Karteikarten
Social influences Paper 1
Karten in diesem Stapel (34)
- 1Psychology- Paper 1Psychology Paper 1
- 2Social InfluencersSocial Influencers
- 3Conformity-where the behaviour of an individual or small group is influenced by a larger group/ majority
- 4Types-Internalisation
-Compliance
-Identification - 5What is internalisation??where they go along with the majority and believe in their views too, you've accepted and internalised therefore are one of them
- 6What is compliance?-Where you go along with majority but don't share their beliefs
-do it to just appear normal.
Normative social influences. - 7What is identification?where they conform to what is expected of them, to fulfil a social role
-changing behaviour to fit specific role in society (e.g a nurse) - 8Main study?Asch (1951)
-looked at Normative social influence - 9Procedure?-lab experiment with independent measures design
-Groups of 8, 7 confederate, real P was always 7th
-Each P did 18 trials, 12/18 were critical trials
-Critical trials- confederates gave the wrong answer
-Had 3 lines, one different to the rest
-There was control group - 10Results?-Control group gave the wrong answer of 0.7% of time
-Critical trials conformed to the majority 37%
-75% conformed at least once
- some P's stated "they didn't believe their answers, but didn't want to look different" - 11Conclusion?- Control group showed that the task was easy to get right
-however, 37% were wrong in critical trials
-Therefore conformed due to normative social influence - 12Evaluation?-Lab experiment= good control
-minimises extraneous variables
-Lacks ecological validity- doesn't reflect RW
-Ethics- deceived the participants - 13Asch's for situational factors-Group size = the bigger the more influential with only 2 confederates the p's only conformed 14% in critical trials when there were 3, they conformed 32%
-Unanimity/ Social groups
-Task difficulty- when the task was more difficult conformity increased due to them being less confident - 14Gender may affect conformityUntil mid-1970's the dominant view was females conform more than males
-Eagly and Carli 1981= differences were inconsistent. Clearest difference was when there was group pressure
Eagly 1987= men and women have different social roles. Women are more conform with group harmonies and likely to agree with others. Assertiveness and indepedence are valued male attributes. - 15Conformity to social roles-- Are behaviours that society expects from you
- People hold different positions in society such as teenagers, grandparents, managers and priests ect.
-these expectations are held by society. When we accept the roles we internalise these expectations. - 16Main study?Zimbardo et al 1973
- 17Procedure?-Male students recruited to act as guards or prisoners in mock prison.
-Randomly given a role
-Pr's were then 'arrested', were took the prison and given a number
-Guards were given their uniforms and mirrored sun glasses. - 18Results?-Guards tried to assert their authority over the prisoners, but Pr's stuck together.
-Prisoners then became more passive and obedient, while guards invented nastier punishments
-the experiment was abandoned early as Pr's were distressed - 19Conclusion?-Guards and prisoners adopted their roles quickly
-Zimbardo claimed it showed social roles can influence our behaviour
-seemingly well-balanced men became unpleasant and aggressive in the role of the guard. - 20Evaluation-- Controlled observation= good control variables
-Artificial environment- cannot be generalised
-Gender bias- Beta
- Observer bias- Z took part
-Ethical issues- right to withdraw, psychological harm - 21Social Roles evaluation- Real world= studies can help
- 22A follow-up study?BBC prison study
- 23Procedure?-controlled observation in mock prison#
-15 male volunteers
-randomly assigned to 2 groups
-5 guards, 10 prisoners
-had daily tests on depression and stress
- - 24Results?Guards failed to form united group and identify with role
-they didn't always exercise their power and said they felt uncomfortable with the inequality
-In first 3 days, prisoners tried to act in a way which would promote them to guard
-the unequal system broke due to the unwillingness of guards and strength of prisoners
-Was abandoned by advice from ethics committee as some P's showed stress - 25Conclusion?-P's did not fit into their expected social roles
-Suggested roles are flexible - 26Evaluation?Prisoners were a strong group= contrast of Z's study
-It was made for TV- could be criticised as played up
-Artifical situation
-Ethics were good. - 27ObedienceActing in response to an order, usually from a authority figure
- 28Main studyMilgram 1963
- 29Procedure?-Lab experiment
-40 men (volunteer sample)
-received payment
-Experimenter wore a lab coat
-Each P was introduced to confederate
-Drew to see who was teacher and who was learner (fixed)
-Confederate was strapped to chair and connected to 'shock generator'.
-Switches ranged from 15 volts (slight shock) - 450 volts (XXX).
-P taught the learner word-pairs
-when learner got one wrong they were given a shock which increased.
-At 300v confederate banged on wall and made no further responses
-if P's hesitated the Experimenter told the p's to continue
-Debriefing was a interview, questionnaire and meeting the learner again - 30Result?26 (65%) administered the 450v and none stopped before 300v
-Most P's showed obvious distress, like sweating, groaning and trembling. - 31Conclusion?-Ordinary people will obey to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against own conscience.
- 32Evaluation?- Internal validity= it is possible the P's didn't believe they were giving the shocks and were going along with experimenters expectations
-Ecological validity= did a task which is unlikely in everyday life, but was a lab exp
-Ethical issues= they were deceived; didn't have informed consent, weren't informed of the right to withdraw and were promoted to continue. However, weren't ethical guidelines then so he didn't breach any - 33Milgram identified which situational factors?-Presence of allies- when there were 3 teachers (1 p, 2 con) the real P is less likely to obey if others refuse
-Proximity of victim= 65% dropped to 45% with learner in same room and 30% when P had to put learner's hand on shock plate
-Proximity of authority= when experimenter gave promise by phone obedience dropped 23%
-Location of experiment= when told it was private company and was moved to a run down office obedience dropped to 48% - 34—
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Social influences Paper 1, erstellt von Poppy Boyfield am 08/04/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Poppy Boyfield · Apr 2017
- Aktualisiert
- 5 Feb 2018
- Aufrufe
- 28
- Tags
- Bewertung