Social Influence
Social influence refers to how our
behaviour is affected by others.
Conformity refers to a change
in belief or behaviour as a result of real or imagined group
pressure.
A change in belief - AKA private acceptance of social norms. We agree
with the norm set by the group so conform as a result of the agreement.
A change in behaviour - AKA public acceptance. Our behaviour
changes even if we don't agree with the social norm.
There are different explanations for conformity.
Normative social influence - changing
behaviour in order to fit in.
Informational social influence -
conforming because we feel that the group know more (have more information)
than we do.
Key study = Asch
(1951)
Asch used an easy line perception task to discover if participants would
give an obviously wrong answer because the majority of the group did. He
found that on average, participants would conform at least once (75%).
Asch
made some changes to his original conformity study to discover what factors
caused people to give an answer that was obviously wrong.
|
Group size
|
When more confederates were
included in the group, conformity rates increased. The bigger the group, the more pressure is
felt.
|
|
Social support
|
When one confederate gives
an answer that is different to the group conformity levels drop. The group is no longer unanimous so there
is less pressure felt. Plus, the
participant is no longer the only one with a different answer.
|
|
Anonymity
|
If the participant does not
have to answer in front of the group the conformity levels decrease. Giving a different answer in front of the
group is more embarrassing than giving it in private.
|
Obedience refers to the
following of orders from an authority figure. One of the most notable
studies of obedience in Psychology was conducted by Stanley Milgram. He
staged an experiment at Yale University that would involve a participant
(seemingly) giving harmful electric shocks to another person because a
scientist tells them to. I this experiment Milgram discovered that 100%
of volunteer participants administered a 300v shock. 65% administered a
450v shock. These shocks would have harmed if they had actually been
given.
Milgram did observe that
the participants did not enjoy giving the shocks. Some of them were so
anxious that they could be seen sweating and trembling. Despite this they
continued to shock anyway when the scientist instructed them to.
Why? Milgram conducted some variations to his original experiment
and this shed light on why the participants obeyed the scientist.
1. The study was conducted at Yale University - a prestigious
setting that would be trusted by those taking part.
2. Proximity of authority - when the scientist left the
room or gave orders over the telephone the obedience levels dropped.
3. Buffers - in the original study the participant could
not see the person they were 'shocking'. This could have acted as a
buffer making obedience easier.
4. Genuine authority - In the original study the scientist
wore a lab coat and had a clipboard. When the authority figure was
dressed in plain clothes the obedience level dropped. This could be
because the authority figure is not trusted.
5. Personal responsibility - in the original study the
scientist would claim responsibility for the learner when questioned by the
participant. However, when the participant had to hold down the learners
hands, obedience levels dropped.
Milgram
made some changes to his original obedience study to discover what factors
caused people to give such high electric shocks.
|
Status of setting
|
The original study took
place at Yale University. When it was
moved to a run-down office the obedience levels dropped
|
|
Presence of authority
figure
|
When the scientist gave the
instruction from a different room the obedience levels dropped.
|
|
Status of authority figure
|
In the original study the
scientist wore a white coat. In
another study he was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. Obedience levels dropped when the authority
figure had no status.
|
Social loafing
Social loafing is a term that relates to behaviour in groups. It refers to a situation when someone is putting in less effort into the task because it is being completed with others.
Key study- Latane (1979)
Aim - to test the idea
of social loafing
Method - participants
were split into 2 groups and were given the task of clapping and shouting
loudly. Group 1 completed this task individually whereas group 2
completed the task in groups of 4/6. Participants had to wear headsets so
that they could not hear the other participants. The amount of noise made
by each participant was recorded.
Results - It was found
that the participants made less noise when they completed the task in a group.
The noise output reduced to about one-third when in a group of 5 compared
to when alone.
Conclusion - it was concluded that the participants made less effort
because others were contributing to the task. This is an example of
social loafing.
