Knowt
Social Influences ( Term 3 )
Social Influences
Social Influence Theory; People are heavily influenced by the thoughts and actions of others.
Compliance | The influence of a person or group on an individual through the use of rewards or punishments. This can include activities such as financial rewards or recognition, as well as the use of coercion , such as threats or punishments. | You are mean to someone you like because the group leader threatens you with exclusion. Draco Malfoy with the golden trio. |
Identification | The influence of a person or group on an individual through the process of identifying with them. This occurs when an individual sees themselves as similar to or connected to the person or group, and as a result adopts their attitudes, values or behaviors. | Adopting the same music and fashion tastes as your friendship group. When the girl in InsideOut 2 changes her singer preference to match her new teams preference. |
Internalization | The influence of a person or group on an individual through the process of accepting their attitudes, values or behaviors as their own. This type of influence occurs when an individual comes to belief that the attitudes, values or behaviors of the person or group are right or valid. | You join a political party and adopt their values and attitudes for every single issue. When the new little ponies in my little ponies tried to adopt the magic of friendship attitude from the original ponies. |
Pro-social Behavior; Behavior that benefits other people and society in general. This occurs when a person selflessly does something to help somebody else, with little regard for their own self-interest or personal gain. This behavior has to be helpful to the person being helped and selfless, where the person is not looking for some kind of recognition.
Nature vs Nurture
Nature;
Socio-biology sees pro-social behavior as genetic
Humans naturally assist others as a way of protecting our community our common gene pool.
Nurture
The view that pro-social behavior is learned during the socialization process
Children can learn pro-social behavior by copying the pro-social behavior of others around them, and through being rewarded for appropriate behavior.
Decision- stage model fo helping | Model of situational influences on bystander intervention | |
Reciprocity Principle | The belief that if someone does something for you then you should do something for them | Sometimes the people we nay help maybe those who directly helped us, and sometimes they may be people who are similar |
Social responsibility norm | The belief that people have social respinsibility to do something for thoes in need Members of scoiety are expected to help people who are dependent or in need., without the expectation of favours being returned | Donating money or time to charites, helping family. |
Personal charecteristics | Past experiences and immediate circumstance of the individual will influence a person’s pro-social behaviour. | Empathy Mood Comepetence |
Empathy | Our emotional response to a prson’s distress. A capacity for seeing another person’s point of view. We are more likeyly to help people we see as similar to ourselves in age, gender or dress, or because we have experienced similar, as this causes a greater level of distress for us. It is unpleasent to see another person suffereing so we take action to help, thus allevating the sufering. | Explanation of why;
|
Mood | A low intensity , long lasting emotional state. Generally people who are in good mood are more likey to demonstrate pro-social behaviour than thoes not People feel good by succesding at a task abd are therefore more likely to be helpfulthan thoes who have failed in a task People who hear good new or are experiencing good weather are more likely to feel optimistic and positive towards others and help them. People who feel bad or depressed are more likely to focus inwardly rather than outwardly towards others in need. | |
Competence | Our capacity to successfully complete a task Our willingness to help others is also influenced by our feeligns of competence Generally people who are in a good mood are more likely to demonstrate the way a bystander percieevs the competence to deel with an emergency will influence wheater they will provide help In some cases, a person with a specific set of skills will be more likely to help | Research has shown that people with first-aid trianing are more likely to help in emergencies than people who have no such experience. |
Altruism | A unique influence on pro-social behaviour where, for no personal gain and sometimes at great personal cost, a person helps others due to a deeply felt concern for fellow human beings The tendency to act in such a way as to help others without seeking any personal reward This is ofgten considered as an aspect of personality. | Altruistic people tend to be generally altruistic across a range of situations and help different types of individuals. |
Anti-social behaviour; Involves selfhish behaviour that is negatively valued by society and causes harm to another or results in a reward for the person involved. This varies from extent from not helping to deliberately harming another person or their property. It is intentional and does not include accidents.
