SOCIAL INFLUENCE gcse psychology notes

View mindmap
  • Social Influence
    • obedience
      • blind obedience
        • complying with orders of an authority figure with out question.
        • milgram's shock experiment    ( evidence )
          • at yale, participants told its a study of memory
          • introduced to mr wallace, a confederate who is strapped to a chair
            • participants asked to give him increasingly higher shcoks if he failed word tests
              • mr wallace in another room, can be heard. Asked to shock by lab coat guy
        • factors affecting blind obedience:
          • proximity of the victim
            • obedience fell to 40% when wallace was in the same room
            • proximity of the authority figure
              • 65% same room, 20% over telephone
          • authority figure
            • obed fell 20% when not in lab coat
          • legitimacy of context
            • og at yale, obed fell to 48% when not in yale
          • personal responsibility
            • Untitled
          • not situational:
            • paid, feel obligation to continue
            • momentum of compliance : feel obliged to finish what u started
            • external locus= more compliance
            • authoritarian:rigid beliefs and respect authority, inferiors = aggression. F-SCALE to test it
          • support of others
            • social support to withdraw
        • preventing blind obedience
          • social support
            • around others who resist obedience=easier to disobey
          • familiarity of the situation
            • more likely to conform, follow authority blindly as u don't know hwo to behave
          • distance
            • further= authority figure impact lessened
          • education
            • identifying blind obedience and dangers of it can prevent doing it
    • conformity
      • compliance
        • going along w/ majority but u privately disagree
      • internalisation
        • looking at others and copying them as you don't know how to behave.
      • identification
        • change behavior when around group temporarily, change back when group not present
      • factors affecting conformity.
        • size of the majority
          • more people= more likely to conform
          • asch
            • 4 is optimal number
            • 1 confederate= 3% conformity, 3 confederates= 32%
              • this shows normative social influence
        • unanimity of majority
          • social support in group=less likely to conform as group is less unanimous
        • task ambiguity/difficulty
          • more likely to conform for help if task is more hard ( informative social influence)
        • personality factors
          • locus of control
            • external= external factors affect u, more likely to conform
            • internal= more control, less likely to conform.
    • deindividuation
      • loss of self awareness and responsibility as a result of being in a group
    • bystander effect
      • = when we don't help as we think others will instead.
      • evidence: kitty genovese murdered outside her flat, nyc. No one around herlped.
      • bystander intervention
        • situational
          • diffusion of responsibility
            • feel less personally responsible in larger crowds as others around could be helping.
          • noticing the event
            • large crowds= less attention to surroundings, don't notice emergency
          • pluralistic ignorance
            • interpret situation based on others reactions. eg: if others help we do too.
          • cost of helping:
            • too dangerous: we don't help. cost of not helping high= we help to avoid guilt.
        • personal factors
          • competence
            • less skilled= won't help or indirect help/
          • mood
            • bad mood= focus on urself
          • similarity
            • relate to a person,  more likely to help them.
    • crowds
      • prosocial: helpful, peaceful crowd
      • antisocial: aggressive behaviour
      • deindividuation: + (conforming)
        • members lose personal identity, so they are more likely to conform to behaviour of the crowd.
      • obedience:
        • authority figure can influence members= higher when he's closer, powerful and legitimate
    • piliavin
      • field experiment, investigate bystander effect
      • 4500 people, NYC subway 11am-3pm
        • covert
        • 4 groups, 4 students from columbia
      • 2 male, 2 female,
        • females observe
        • males: 1 victim, 1 model passenger
          • victim: 2 types: drunk or holding cane
          • model doesn't help or helps at 4th or 6th stop
      • results
        • 81/103 times victim helped before model came in
        • men 90% helpers
        • cane got helped more than drunk.
        • large groups helped more as less cost of helping
        • same race helping
      • strengths
        • ecological validity, naturalistic environment
        • covert= no demand characteristics
        • weaknesses
          • covert= no consent. distress may have been caused.
    • zimbardo's study
      • advert placed in paper to take part in study of prison life
        • in stanford basement
        • 10 prisoners, 11 guards, paid healthy males
        • debrief given before but not told how to behave
        • prisoners given number and jumpsuit, guards have uniforms
      • results
        • guards became very aggressive
        • some prisoners rebelled
        • study ended early, after 6 days as behaviour got out of hand- many prisoners showed depression and anxiety signs, begged to leave
      • conclusions:
        • prisoners and guards conformed
        • prisoners became passive, guards became aggressive
        • uniforms and numbers deindividuated them, lost their personal identity.
      • strengths
        • evidence shows participants weren't acting as they talked about prison life on cameras
        • explains prison conflicts
        • weaknesses
          • psychological harm to participants
          • lower ecological validity and demand characteristics as they knew its an experiment+ they could not cause physical damage.
          • not generalisable towards anyone who's not a male college student.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social influence, obedience and conformity resources »