1
Q
What is conformity?
A
agreeing with or following the behaviour, opinions, or beliefs of a group — usually the majority
2
Q
What are the two reasons people conform?
A
- normative social influence: wanting to fit in
- informative social influence: believe the group knows better than they do
3
Q
What is compliance?
A
When an individual goes along with a group even though they privately disagree
4
Q
How is conformity different from obedience?
A
- conformity involves INFLUENCE from a group
- obedience involved following DIRECT ORDERS from AUTHORITY FIGURE
5
Q
What are the two factors that can shape conformity?
A
- situational factors (group size or unanimity)
-dispositional factors (personality or confidence)
6
Q
What can happen when people gather in a crowd? Why does that happen?
A
-they may behave in ways they normally wouldn’t when alone
- because individuals feel anonymous in a crowd and experience deindividuation
7
Q
What did Le Bon propose about what crowds can cause?
A
- people can loose self control
- act impulsively because group energy takes over
- explains why some normally law abiding people might partake in riots or vandalism when surrounded by others doing the same
8
Q
What types of behaviour can being part of a crowd lead to?
A
- pro social behaviour
- antisocial behaviour
9
Q
Give examples of prosocial and antisocial behaviours caused by being part of a crowd?
A
- The 2011 London riots are an example of antisocial collective behaviour
- The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is an example of pro-social collective behaviour
10
Q
What is a feature of crowds that can help release behaviours that might be healed back by social norms?
A
- give individuals anonymity and reduced accountability
11
Q
Why might people wear masks during protest?
A
it makes them feel less personally responsible
12
Q
How does obedience differ from conformity?
A
because the influence comes from an individual authority figure (e.g. a teacher, parent, or police officer), not from a group
13
Q
What is obedience necessary for?
A
society to function, e.g. following school rules or workplace instructions
14
Q
What can obedience lead to? (Examples)
A
harmful outcomes when authority is misused, e.g. soldiers during World War II, who obeyed orders without question, resulting in devastating consequences
15
Q
What are situational factors?
A
Internal and external factors that influence how much someone conforms
16
Q
Why do people conform to groups?
A
- being part of a group provides acceptance and identity
- people want to be liked and included
- avoid rejection and standing out
- believe the group is right or knows more than they do
17
Q
What are the main situational factors that affect conformity?
A
- group size: increases with group size but up to a point
- anonymity: people are less likely to go against group norms openly in fear of rejection (NSI)
- task difficulty: for hard tasks, people doubt their own judgements and look to theirs for guidance (informative social influence)
18
Q
How did Aschs line study offer evidence about reasons why people conform?
A
- conformity rose quickly from one to three people, but didn’t increase much after 4 people
- in ashcs VARIATION conformity fell when participants gave answers privately showing that fear of embarrassment/ exclusion influences behaviour
- conformity increased when task was harder as pps assumed other must be right
19
Q
Normative conformity?
A
- following group norms to be liked, accepted or fit in even if they privately disagree (conforming publicly)
20
Q
How does normative conformity help in society?
A
Helps maintain social harmony as following shared norms ensures groups and societies function normally
21
Q
When does informal conformity occur?
A
when a situation is unclear or difficult, and the person lacks confidence in their own judgement.
22
Q
Do people internalise the groups opinion in informative conformity?
A
Yes they change beliefs and behaviour.
23
Q
How can informative conformity be helpful? Or not?
A
-Helps people make decisions when they’re uncertain
- can lead to errors when majority is wrong
24
Q
Examples of situational factors?
A
-the presence of others
-deindividuation
-cultural influences
25
What does collective behaviour refer to?
- actions of two or more individuals acting together for a common purpose
26
What did reicher say about crowd behaviour?
- crowds act based on shared social identity (common goal/ culture/ purpose)
- during 1980 St Paul’s riots, rioters did attack police cars (out group) but avoided harming local residents (in group)
- which shows that crowd behaviour can be controlled and purposeful rather than purely chaotic
27
Out group?
Someone not in your group.
28
In group?
Someone part of your social group.
29
What is deindividuation? What does it result in and why/ how?
- When people in a crowd loose sense of individuality and personal responsibility
- Makes them feel anonymous and less accountable for their actions
- then they may do things that they normally wouldn’t do alone
30
31
What are the situational triggers for deindividuation?
- large crowds make individuals feel anonymous
- uniforms, masks, covering clothing reduce self awareness and increase feeling of group belonging
- heightened emotions such as excitement or anger can spread quick through a crowd
32
What did prentice Dunn and Roger’s say about what happens when people loose self awareness?