Diffusion of responsibility | The diminished sense of personal responsibility often experienced by individuals in groups |
Bystander effect | A pehenonemen in which people fail to offer needed help in emergencies, especially when other people are present in the same setting Eacvh person assumes that another will take responsibility The more people present the less likely you are to help. |
Audience inhibition | The relectance to help when other people are present because the individual is frighteneed of making a mistake and making a fool of themselves. Prescence of otehrs can make you feel self concious and scared of making a social blundder. If undure about our own interpretation of a situation we are unlikeyly to act due to not wanting to be wrong. It will vary depeding on how well we know the other people present and wheater we feel that we have an opportunity to explain our interpretation of the event to them later. |
Social influence | The effect on an individual’s behaviour by pbserving the behaviour of others or as a result of pressure from others More likely to act if your role models or high ranking peers do. We use others behaviour as a guide of our own. |
Cost benedfit analysis | You calculate what you gain vs what you lose if you get involved. The three stages we go through when we see someone in distress:
Seeing someone is distreszs causes you to react physiologically
If your heightened arousal is caused by distress you are more likely to reducve the unpleasent feelign by taking action if the benefit outweights the cost. |
Examples;
Bullying- Form of antisocial behaviour designed to cause hurt or dfistress to others
Children brought up in homes that punichs behaviour and have little affection show higher levels of agression
Can be learn ed through observation
Repeated, ongoing antisocial behaviour by a more powerful person towards a less powerful person.
Physical agression
Regional aggression
Ostracism -> excluding someone from a social group
Harassment -> continued verbal abuse, taunting, and teasing
Study – latane and Darley ( smoked filled room )
Aim- examine diffusion of responsibility in emergency situations and how the presence of other bystanders affects an individual’s likelihood of helping a vitim.
Method- Participants sat in a waiting rooom and filled out a questionaire on student life
While completeing the questionnair, smoke was puffed into the room through an air vent
Researcheers observed particiopants’ reactions to the smoke.
Condition one; Students sitting alone
Condition two; Students with two or three actors
Key findings; When participants were alone, 75% of them noticed the smoke and notified someone about it
Howver when in the presence of passive bystanders, only 10% reported the smoke
Contribution; provided empirical evidence for the bystander effect and emphasised the importance of understanding how social context influences individual behaviour during emergencies.
Limitaions; ethical concerns as participants were exposed to smoke without their informed consent
The controlled environment of the experiement may not fully represent real-life emergency situations
Issues with sample prepresenting the popultion as they were students, which limits the generalisability.
Obedience
The changing of an individual’s behaviour as a result of influence/social pressure from an authority figure
Different from conformity; following direct order from an individual of a higehr status rather than social pressure from a whole group.
Case study – Milgram
Aim – to see whether individuals would obey authority figures, even if it meant causing pain to another person
Method;
Sample was 40 males who answered an ad in the newspaper
Sample was told they would be doing an experiment on learning, and there were 2 conditions; teacher and learner.
All participants were made to be teacher ( Milgram had actors be there was learners)
The learners has to learn and recall a series of word pairs, and teachers had to an administer an electric shock when they got them wrong
Shocks started at 15 volts (mild) and increased each time a wrong answer was given, up to 450 volts ( extreme )
If a teacher refused to administer a shock they were told by the experimenter that the experiment required them to continue.
Findings;
2.3s of participants went to the full 450 volts even of they didn't agree with it.
All participants went to 300 volts.
Milgram concluded that there are two states we can be in when in social situations;
We trust the expertise of the authority figure and belive them to be legitimate
We believe the authority figure will accept full responsibility for our actions
Variations / factors affecting obedience
Two teachers; when participants could get someone else to deliver the shock for them, obedience increased to 90%; diffused responsibility
Proximity to learner; When participants were in the same room as the person they were shocking, obedience decreased 30%; increased sense of responsibility.
Contributions
People are more likely to obey authority figures then originally thought – before the experiment Milgram asked psychology majors to predict how many participants would go to 450 volts and they predicted on average 1.2% whereas the results showed 66% did.
The process of obedience is gradual – people may start out feelign uncomfortable with an authority figure’s orders, but they may gradually become desensitised to the act of obeying, making it easier for them to continue.
Limitations
Generalizability – the original sample was small, and participants were all male
External validity – The study was conducted in a laboratory setting, which may not be representative of real world situations
Ethical considerations – Participants were deceived about the true nature of the study, and there was a high risk of psychological harm – some patients reported feeling guilty and anxious after the study, and physical symptoms such as headaches and nausea.
Conformity ; the changing of an individual’s behavior to match the norms of a group.
Normative influence
Conform to fit in a group
Individuals conform because they’re afraid of being rejected by the group
Usually compliance
Informational Influence
Conforming because the individual respects the group and believes they have more knowledge then them.
Occurs when an individual is unsure about a situation
Usually involves internalization
Factor | Description | Example |
Culture | In societies where collectivism is emphasized, individuals may conform more strongly to group norms and expectations. | In East Asian culture, conformity to social norms and authority figures is highly valued |
Group Size | Larger groups often exert more significant social pressure on individuals to conform. | Asch’s research found that conformity increased along with group size but plateaued once the group reached four people. |
Deindividuation | Occurs when individuals lose their sense of personal identification and responsibility, leading to increased conformity to group norms and behaviors | During large scale protests individuals might engage in destructive actions they wouldn’t preform alone due to the anonymity and reduced accountability of being part of a large platform. |
Social loafing | Refers to the tendency of individuals to exert less effort when working in a group compared to when working alone, leading to conformity to lower group effort levels | In a team-based project or task some team members may conform to lower the effort put forward by others, resulting in reduced overall productivity. |
Unanimity | When there is unanimity with a group, meaning everyone agrees on a particular viewpoint or action, it can strengthen conformity as dissenting opinions become less apparent and influential. | In jury deliberations, if all jurors agree on a verdict, those who hold differing views may conform to the majority opinion to avoid standing alone against the group. |
Experiments – Evidence
Deindividuation ( Dodd 1985 )
Conducted an experiment on deindividuation with a sample of 230 college students – 203 attended classes on a regular campus and 29 were inmates at a high security prison.
He asked them what they would do (within the realm of reality) if their identity were kept anonymous and they would receive no repercussions.
The responses were grouped into four categories: prosocial, antisocial, nonnormative, and neutral.
Results of his study yielded that 36% of the responses were antisocial, 19% nonnormative, 36% neutral and only 9% prosocial. The most frequent responses recorded were criminal acts.
There was no difference between regular campus students and prison students.
Asch -
Method
Sample: 50 male college students
Tested groups’ perception of lines
Subjects had to select which comparison line was closest to the original
1 member of the group was a participant, the rest were actors
Actors deliberately selected the wrong line
Findings
If the actors’ wrong answer was unanimous, participants conformed ~1/3 of time
Overall, 75% of participants conformed at least once, and the other 25% never conformed
If there were 2 ‘real’ participants, and 1 answered with the correct answer, conformity levels dropped
Conformity also dropped if participants were allowed to answer privately (write down their answer)
Contributions
Demonstrated the power of conformity in groups
Identified factors that influence conformity, such as the size of the majority and the presence of a dissenter
Helped to develop theories of conformity, such as the informational influence model
Limitations
Sample not representative of the whole population therefore hard to generalise results
Lack of external validity as it is not representative of conformity in a real-world setting
Influence of historical context – 1950s USA
Conservative and conformity valued due to Cold War and Anti-Communism sentiment
Later replications by Larsen (70’s-90’s) found
Overall lower levels of conformity
Results varied depending on the political context
