Social psych exam 3

Conformity is based on

social influence

• usual mild behav

conformity vs independence

independent - not influenced by presence of others

compliance vs assertiveness

compliance - get you to do something when you don’t want to do something

assertiveness - don’t fall prey

obedience vs defiance

obedience - strongest persuasion, due to an authority figure 

defy - attempt to avoid gets harder 

chameleon effect

imitate subtle behav of others, style

• mirror neurons

  • “student uniforms” - style of students

chameleon effect example

If imitation is subtle enough and how much can a person imitate if you’re sitting in front of a person/across

• ppl are very quick to imitate & it’s subtle

  • participants had no clue

    • unconscious imitation

What do ppl conform?

• informational influence

• normative influence

Informational influence, Sherif

to conform based on the fact you don’t really have enough info, so you look towards others who have more knowledge and follow them 

Normative influence 

based on social norms 

• you want to be accepted and go along w/ other ppl 

• you don’t want to be seen as diff 

Sherif’s autokinetic experiment

in a dark room, we will perceive random points of light = it’s random, made up in our brain

• retina spontaneous firing w/o receiving info

  • over time ppl started to conform, as the inches between each light started to correlate closer 

private conformity 

the external becomes internal 

• you really believe it 

based on informational 

Asch’s normative conformity

people want to belong, even knowing the right answer 

• fake classroom one participant, everyone’s saying the same wrong answer 

  • 75% did conform even though they knew the right answer 

public conformity 

you want to be accepted 

• you do it on the outside even if you don’t believe in it 

based on normative 

normative influence in conformity is affected by…

• group size 

• cohesiveness 

• mode 

• status 

normative influence in conformity - group size 

more # of conform in group, more likely to conform 

• there’s a limit of diminishing returns 

  • size of 6 

normative influence in conformity - cohesiveness 

everyone needs to say the same wrong answer, increase conformity 

• just slightly diff = less cohesive, less conformity 

  • bc if there’s 1 person that doesn’t say same answer they’ll band together = Ally in dissent

normative influence in conformity - mode

the ___ response is important

• outloud: more conformity

• written: less conformity

  • others didn’t know

normative influence in conformity - status

if status is lower, less conformity

if same or higher status, more conformity

motivation & conformity

____ & difficulty of task

• difficulty = autokinetic

• easy = no question of uncertainty = normative

low motivation: more likely tro conform to others bc other ppl might know 

• sherif/autokinetic 

high motivation: less conform

• they’d rather get $ than conform 

why is normative influence so powerful?

no one wants to get rejected

• physical = emotional = social pain 

• we want to avoid pain 

Social norms + trash

clean garage vs not clean garage + brochures

• in clean ppl took brochure, but threw it away in trash

• in dirty took brochure and just threw it on groud

  • based on perceived social norm, ppl react

    • but can be misinterpreted

pluralistic ignorance

Everyone thinks they’re the only one who feels a certain way, so they stay quiet — even though most people actually feel the same.

• interpreting social norm depending on what others do, BUT can be misinterpreted

why is there a minority of ppl who don’t conform? 

typical behav., how they say things, what they do 

1. forceful, persistent, unwavering of their support 

2. appear flexible & open minded 

consistent dissent

from the moment you knew that person, they’ve been a non-conformist 

• consistent, accepted in their non-conformity 

consistent dissent example 

Bernie Sanders

• bc so consistent he’s accepted 

  • always been liberal 

idiosyncrasy credits

start mainstream, very slowly reject majority

• eventually a dissenter, racked up credits to be accepted/not rejected/not upset

idiosyncrasy credits example

Hillary Clinton

• grew up republican, slowly became liberal

mindlessness & compliance

to avoid falling prey, have to be paying attention

• but talking fast → agree before registering in brain

  • auctioneers talk fast so you can comply

mindfulness & compliance

asking a simple request study, ppl in line @library

Our brain turns off once someone gives a reason

• the moment they said “because…”

  • Bc if attention is always on then no one would let them skip in front to a reason that made no sense, BUT they did

Norm of Reciprocity 

If i do you a favor, you do a favor for me 

We try relieve this feeling of indebtedness by returning the favor

• powerful compliance tool

Example of norm of reciprocity 

getting a little note on your check, you tip more 

Cultural differences - Norm of reciprocity

stronger in collectivists

• indebted in diff degrees

  • Canadian airport free soup or drink

    • Canadians felt indebted, but Chinese felt more indebted

Foot in door technique

Request is small, but once agreement, you ask a bigger request after 

• likely to say yes bc they already said yes the 1st time

  • don’t want to be seen as un-agreeable

what does Bem say about the foot in door technique?

since you might not know how to feel, and you’ve already said yes, I must want to do it (yes)

low ball

secure agreement, but there’s a hidden cost

• you already said yes, so you’re not likely to go back

  • bc you don’t want to look un-agreeable

Door in the face technique

large requests, they say “no” enough times that they feel guilty enough to sya yes to the real request

• relieve yourself of the negative feeling of saying “no”

“That’s not all folks” technique

TV shopping channels in 1960s

• begin w/ a request, lower the apparent costs by giving bonuses + discounts 

  • so you feel like you’re getting more for your $

Obedience 

Change of behav from command of an authority figure 

• authority figure has more status 

Milgram experiment

WW2, Americans said that would never happen in U.S. 

