Psych:social influence

a change in behavior or thoughts from indirect pressure .we do this because we feel the need to fit in to a social group

internalization

identification

compliance

going along with the majority although a person does not privatey agree

mimicing other peoples behaviour because you do not know how to behave in a social situation

this is because of informational social influence(copying other peoples behaviour because you do not know how to behave in a social situation)

this is because of normative social influence(the need to be accepted and liked by a group)

changing ones behaviour/beliefs according to a group HOWEVER this only lasts for as long as the person is around the group

unanimity of the majority

task difficulty/ambiguity

size majority

the greater the amount of people the more likely a person is to conform

the harder the task the more likely a person is to look to others for an answer

the less people disagree the more likely a person is to conform

authoritarian personality

pluralistuc ignorance

the belief that a person has a large amount of control over their behaviour

the belief that a person does not have a large amount of control over their actions

they are less likely to be influenced by others

they are more likely to be influenced by others

to demonstrate the power of conformity in groups.

• 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

a researcher or other person who is acting in a study but does not know what the study is about.

rate of conformity with one confederate;3%

rate of conformity with two confederates;13%

rate of conformity with three confederates;32%

following orders from an authority figure

following order given by and authority figure without question

Proximity of the victim

Proximity of the authority figure

Wether an authority figure is present

Legitimacy of context

Personal responsibility

Support of others

Is respectful of authority

Has right wing attitude

Rigid beliefs

A questionnaire designed to identify an authoritarian personality

• respect for authority figures

• rigid beliefs and attitudes

• a strong belief in justice

• right-wing politics

• aggressive to those inferior to themselves.

when a person starts something they feels compelled to finish it

Bystander effect is when people don’t help someone because they believe others will help instead.

Cost of helping

Noticing the event

Pluralistic ignorance

Diffusion of responsibility

Interpreting a situation based on others' reactions.

Competence

Mood

Personality

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.

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

• 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

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)

Loss of personal self-awareness and responsibility as a result of being part of a group.

Behavior that is seen as help full

Destructive behavior

They magnify levels of conformity which is why ordinary people can act like criminals in crowds

The feeling of anonymity making a person form a new identity

They exert influence

Proximity

Legitimacy

Power

boys are less likely to conform

Cost of helping

Noticing the event

Pluralistic ignorance

Diffusion of responsibility

Pluralistic ignorance is when an individual sees lots of others doing an action, and therefore assumes that action is acceptable.

1. to test the dispositional hypothesis

2. To show how the taking of social roles would lead to excessive conformity to those roles

• 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

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

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”

sorting objects into certain groups or categories

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%.

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).