- stop thinking about the consequences
- leading to anti social behaviours
33
Does deindividuation always lead to negative outcomes?
-no
- can sometimes result in pro social behaviour such helping others in emergencies
34
Do cultural factors influence group behaviour?
Yes
35
What are collectivist cultures? Examples of countries? What does they encourage? What are they associated with? (Behaviour wise)
- emphasis group needs over individuals
- encourage cooperation sharing and helping other
- higher levels of pro social behaviours.
- Mexico, Philippines, Kenya
36
Examples of pro social behaviours?
Altruism and helping family or community members
37
What are individualist cultures? Focus? Behaviours?
- focus on personal gain and success and independence
- less group orientated behaviour shown
- lower levels of pro social behaviour
- more antisocial behaviour
38
Examples of anti social behaviours?
High competition for a resource or high inequality
39
What did whiting and whiting find out children raised in collectivist cultures?
- more pro social than ones raised in individualist cultures
- Kenyan children helped with more household chores than American ones
40
What did moghaddam find about children raised in kibbutz and communal environments?
- more likely to help others and share resources
41
What did nadler find about children brought up in kibbutzes?
- more likely to help others THAN children who grew up in cities.
42
What is a kibbutz?
A collectivist culture where all resources are shared and domestic tasks are also shared among the community
43
What did the 2010 Gallup World Poll and Piotrowska et al. (2015) find out about that countries with high income inequality that contrasted moghadam and nadlers findings? What did it suggest about social inequality?
- high income inequality -> higher levels of antisocial behaviour
- suggested that social inequality is a situational factor that can increase frustration and reduce social cooperation
44
What is obedience explained by (which situational factors)?
- presence of authority figures
- social context
45
Who are people more likely to obey?
Authority figures
46
Why are people compelled to follow authority figures?
- because they have social power
- seen as having legitimate control or expertise
47
What did milligram investigate?
- effects of an authority figure on obedience using a controlled experiment
48
What did the participants believe in milligrams study? Who were they supervised by?
- they were giving electric shocks to a learner for each wrong answer
- under the supervision of a researched in a WHIE LAB COAT
49
What were the results of milgrams study? What did that show?
- 65% obeyed fully, administrating the maximum 450 volts despite signals of distress from learner
- showed that situational factors (presence of authority figures) and NOT obedience can explain obedience
50
What were the kep situational factors that increased obedience according to milgram?
- presence of authority figures
- location (it was at Yale university- more legitimate)
- proximity (learner was in another room)
- responsibilty (researcher said they would take responsibility so pp felt less personally accountable)
51
What did milgram suggest (agency theory) ?
obedience occurs because people shift from acting autonomously to acting in an agentic state
52
Autonomous?
Where an individual feels responsible for their own actions.
53
Agentic state?
Where an individual doesn't feel responsible for their actions, as they are acting under orders from an authority figure.
54
What do people in an agentic state believe about the consequences of their actions?
authority figure is responsible for the consequences, not themselves. explain why people can obey orders even when they know those orders are wrong.
55
What was the hoffling study? What did it support? What did it involve?
- field study conducted in a hospital
- nurses received a phone call from a “doctor” instructing a dose increase for patients medicine
- 21/ 22 nurses were willing to obey although it broke hospital rules.
- when questioned nurses stated that the hospital was busy so they were expected to follow doctors orders
- real life setting showed how situational pressures can lead to obedience of authority figures.
- supported milgram ideas
56
What did house et al argue?
- obedience can be influenced by the personality of the leader
- a charismatic leader creates a strong emotional bond with followers- making them more likely to obey out of ADMIRATION and LOYALTY
- explains why some groups willingly obey leader because they feel inspired by their vision.
57
Criticisms of situational factors?
- reductionist: too much focus on external factors. Ignore individual differences like personality or upbringing. (Not all pps conformed in Aschs line study. In crowds some people remain calm or help other rather than engaging in anti social acts
- too deterministic suggesting people have no control over their actions. Humans have free will to resist actions (35% refused to obey in milgram)
- most researched on social influence and obedience conducted in western individualist countries so culturally biased. (Collectivist cultures may show different levels of conformity and pr social behaviours)
- many studies of situational factors were conducted on children or students -> limits generalisability
- milgram research caused stress and guilt (ethical concerns - informed consent, psychological harm)
-Situational theories cannot explain why some individuals disobey authority or refuse to follow group norms, even in the same situation. Dispositional factors can also influence.