• He tests it by having ppl “shock” another “participant” if they get an answer wrong 

• “participant” was a confederate, and they were told a script 

  • more intense response, more “shock”

  • then go silent 

    • ppl are willing to inflict deadly shock bc they were told so 

Milgram experiment hesitation

“stop following authority, they’ll stop”

• no they might have hesitated, but when the person in white coat says to “pls proceed” they proceed 

  • they went further 

why was Milgram’s experiment “unethical”?

after they told the participants they didn’t really shock others they didn’t receive any counseling for their mental health 

what are the situational factors in obedience?

Milgram did 3 diff. versions 

1. “learner heard” - only talked to confederate = dehumanized

2. “learner” seen - saw confederate

3. “learner touched - shook hands w/ confederate = made personal contact

the amount of contact changes if you obey commands

• less obedience, more contact 

The “Astroten” study 1966

field study where nurses have an info sessions about a drug and how there’s a reaction/interaction when drug is administered

• how many nurses will follow commands of doctor, knowing the drug interaction? 

  • 32/33 prescribed even knowing

  • obvi they didn’t let the nurses

2010 - they’ll follow orders, even knowing the drug interaction 

social impact theory, what are the 3 things social influence depends on? 

• strength of source

• immediacy of source target 

• number of sources

diff range of effects

Strength of source 

how strong is command or persuasive message 

• social impact theory

Immediacy of source to target

proximity in time & space to target

updated - includes digital/virtual spaces 

• perceived connection 

• social impact theory

Number of sources 

more social influence, more #

• up to a certain point, like law of diminishing

in Milgram’s study how did obedience decrease?

lab coat was crumpled

no lab coat

Social impact: source and target factors

formula of diff variables = can predict conformity & resistance

• longer arrow → further away & vice versa

• # of arrows → # of sources

• strength → thickness of arrow

obedience & generations

Social influence is dependent on culture

• individualistic = less prey to conformity

• collectivist = more likely to fall prey social influence

within culture - there are generational differences

ex: U.S. in 1950s were collectivists → sexual revolution decreased collectivism

• more religion = more conformity

  • fall prey to social influence

Why join a group?

1. Basic human desire

2. Provide protection

   1. Feeling secure and know who you are

Anthro + evolutionary psych 

social brain hypothesis 

• ppl used to think we’re for higher order cognitive processes 

but now, we think it’s for solving 1 important problem 

• how to deal w/ behavior of others 

size of clans

chimps & gorilla brains are similar size to humans

• smaller the brain, smaller the clan?

social identity can …

be solidified in a group 

• affect self worth → self concept 

ppl tend to be their best & worst when a part of a group 

overestimate differences between groups 

underestimate differences within their own groups 

what’s the bad aspect of being a part of a group?

• you don’t think of the consequences of behav

• once you’re in, you only accept the opinion of that group

• don’t seek opinion of other groups

What is a group?

Collection of individuals

idea of “groupiness”

entitativity

• degree of cohesiveness

• perceiving a collection of individual cohesiveness

  • it’s on a continuum 

entity defined by…

proximity = degree of prox.

• how much do they share in prox. 

similarity = display similar behav. 

• some quality of joint membership 

• ex: gender, race 

common fate = seem to experience interrelated outcome 

perceiving collection of unity & cohesiveness

increased unity, increased boundary around group

high entit. example

immediate family

• group boundary > individual boundary

• rigid boundary is around the whole group

  • it’s a collection of individuals 

medium entit. example

group that works at the same company

• working towards 1 goal, but you each have your own job = unity & cohesiveness 

• individ. = group identity 

low entit. 

standing in line to buy concert tickets 

• individ. boundary > group boundary

serving appropriate roles? - Instrumental

individual helps group achieve tasks, goal are accomplished

• usually one person tends to have more of this degree, but can be multiple ppl

serving appropriate roles? - Expressive

provides emotional support

• morale, comfort

  • Making sure everyone’s okay

are both instrumental and expressive needed?

Yes, both have roles for the group to work functionally

what are the 2 types of group dysfunction? 

• role uncertainty 

• losing oneself 

role of uncertainty

mismatch between job’s role & character of person

• ex: instrumental = if you suck at keeping dates, but you’re put to do admin work = group dysfunction

losing oneself

the job suits you, but you take it too far

• lose the individual in that role, lose sense of self

  • group dysfunction

example of losing oneself

Stanford prison experiment

• revealed the dysfunction of taking on a role and losing themselves, but forgot who they were 

• Professor Philip Zimbardo

  • are ppl innately evil or evil bc of a situation

  • supposed to be 2 wks, shut down after 5 days 

  • randomly assign college kids: prisoner or ward 

    • became entirely diff ppl → power corrupts 

Guantanamo Bay 

during the war against Iraq 

• detention camp, showcasing that ppl can get lost in their roles and exhibit inhumane behaviors 

  • Prisoners vs soldiers

  • Example of how Stanford experiment can be real, but with violence

• Professor Philip Zimbardo

group norms - formal rule 

written, easy access/figure out 

• “this is how you behave in a classroom” 

• Mission statement 

• Bylaws 

  • Mean girls “plastic”

  • You know how to act immediately

group norms - informal rule

not easily acceptable, like subtle cues 

• mistakes are often made 

• Takes time, have to observe 

Tolerance for deviation 

how tolerant of a violation of norms in itself is a group norm

• heterozygous thinking

  • rate significantly better

    • tolerance of deviation from norm

• homozygous thinking

  • rated poorly if they were pro-war

social facilitation

the affect of arousal from the presence of others on individual’s performance

• horrible definition: only implies one direction

• Not always making something better

social drive theory

found inconsistencies, so change the name

• same as social facilitation

• removes idea that arousal is only good

• this theory says it can be bad or good

social drive theory: zajonc solution 

explains why in the presence of others you flunk 

• ex: driving car 

  • w/ parents you do well

    • arousal state is low

  • w/ evaluator you flunk

    • arousal state is high

social facilitation: dominant response

“correct” response

• better to say behavior that you consider to be easy response/automatic

ex: w/ evaluator your driving skills haven’t been developed yet to become automatic

ex: new to violin = messing up is easier than playing perfectly

• seasoned violinist, arousal is high

• so the automatic correct finger takes over

• the dom is automatic to play correctly

when arousal is high, automatic takes over

Henchy & Glass (1968); Cottrell (1968)
Evaluation Apprehension

not about the presence of others, but anybody in your presence has the ability to evaluate you, which can affect your performance

• they’re judging you

Baron-Cohen (1986)
distraction conflict

doesn’t have to do w/ ppl, but distraction

high or low performance is bc of distraction of your task

• empty crowds = lowered their performance, even though less distraction

• full crowds = higher performance, even though a lot of distraction

social loafing 

aka free riding 

• lower performance bc ppl are working together in a group 

• ex: told to clap or cheer 

  • alone = more effort

  • group = less effort w/ more ppl

social loafing: collective effort model

values that are important to everyone decides
provide personal value/commitment = working harder

• no personal value, free load

social loafing: social compensation

over achieving occurs in anticipation someone will free load

social loafing: sucker effect

you see the over achiever, you say “I can’t keep up,” so you back up

• no way I can give same effort

• You lower your effort because you think giving full effort will make you look like the only one doing the work

culture & loafing 

• gender differences

  • females less

  • males more

    • maybe evolutionary?

• societal differences 

  • collectivists less 

    • they’ll retaliate and let others know 

  • individualistic more 

    • they’re tolerant 

deindividuation 

when you believe others won’t be able to identify you, anonymous 

• we tend to do inappropriate things 

being a part of a group → take on group identity → go along w/ bad behav

• group & not anonymous - take more candy 

• group & anonymous - significantly take more candy 

  • group shields you bc they don’t know who you are 

social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE)

Your behavior, even when anonymous, is driven by what the social norm is at the time

• Ex: MLK jr. = no violence, no retaliation 

group polarization 

group makes a decision, the process of talking leads to extreme decisions based on initial thoughts 

• decision tends to be majority 

• at the beginning ppl are slightly in agreement, but by the end of discussion tend to have made the more extreme decision 

what are the 3 causes of group polarization

• persuasive arguments theory 

• social comparison 

• differentiation

persuasive arguments theory

number of ppl + persuasiveness

• group numbers are exposed, the more they get to decide 

  • More persuasive arguments shared → more extreme group decision

  • Majority views get amplified because people hear more arguments supporting them

    • majority is usually very persuasiveness 

cause of polarization

social comparison

happens bc we compare, tend to think like them

• more similar, more identify w/ them, so you must think what they think

cause of polarization

differentiation

want to differentiate from others, tend to go extreme

• wanting to stand out inside the group → becoming more extreme.

• It’s the opposite of conformity

cause of polarization

groupthink

together in a group they make bad decisions

• always bad

what creates Groupthink

• homogenous thinking

• pressured to make a decision

• isolation

  • diff from the group

• clear leader

• no clear rules 

symptoms of Groupthink 

ability

• illusion of invulnerability

• inherent morality 

• collective rationalization 

stereotyping/closed mindedness

• stereotyped views of out group 

• direct pressure on dissenters 

silence 

• mindgaurds 

• self-censorship 

• illusion of unanimity 

illusion of invulnerability

overestimation of group’s ability 

• they think they’re better 

• extraordinary risks

• overly optimistic 

they think they have no weakness 

• ability

inherent morality

they think they’re right

• don’t think of the consequences 

• ability

collective rationalization

members will discount any warnings

• rationalize their position 

  • don’t tolerate or consider other assumptions or options 

• ability

stereotyped views of out-groups

show prejudice, negative views of outgroups

• protecting in group 

• stereotyping/closed mindedness

direct pressure on dissenters 

not allow dissention

• pressure the people who don’t agree to agree w/ majority 

• silence