Evaluation - This study was
conducted in a lab and involved an artificial task. For this reason the
study lacks ecological validity. It is also possible that the
participants changed their behaviour to fit the experiment. This is
called demand characteristics. The study however, would have had
high levels of control because it was lab based. This should
improve the reliability of the results and also allows the researcher to
conclude that it was the presence of the group that affected the noise produced
and not some other extraneous variables - internal validity.
Practical
applications of research into social loafing
Research can be used by employers who can ensure that they distribute
tasks effectively amongst their workforce.
The research also implies that group sizes for tasks should not be too
large or social loafing is more likely to occur.
Deindividuation
The definition of deindividuation is 'the loss of self awareness and
sense of personal responsibility that occurs in members of a crowd'
Real life examples of where deindividuation could occur include:
- Football supporters
- Mobs
- Cyber bullies (they're not in the crowd but they are anonymous)
- Can you think of any others???
Key study -
Zimbardo (1969)
Aim: To test the idea
of deindividuation
Method: Female
participants in groups of four had to give electric shocks to confederates in a
learning task.
In condition 1 the participants wore identical coats and hoods (see
picture above) so they were anonymous
In condition 2 the participants wore their own clothes and name tags.
Results: It was found
that the participants in condition 1 (anonymous) were twice as likely to give
shocks as those in condition 2 (not anonymous)
Conclusion: It was concluded
that people are more likely to act aggressively if they are unlikely to be
identified. Several other studies in Psychology have demonstrated this
concept. Do some research and find some of these other studies.
Evaluation - This study was
conducted in a lab and involved an artificial task. For this reason the
study lacks ecological validity. It is also possible that the
participants changed their behaviour to fit the experiment. This is
called demand characteristics. The study however, would have had
high levels of control because it was lab based. This should
improve the reliability of the results and also allows the researcher to
conclude that it was the anonymity that affected the aggressive
behaviour (giving shocks) and not some other extraneous variables - internal
validity.
Factors affecting
deindividuation
Mood of the crowd - the mood of
the crowd has an influence on how people in that crowd behave. E.g. the
mood of supporters during a football match. Deindividuation would also
explain the behaviour of people during the riots - some of the people involved
in looting had probably never behaved like that before.
Anonymity - we are more likely
to act in an anti social manner if we are anonymous. Research by Mann
showed that people were more likely to encourage suicide behaviour (jumping off
a building) if there was a large crowd present and it was dark. Both of
these factors increase anonymity. This was a study of real life cases so
is high in ecological validity.
Practical
implications
Understanding deindividuation can help the police to manage the
behaviour of large crowds.
The Army has also changed to rules to state
that when leaving the Army you can only wear your uniform on special
occasions. This prevents the individual from being judged as an army
member or acting in a particular way because they are wearing a uniform.
Bystander
The term bystander
behaviour covers two types of behaviour:
1.
Bystander
apathy – when people do not help someone in need
2.
Bystander
intervention – when people do help someone in need
Factors
affecting bystander behavior
One factor that
can affect bystander behavior is diffusion
of responsibility. This happens as the number of
bystander’s increases – because individuals believe that someone else will
help.
Key study –
Latane and Darley (1968)
|
Aim
|
To investigate if the number of witnesses of an
emergency influences people’s helping in an emergency situation.
|
|
Method
|
|
|
Results
|
·
The number of bystanders had a major effect on
the participant’s reaction
·
Of the participants in the alone condition, 85%
went out and reported the seizure. Only 31% reported the seizure when they
believed that there were four bystanders.
|
|
Conclusion
|
Thinking that other people might intervene (i.e. diffusion of
responsibility) was a factor that influenced bystander
behaviour in this experiment.
|
|
Evaluation
|
The sample consisted of Psychology students – this is biased and they
could have shown demand characteristics.
The study was an experiment that lacked ecological validity.
The participants were deceived during the study – this is unethical.
|
A second factor
affecting bystander behaviour is pluralistic
ignorance. This happens when people
are unsure of what they should do. When
we are unsure we look to others for guidance, however, if all of the bystanders
are unsure then this leads to pluralistic ignorance.
