psychology social influence (copy)

Obedience

Obedience

complying with orders of an authority figure. (cop vs citizen)

Conformity

Matching the behaviour or beliefs of others in order to fit in or because we dont know how to react in a situation.

Compliance

going along with the group even though we privatley don’t agree.

internalisation

going along with the majority because you dont know how to act in a situation and believe they are right

Identification

Temporarily adapting the behaviours of a group or role model.

Normative vs informational social influence

Normative- we follow the group norm because we want to be accepted.

Informational - you look to others to observe and copy their behavior because you are uncertain on how to behave.

Deindividuation

Loss of personal self awareness and responsability as a result of a big group.

Situational factors bystander + defenitions

Diffusion of responsability- feel less personally responsible in a big group.(bigger group-less likely to help.)(someone else will help)

Noticing event - In larger crowds we are less likely to notice events.

Pluralistic ignorance- Ignore an event because no one is reacting and therefore they think its not important

Audience inhibition - People don’t want to over react and look foolish.

Cost of helping - choose not to help because it is a greater cost to us if we do rather than if we don’t

Personal factors bystander + definition

Competence - If we are able to help

Mood - good mood = more likely to help

Similarity - if we can related to the person in need we are more likely to help

Aim of Piliavin et al

to investigate helping behavior in a natural environment and understand the conditions in which people are more likely to help

Results of Piliavin et al

Drunk situation → 50%

Cane → all but three

Men more likely to help than woman

No difference in help cane situation between black and white victim

Drunk black man → more likely to receive help from same race.

More time goes on → less likely people come to help

Procedure of piliavin et al

victim- drunk or ill. 445O men + women present. over duration of scenes 55%white 45%black. mean number of bystanders in carriage 43. on a 7 ½ minute train journey. 4 groups of confederates consisting of 4 students.

70s in train journey confederate staggered forward and collapsed and remained on floor until he received help. If no help received model helped and they left the train.

5-8 trials everyday

Strengths of Piliavin et al

naturalistic setting(ecological validity), Large sample size(population validity), People didn’t know they were being watched(lowers demand characteristics)

weaknesses of Piliavin et al

People were unaware they were being watched and werent debriefed after(ethical).

Couldn't control variables e.g people on train

Asch’s line study conformity results

Participants often copied wrong answer. When more than 3 confederates picked the wrong answer it was the most like to conform.

Factors that affect confomity

size of the majority, unamity of the majority(some people in the group disagree), task dificulty.

What is Locus control

the part of our personality that refers to how much control we believe we have over our own behaviour.

Internal Locus control vs External Locus control

Internal - we feel we have a lot of personal control. (e.g if we pass a test we believe it’s because we worked hard) Less likely to follow orders because we feel more responsible for our actions.

External - we feel we do not have control over our behaviour. More likely to follow orders(e.g we pass a test because it was easy)

Aim of Milgram 1963

how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.

Procedure Milgram 1963

40 males were recruited for a lab experiment investigating ‘learning’ At the beginning they were introduced to another ‘participant’. The confederate was strapped to an electric chair and the participant was supposed to. give him an electric shock everytime his answer was incorrect increasing the voltage every time. there were 30 switches from 15-450 volts. There were 4 prods if the participant refused to give a shock.

Results of Milgram 1963

65% continued to the highest level(450v) All of the participants continued to 300v. Milgram carried out 18 variations of the study.

Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure. Especially if they recognize the authority as morally right. (legitimate authority)

Situational factors of Milgram 1963

Proximity of victim, Proximity of authority figure, Authority figure characteristics, Legitimacy of the context, Personal responsibility, Support of others.

Authorian personality

characteristics- Respectful and most likely to follow orders(respect for authority figures, rigid beliefs and attitudes, aggressive to those inferior to themselves, right wing politics. )

F-scale used to test

20 obedient participants had higher F-scores than 20 non obedient participants.

→ could have been caused by personality

Aim of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment

To investigate prisoner-guard conflict in a stimulated prison environment. To see if participants would conform to their social role and if deindividuation would occur.

Procedure of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment

22 participants - 10 prisoners 11 guards (all male college students) Paid 15$ a day.

observed for 2 weeks

Guards were dressed in military style uniforms and were given a baton. Before the experiment they were briefed and told to maintain order of the prison.

Prisoners were arrested by real officers and taken to the experimrnt

Results + conclusions of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment

After a few hours guards became aggressive. On second day prisoners rebelled. Study stopped on day 6 due to behaviour being out of control.

Prisoners and guards conformed to the social roles they were given. The uniform deindividuated the participants which resulted in change of behavior. (aggressive, sadistic guards and passive prisoners)

strengths of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment

Ethical rules were put in place to prevent physical abuse that happens in real life prisons.

Each participant was fully debriefed and psychologically evaluated to ensure their wellbeing.

weaknesses of Haney, Banks and Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment

Distress was caused to participants(prisoners were subject to physical and psychological harm)

Lack of ecological validity due to stimulated prison.

Lacks population validity- only male college students.

Demand characteristics- participants knew it was not real.

conformity in a crowd

happens due to deindividuation. If you are not seen as an individual you are more likely to conform to the roles of a group.

also because of conformity- change behaviour to fit in.

or obedience- if legitimate authority is giving orders people may obey.

How to prevent blind obedience

Social support - another person that agrees with you.

Familiarity - if we are in a situation we are not familiar with we are more likely to conform.

Distance - close proximity = more likely to obey.

Education - knowledge of the dangers of blind obedience means we are less likely to conform.

define society, social issues and culture

society- group of individuals who share the same location and social norms.

social issues - actions that have a negative consequence for a large portion of society.

culture- set of ideas,behaviours and traditions passed down from generation to generation within any social group.