaches performed better on simple mazes and worse on difficult mazes when others were present

evaluation apprehension

arousal caused by fear of being judged by others

alertness and vigilance

arousal caused by increased awareness of others

distraction

arousal caused by competing attention from other people

social loafing

putting in less effort when working in a group than alone

when does social loafing occur?

when individual contributions cannot be identified

when is social loafing reduced?

when contributions are identifiable or tasks are meaningful

shepperd (2001)

meaningful tasks can increase effort and reduce social loafing

social facilitation vs social loafing

facilitation strengthens dominant responses; loafing reduces individual effort

deindividuation

loss of self-awareness and personal responsibility in a group

what causes deindividuation?

anonymity, large groups, reduced accountability, and distraction

diener et al (1976)

anonymous children in groups were more likely to take extra candy

ross et al (2011)

deindividuation can influence children's behavior

zimbardo (1969)

anonymity and reduced accountability can increase aggression

johnson and downing (1979)

group norms influence behavior under anonymity

ellison et al (1995)

examined anonymity and aggressive behavior

process loss

group interactions that prevent a group from performing at its best

causes of process loss

conformity pressure and failure to share unique information

stasser and titus (1985)

groups focused on shared information and overlooked unique information

unique information

information known by only one or a few group members

risky shift

groups make riskier decisions than individuals would alone

stoner (1961)

found that group decisions could become riskier

wallach et al (1962)

studied how group discussion changes risk-taking

groupthink

faulty group decisions caused by pressure for agreement

when is groupthink likely?

high cohesion, isolation, stress, strong leadership, and pressure to agree

illusion of invulnerability

believing the group cannot fail

collective rationalization

dismissing warnings and contradictory information

belief in group morality

assuming the group's decisions are morally correct

stereotyping outsiders

viewing people who disagree as ignorant or unreasonable