Key study –
Latane and Darley (1968)
|
Aim
|
To test the idea
of pluralistic ignorance
|
|
Method
|
Participants
were asked to sit in a room and complete a questionnaire. Whilst doing this the room was filled with
smoke (FAKE: controlled by experimenter).
The participants were observed through a one-way mirror for 6 minutes.
In one condition
the participants were alone.
In another
condition they were with 2 confederates who would answer ’don’t know’ to
questions from the participants about what was happening.
|
|
Results
|
When alone, 3/4 people reported the
smoke before the experimental period was terminated.
When two passive confederates were
present only 10% of the subjects in this study actually got out of the room
or reported the smoke
|
|
Conclusion
|
This is a clear
example of pluralistic ignorance showing how people with do nothing if others
behave the same way.
|
|
Evaluation
|
The study was an experiment that lacked ecological validity.
The participants were deceived during the study – this is unethical
|
Schroeder (1995)
suggests that pluralistic ignorance occurs because people look to others for
guidance not
realising that other are
actually looking for the same guidance from them. This lack of confidence can result in the
person seeking additional help (from the police or ambulance service) even if
it is not really necessary.
Key study –
Piliavin et al (1969)
|
Aim
|
To test how
people would react when a victim needed help
|
|
Method
|
2 male
confederates played a victim who had collapsed on the subway in New
York.
The participants
were passengers on a train (opportunity sample)
The ‘type’ of
victim was the IV – they were either black or white, and were either blind or
drunk (apparently)
In each
condition a confederate would help after a certain amount of time.
Observers in the
carriage recorded how long it took someone to help – natural observation
|
|
Results
|
The blind victim
was more likely to receive help – regardless of race
The drunk victim
was helped 50% of the time
The drunk victim
was more likely to be helped by someone of the same race.
The victim
(male) was more likely to be helped by other males.
The number of
bystander’s had no effect on the rate of helping (diffusion of
responsibility)
|
|
Conclusion
|
Piliavin
concluded that the cost (or risk) of helping is a factor in bystander behaviour.
He concluded that helping a blind victim is probably less risk than
helping a drunk victim.
|
|
Evaluation
|
This was a
natural observation so ecological validity is likely to be high. Participants did not know that they were in
a study so they would not have showed demand characteristics.
However, this is
an ethical issue because they could not consent to the study as they did not
know that they were taking part in one.
|
Another
explanation is the empathy altruism
hypothesis. This suggest that we are
more likely to help if we understand how someone feels (empathy).
Key study –
Bateson (1981)
|
Aim
|
To test the idea
that empathy would lead to helping another person
|
|
Method
|
Participants
were introduced to a confederate called Elaine. There were two conditions:
·
In
condition 1 the participants were told that they were similar to Elaine (high
empathy group)
·
In
condition 2 the participants were told that they were not similar to Elaine
(low empathy group)
·
Elaine
was then subjected to electric shocks and part way through she became upset
and distressed.
·
Participants
were told that they could either take Elaine’s place or leave the experiment.
|
|
Results
|
Participants in
the high empathy group were more likely to offer to take Elaine’s place
whereas those in the low empathy group were more likely to leave the
experiment.
|
|
Conclusion
|
These results
suggest that people are more likely to act altruistically (unselfishly) if
they have empathy with another person.
|
|
Evaluation
|
This study is an
experiment and it’s possible that the participants showed demand
characteristics.
It also lacks
ecological validity – we can’t conclude that this behaviour would occur in real life situations.
|
Practical
implications of research into bystander behaviour
Shroeder suggests
that bystander apathy can occur because people lack confidence to know what
helping behaviour to show.
This suggests that
if more people know what to do in emergency situations then more people will
show bystander intervention.
Therefore,
organizations could encourage their employees / members to undertake first aid
training so that they know how to react in an emergency situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment