Aqa Gcse Psychology Unit 2 - Social Influence

Front 1

What is Social Influence?

Back 1

The effect other people have on our behaviour. This includes conformity, obedience and social loafing, for example.

Front 2

What is Conformity?

Back 2

A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as the result of group pressure.

Front 3

Why do we conform?

Back 3

When we are in an ambiguous situation, we will se what other people are doing and assume they are correct. This will lead us to copy them, especially if we believe they have superior knowledge to ourselves. E.g. copying how to use a fork in a fancy restaurant.

We also want to be liked and copying people means we fit in.

Front 4

What is Autokinetic Effect?

Back 4

An optical illusion, in which a spot of light on a screen appears to move, when in actual fact it doesn't.

Front 5

Aim and Method of Sherif (Autokinetic effect)

Back 5

Aim: To discover the effect on judgment of listening to other people.

Method: Participants estimated how far a spot of light moved, however it didn't move, but appeared to due to the autokinetic effect.

Front 6

Results and Conclusion of Sherif (Autokinetic effect)

Back 6

Results: Participants gave varied estimates individually, but when they undertook the same task in threes, estimates were much closer.

Conclusion: Participants used others' opinions to help for their judgment in an ambiguous situation.

Front 7

Evaluate Sherif.

Back 7

-Lab study, therefore lacks ecological validity.

-May not behave in natural way.

-Although there is no extraneous variables, etc. in a lab study.

Front 8

Aim and Method of Asch (4 lines)

Back 8

Aim: To see whether people were influenced by others' opinions to give a known wrong answer, to clearly see conformity.

Method: Participants saw sets of 4 lines, and said if line A, B or C was equal to the test line. Alone, error rate was <1%, but they were asked in groups, where the rest would give the same wrong answer.

Front 9

Results and Conclusion of Asch (4 lines)

Back 9

Results: 32% of the time, participants gave the same wrong answer as the group. 74% of participants gave at least 1 wrong answer.

Conclusion: Those who gave wrong answers tokld Asch they knew it was wrong but went with the group. This clearly demonstrates conformity.

Front 10

Evaluate Asch.

Back 10

-Conducted in a lab, lacks ecological validity.

-May have not behaved in a natural way.

-No extraneous variables, though, in a lab study.

-Conducted on university students, so cannot be generalised.

Front 11

What is Obedience?

Back 11

Following the orders of someone we believe to have authority.

Front 12

Aim of Milgram (shocking experiment)

Back 12

Aim: To see how far people would obey an unreasonable order.

Front 13

Method of Milgram (shocking experiment)

Back 13

40 men volunteered in a 'memory' study. Believed 'learner' got shocked when answer was wrong. Learner was actor, shocks weren't real, participants didn't know. 30 switches labelled 15 volts up to 450 volts. Increased in severity each time. Heard groans, yells, then nothing (recording). They wanted to stop, experimenter said 'The experiment requires that you continue.'

Front 14

Results and Conclusion of Milgram (shocking experiment)

Back 14

Results: Before, psychiatrists thought <1% would go to 450 volts. However, all gave 300 volts, 65% went to 450v.

Conclusion: People will obey extraordinary orders if from authority.

Front 15

Evaluate Milgram.

Back 15

-Obviously very unethical, 3 participants had seizures.

-Maybe they knew the shocks weren't real? Unlikely though as much stress and some didn't finish.

-Lacks ecological validity, as the situation is very unrealistic in everyday life.

Front 16

Aim and Method of Hofling et al. (22 nurses)

Back 16

Aim: To see if people would follow unreasonable orders in their normal workplace.

Method: Hofling called 22 nurses individually, claiming to be a doctor, instructing to give a patient double the maximum dosage of a drug called 'Astrofen'.

Front 17

Results and Conclusion of Hofling et al. (22 nurses)

Back 17

Results: 21 followed his orders, despite clearly knowing the maximum dosage.

Conclusion: Nurses are likely to obey doctors' instructions even if there are bad consequences for a patient.

Front 18

Aim and Method of Bickman (security guard & litter)

Back 18

Aim: To see if people would be more likely to obey orders from someone in a uniform.

Method: Actors dressed as either a security guard or just a casual jacket and asked people to pick up litter.

Front 19

Results and Conclusion of Bickman (security guard & litter)

Back 19

Results: 80% obeyed the 'guard', 40% obeyed the casual jacket.

Conclusion: Wearing a uniform increases sense of legitimate authority figure.

Front 20

Evaluation of Hofling et al and Bickman.

Back 20

-(B)has lots of ecological validity

-(H)lacks ecological validity as nurses couldn't talk to anyone and it was a fake drug.

Front 21

5 Reasons for Obedience?

Back 21

-Socialisation

-Legitimate Authority

-Gradual Commitment

-Buffers

-Not feeling responsible

Front 22

What is Socialisation?

Back 22

The way we are raised to behave and the things we are taught to accept as normal.

Front 23

Explain Socialisation.

Back 23

We are taught to obey authority figures, i.e. parents and teachers. It becomes normal.

Front 24

Explain Legitimate Authority.

Back 24

We might unquestioningly obey a doctor because we have faith in their superior knowledge.

Front 25

Explain Gradual Commitment.

Back 25

In Milgram's study, for example, the voltage grew in small steps, so it was difficult to know where to draw the line.

Front 26

What is a Buffer?

Back 26

Something that creates distance between the teacher and learner (e.g. a wall or someone else giving the shock)

Front 27

Explain Buffers

Back 27

In Milgram, they could not directly see the victim, making it easier to deal with it.

Front 28

Explain Lack of Responsibility.

Back 28

In Milgram's study, participants lacked responsibility as they acted on behalf of someone else.

Front 29

What is Deindividuation?

Back 29

The state of losing our sense of individuality and becoming less aware of our own responsibility for our actions.

Front 30

What does Anonymous mean?

Back 30

Being able to keep our identity hidden.

Front 31

Aim and Method of first Zimbardo (city car/small town car)

Back 31

Aim: To see if people in a big city behave more antisocially than people in a small town.

Method: Car was parked in each place with bonnet up, as if broken down, passers-by were observed.

Front 32

Results and Conclusion of first Zimbardo (city car/small town car)

Back 32

Results: In New York city, parts were stolen immediately and in two weeks hardly any was left. In Palo Alto (small town), the only time it was touched was when the bonnet was lowered to stop rain getting in.

Conclusion: The deinviduation caused by living in a big city leads to an increase in antisocial behaviour.

Front 33

Aim and Method of second Zimbardo (hiding identity - female uni kids)

Back 33

Aim: To see the effect of hiding identity on the electric shock size given.

Method: Female uni students split into two groups both acting as teachers. Group 1 wore lab coats with hoods to hide identity, group 2 wore name badges.

Front 34

Results and Conclusion of second Zimbardo (hiding identity - female uni kids)

Back 34

Results: Shocks from group 1 double that of group 2.

Conclusion: Hidden identity leads to crueller behaviour as the victim doesn't know their identity, as there are less consequences.

Front 35

What is Mundane Realism?

Back 35

An everyday situation, that is life-like and not artificial.

Front 36

Evaluate the 2nd Zimbardo

Back 36

-2nd lacked mundane realism.

-Several ethical issues, i.e. deception and psychological harm.

Front 37

What is Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)?

Back 37

A television system often used for survellaince.

Front 38

3 factors affecting deindividuation?

Back 38

-Being able to hide one's identity

-Wearing a uniform

-Being part of a gang or clearly identifiable group

Front 39

What are practical applications of research into deindividuation?

Back 39

To prevent situations in which people can reain anonymous. CCTV cameras are being used to monitor behaviour.

Front 40

Practical implications of research into deindividuation

Back 40

When people wear uniforms, they behave like members of the workplace, etc. and not an individual.

Front 41

What is social loafing?

Back 41

Putting less effort into doing something when you are with others doing the same thing.

Front 42

What is culture?

Back 42

A group of people who share similar customs, beliefs and behaviours.

Front 43

Aim and Method of Latane et al. (shout and clap)

Back 43

Aim: To see if being in a group affects effort put into a task.

Method: 84 participants shouted and clapped as ludly as they can, alone or in groups of up to 6. They wore headphones so they couldn't hear others.

Front 44

Results and Conclusion of Latane et al. (shout and clap)

Back 44

Results: The larger the group size, the less noise each participants made.

Conclusion: People put less effort into doing something when others contribute too.

Front 45

Aim and Method of Earley

Back 45

Aim: To see if culture makes a difference to social loafing.

Method: Participants from US and China completed tasks alone and in groups. The level of SL measured by effort put in to task by each participant.

Front 46

Results and Conclusion of Earley

Back 46

Results: Americans reduced amount of effort put in, Chinese did not.

Conclusion: SL doesn't exist in every culture.

Front 47

3 factors which affect social loafing.

Back 47

-size of group

-nature of task

-culture

Front 48

Aim and Method of Latane and Darley

Back 48

Aim: To see if people are less likely to react in an emergency when there are others present.

Method: Participants sat in a room either alone or in 3s completing a questionnaire, then smoke started purring into the room.

Front 49

Results and Conclusion of Latané and Darley

Back 49

Results: 75% sat alone told someone within 6 minutes, whereas only 38% in groups of 3 did.

Conclusion: If there are people near you, you are less likely to react in an emergency.

Front 50

Aim and Method of Schroeder et al.

Back 50

Aim: to explore different reasons for bystanders not helping.

Method: Studied findings and conclusions of other studies and research.

Front 51

Results and conclusion of Schroeder et al.

Back 51

Results: Able to provide alternative explanation for why bystanders did nothing to help when others were present.

Conclusion: Bystanders are distressed and concerned about victims but they believe others are more capable of helping.

Front 52

Implications of research into conformity

Back 52

It is hard for individuals to act differently from the rest of the group. This could be quite serious in a jury.

Front 53

Implications of research into obedience

Back 53

It is easy to do as you are told and quite hard to disobey in such a situation, so you choose the easy option.

Front 54

Implications of research into social loafing

Back 54

When people belong to a group they reduce the amount of effort put into a task, like in tug of war.

Front 55

Implications of research into bystander intervention

Back 55

It is hard to realise that there is an emergency when other people are doing nothing.

Front 56

Evaluate Latané and Darley

Back 56

-Lab study, so lacks ecological validity

-One reason for results is diffusion of responsibility

-Hard to determine when it's an emergency so participants could have thought wrong.

Front 57

What is Diffusion of Responsibility?

Back 57

In a group of people there is less need for individuals to act because someone else there could act also.

Front 58

What is Empathy?

Back 58

Being able to put yourself in someone else's position psychologically and understand how they feel.

Front 59

What is altruism?

Back 59

Helping someone without thinking of yourself, sometimes at a greater cost.

Front 60

What is Bystander Apathy?

Back 60

Doing nothing in an emergency when someone is in need of help.

Front 61

Aim and Method of Piliavin

Back 61

Aim: to see if appearance of a victim affects help given.

Method: an actor collapsed on a train, with altered appearances each time.

Front 62

Results and conclusion of Piliavin

Back 62

Results: 'Victim' with a walking stick = help in 70 secs, 90% of time. With ugly face scar = 70 secs 60% of time. When drunk = 20% of time.

Conclusion: appearance affected help given and speed of help.

Front 63

Aim and method of Batson et al.

Back 63

Aim: to see if similarity between victim and bystander affects help received.

Method: participants watched a woman who they thought was receiving electric shocks. Each participant was either told they were or were not similar to the victim. Then, got the chance to switch places for them.

Front 64

Results and conclusion of Batson et al.

Back 64

Results: more participants switched when they thought they were similar.

Conclusion: people are more likely to offer help to someone they feel is similar to themselves. This could be because we feel greater empathy for similar people.