- theories often focus on negative outcomes and ignore how posistive and prosocial actions can be promoted by groups
58
Dispositional factors?
Individual differences (e.g. personality)
59
What did asch want to see?
the extent to which group pressure could influence an individual to go against what their eyes were telling them
60
Confederat?
Someone who is working with the researcher although the participant(s) may not be aware of this.
61
Background on bickman?
- milgram and previous studies showed people are more likely to obey authority figures when present
- clothing can signal authority
62
Aim of Bickman?
To see whether wearing a uniform increases obedience to orders given by a stranger in public setting
63
Experiment 1 (Bickman) method= Type of study? Where? Design? IV and DV? Sample?
- field experiment
- Brooklyn NY streets
- IMD (one uniform and one scenario)
- IV: type of uniform
-DV: whether pp obeyed the command
- opportunity sample (153 adults aged 18-61)
64
Experiment 1 (bickman) procedure?
- 4 male experimenters (similar build and size)
- carried out requests: pick up a bag, give another person a dime for parking meter, can’t stand where the bus stop is - illegal
- three uniforms: civilian, milkman, guard
- obedience recorded when pp followed instruction or not
65
Results of bickman experiment 1?
- no significant difference in obedience Between milkman and civilian in 3 scenarios
- guard significantly more obeyed than civilian
66
Conclusion of bickman experiment 1?
People are more likely to obey someone who appears to hold authority, such as someone wearing a uniform, even in simple, everyday situations
67
Bickman experiment 2 method= location? Sample? IV1 and 2?
- field experiment
- dime and meter scenario
- 48 adults pedestrians (46 years average)
- IV 1: Type of authority (guard vs civilian)
- IV 2: Surveillance (experimenter being watched vs not watched)
68
Procedure of Bickman experiment 2?
- Surveillance condition: The experimenter stood nearby while the participant was ordered to give the confederate a dime
- Non-surveillance condition: The experimenter gave the order, then walked away before the participant acted
69
Procedure of Bickman experiment 2?
- Surveillance condition: The experimenter stood nearby while the participant was ordered to give the confederate a dime
- Non-surveillance condition: The experimenter gave the order, then walked away before the participant acted
70
Results of Bickman experiment 2?
- The guard was obeyed more than the civilian
Surveillance made no difference
- Obedience occurred whether or not the authority figure was present
71
Conclusion of Bickman experiment 2?
- Obedience was influenced by the power of a uniform, not by surveillance
- People still obeyed even when the authority figure had left the scene.
72
Bickman experiment 3A method= study type? Procedure?
- questionaire, 141 college students
- shown descriptors of 29 scenarios including the three from experiment 1
- rated whether milkman, civilian or guard was more likely to be obeyed (based on who’s seen as more legitimate/ more likely to be obeyed)
73
Results of Bickman 3A?
-Participants did not rate the guard as significantly more legitimate than the other uniforms
-Some new scenarios were judged as more legitimate than those used in Experiment 1
74
Conclusion of Bickman 3A?
- People’s perceptions of authority don’t always match their actual behaviour
- What people say they would do in an obedience situation often differs from what they actually do
75
Bickman 3B method? Study type?
- Questionnaire-based field study
- 189 students from Smith College
- not taken part in Experiment 3A
76
Procedure of Bickman 3A?
asked to predict what they and others would do in the same obedience scenarios as Experiment 1
77
Results of Bickman 3A?
-Participants underestimated real obedience levels
- they thought fewer people would obey the guard than actually did in the field study
78
Conclusion of Bickman 3B?
- people often believe they would resist authority
- in reality situational cues such as uniform and perceived status strongly influence compliance
79
Conclusions of all of Bickman experiments?
- uniforms increase obedience by symbolising legitimacy and authority
- perceived social status often affects how people respond to orders
- situational factors (not personality) have a powerful influence on behaviour
- What people say they’d do often doesn’t match what they actually do
- Obedience can occur even without direct supervision or surveillance
80
Criticism of bickman?
- opportunity sample from people in NY so less representative and generalisable to wider population (also obedience may rely on mood or time pressure)
- pps didnt give informed consent, also not debriefed (may have felt embarrassed or pressured)
- field experiment so ack of control over extraneous variables
- all experiments were male and wore male coded uniforms, reactions may have differed with females (gender bias)
81
What are dispositional factors?
Internal, personal characteristics that influence how likely we are to conform, obey or behave in a crowd
82
What can dispositional factors be?
-personality traits
-attitudes
-morality
-self esteem
83
What can dispositional factors explain about people’s behaviours?
Can explain why people don’t react the same way (in crowds)
84
How does low self esteem affect conformity?
- doubt abilities and lack confidence in their views
- more likely to conform to fit in and gains approval, especially when uncertain or under pressure.
85
How does high self esteem affect conformity?
- feel more confident in opinions
- less likely to conform
- trust own judgement and more comfortable with expressing their views
86
Research evidence to self esteem affecting conformity?
- Kurosawa recreated Aschs line study, found that low self esteem led to increased likeliness of conforming under high pressure conditions
- taniaka: female uni students with low self esteem more likely to agree with co witness to a crime even when they saw different versions of event. Low confidence meant doubting perceptions more likely and trust others instead.
87
LOC exists on a continuum. What does that mean?
People can have internal, external or mixed LOC depending on the situation
88
What does LOC mean?
- people differ in how much control they believe they have with their own lives
89
Internal LOC people?
- responsible for own actions
- success/ failure depends on the choices they make
- more confident/ motivated/ independent usually
- less likely to give into group pressures or crowds
- mor likely to act on own beliefs even if it goes against others
90
External LOC people?
- little control over their lives
-more likely to blame others for circumstances or events in their lives
- more likely to follow group and conform
- passive and accepting as they belief events ae out of their control
91
What does research show about age and LOC? What can that suggest about the Tottenham riots?
- LOC internal increases with age
- can explain why half of the people brought before the court were under 21 and 5% were over 40
92
Research evidence for LOC?
- Chou studied 306 students to assess their LOC and attitudes twoards whistleblowing. Internal LOC more likely to whistleblow -> more likely to act independently and resist group pressure
- Ransford investigated violent behaviours in crows in USA. men with external LOC more likely to turn to violent protest after feeling powerless. Lack of control can increase likelihood of anti social behaviour
93
94
What is morality?
Persons beliefs of what’s right or wrong which guides decision making and behaviour
95
What behaviours can moral development lead to?
Pro social and anti social- people vary in levels of moral development
96
Three main levels of moral reasoning proposed by kohlberg?
- Pre-conventional level: Behaviour is based on avoiding punishment or gaining rewards (common in children)
-Conventional level: Behaviour is about pleasing others and obeying rules to maintain social order
-Post-conventional level: Behaviour is guided by moral principles and a sense of justice (different to what’s legally right)
97
How does morality affect behaviour?
- higher levels of moral reasoning: more likely pro social
- lower moral reasoning: anti socially (prioritise personal gain and not consider consequences )
98
Reasrach to back morality?
- Langdon et al. (2011): anti-social behaviour most common at the pre-conventional level, where people act out of self-interest rather than concern for society.
- Chen and Howitt (2007): young offenders who had committed violent crimes scored lower on moral reasoning tests
-Eisenberg (1987): people with higher moral reasoning are less likely to act anti-socially because they feel personally responsible for their actions.
99
Traits of authoritarian personality?
- see world in black or white: there’s a clear right or wrong
- absolute obedience to authority figures
- discriminate those they see as inferior
- rigid, conformist, respectful of rules.
100
What did Adorna suggest about how authoritarian personality develops?
Strict parenting.
Children expected to obey without question and punished for disobedience
101
Reasrach evidence of authoritarian personality?
- f scale measures authoritarian traits created by Adorno. Higher score -> more obedient and respect authority figures
- milgram and elms followed up on milgrams obedience researched and used the f scale finding the same results
102
How does the hippocampus play a role in self esteem? And conformity?
- role in emotion regulation and stress control
-low self esteem -> less grey matter volume -> struggle to manage stress and less comfortable in decisions
- more prone to conformity
103
How does the prefrontal cortex affect morality and obedience?
- involved in descision making, impulse control and moral reasoning
- damage or underdeveloped leads to lower ability to judge moral actions or question given orders
- more likely to obey
104
Criticism of dispositional factors?
- too much emphasis on personality traits and ignore powerful influence of the situation
- reductionist as they oversimplify complex behaviour by reducing to internal factors. Fail to recognise interaction of situational and dispositional factors (e.g. low self esteem may lead to conformity in only certain environments)
- reasrached based in western middle class samples so culturally biased and may not apply to collectivist cultures
-kolbergs theory only used male participants so may not reflect female moral reasoning. Women may focus on empathy and relationships but men may empathise rules and justice
- dispositional theories may only partionally explain differences in moral reasoning, conformity or obedience between genders.
105
Nat cen background?
- 2011 Tottenham riots began as peaceful protest after police shot mark Duggan
- violent turn as tensions rose between police and community members
- lead to widespread looting, rioting, property damage
106
Aim of Nat cen?
- investigate causes of youth involvement in the riots
-what triggered, who took part, why and how people got involved
107
Nat cen type of study?
- qalitive research using interviews and focus groups
108
Nat cen sample?
-36 pps
- from Tottenham
- over and under 18
- diverse in gender, work/education, ethnicity
109
Nat cen procedure? Ethics?
- data collected 5 weeks after riots
- individual AND groups interviews conducted to help pps feel comfortable
- fully informed consent and assured confidentiality
- past offences not reported by reasearchers
110
What did Nat cen interview questions explore?
- personal experiences, motivations and attitudes towards authority
111
Nat cen results? Who was involved?
-Rioters: actively involved in violence and vandalism
-Looters: involved breaking into shops and stealing
-Watchers: present but not directly involved
-Non-involved: those who chose not to participate
- wannabes
112
Nat cen results= motivation for involvement?
- Nudge factors (encouraged participation):
Anger towards the police and authority
Poor job prospects and lack of hope for the future ('nothing to lose')
-Tug factors (discouraged participation):
Disapproval from family or community
No negative experience with the police
113
Nat cen conclusions?
- anti social behaviours influenced by a mix of collective behaviour (group processes) and dispositional factors
- desicions guided by what they thought was right or wrong and their assessment of risks and benefits
-many viewed their actions as normal under the circumstances and not criminal
- those with negative experiences with authority (e.g. distrust police) more likely to get involved
114
Criticism of Nat cen?
- interviewed five weeks later so pps memories may have been faded or inaccurate/ influenced by media coverage (unreliable)
- many distrusted authorities so may not have been honest about actions or motifs
- social desirability bias may have led them to alter responses to be more positive and justified (downplaying criminal acts or exaggerating involvement)
- relied on prisoners known to police for sample due to difficulty recruiting participants. Limits generalisation to all rioters. Ones never caught or with no criminal history may have had different motivations.
115
What is minority influence?
- when a small group of people change attitudes/ behaviours of the majority
116
When is minority influence most effective (FCC)
- flexibility: adapt arguments slightly and be open to discussion to avoid seeming rigid or extreme
- consistency: consistent message and behaviour over time to show commitment to cause
- commitment: show dedication, making personal sacrifices, prove they believe their views
117
What is the snowball effect (when FCC are present to make minorities message more persuasive)?
- more people adopt to minority viewpoint
- it gains momentum
- can eventually become majority opinion
118
Examples of minority influence?
-suffragette movement
- US civil rights movement
119
How did minority influence help reduce mental health stigma and discrimination?
- minority challenged stigma and promoted open discussions
- campaigns such as mind, time to change used minority influence to make lasting social change
120
How did mental health campaigns use minority influence to create lasting social change?
- raise awareness and encourage help seeking, reduce discrimination
- public figures (royal family) use influence to talk and make more socially acceptable
- consistent committed and persuasive messaging help shifts public opinion.
- began to internalise belief about strength in talking about mental health
121
How did heads together campaign use minority influence?
- The campaign aimed to reduce stigma around mental illness
- By sharing personal stories (e.g. Harry’s grief over his mother’s death), modelled vulnerability and empathy, inspiring others to open up
- Their high status and consistent advocacy helped to normalise conversations about mental health
-This created a snowball effect, where more people began to talk openly, encouraging societal acceptance and reducing discrimination
122
Majority influence?
Where the beliefs or behaviours of the majority group persuade others to conform to their attitudes.
123
How did time to change use majority influence to encourage mental health talk? Effectiveness?
- used mass participation of schools, workplaces and communities to join campaign.
-The National Attitudes to Mental Illness survey found that since the Time to Change campaign began, there has been an improvement in public attitudes towards people with mental health conditions
- 10 million showed positive attitudes-> majority influence man create lasting change
124
How does majority influence work?
- when large groups express acceptance and understanding others are more likely to conform to positive norms
- people adopt attitudes and language used by majority to be part of “in group”
- if majority don’t use stigmatised vocab it encourages others to stop too
125
126
How does majority influence help those in minority?
In feeling more accepted and included (such as people with mental illness)
127
Seeing acceptance modelled by peers helps reduce fear and misunderstanding, leading to genuine empathy and inclusion
Psychology
flashcards
Decks in class (12)
# Cards
