Social Influence, Memory and attachment (psychology)

Chloe Woods
Flashcards by , created over 3 years ago

AS - Level Psychology Flashcards on Social Influence, Memory and attachment (psychology), created by Chloe Woods on 04/14/2016.

Chloe Woods
Created by Chloe Woods over 3 years ago
Memory - AQA Psychology Unit 1 GCSE
Laura Louise
Chapter 5: Short-term and Working Memory
Biology AS Level UNIT 1
Valentin Andrei
Physics P2
Phoebe Drew
Summary of AS Psychology Unit 1 Memory
Bowlby's Theory of Attachment
Jessica Phillips
The multi-store model of memory - AS level Psychology
Tess W
Concepts of Attachment
Psychology flashcards memory
Question Answer
Social Influence -Types of conformity -Factors affecting conformity -Explanations of conformity -Zimbardo -Why people obey -Dispositional explanations for obedience -Resistance to social influence -Minority influence -Social influences role in social change
Types of Conformity Kelman suggested there were different types of conformity 1) conforms both publicly and privately 2)conforms publicly but not privately (change behaviours not attitudes) Types of Conformity Internalisation- Go along with others because you accept their point of view as your own. Occurs when an individual conforms to the majority or minority after adopting the attitudes and behaviours of the majority or minority. Public and private conformity. Deepest most permanent form of conformity.
Types of Conformity Compliance- Go along with others publicly, but privately have not changed personal opinions. Occurs when an individual conforms to the behaviours of the majority but not the attitudes. It involves public conformity which usually stops when group pressure is gone. Types of Conformity Identification- When an individual adjusts their behaviour and attitudes to those of a group because membership is desirable. Involves change of attitudes and behaviour whilst member of the group. Public+private change whilst member of the group. Usually only temporary.
Asch (1951)- Conformity in an unambiguous situation Aim: Whether people could be influenced by other people's opinions to give an answer they knew to be wrong. In this way it would be possible to see if people were conforming. Asch (1951)- Conformity in an unambiguous situation Method- Study conducted in USA, 123 male, students volunteered to take part. They believed the study was about the visual perception of the length lines. In each group only 1 participant was a volunteer, the rest were confederates who were all told to give the same wrong answer.
Asch (1951)- Conformity in an unambiguous situation Method- Participants ended up in 37%/32% of trials conforming and also giving the wrong answer. Main reason for doing this was to avoid was to avoid disapproval of group, even if they knew the answer was wrong. Asch (1951)- Conformity in an unambiguous situation Results- In 37%/32% of trials participants conformed When participants were given a 'partner' this changed to 5% 74% of participants conformed at least once
Asch (1951)- Conformity in an unambiguous situation Conclusions- The only reason for this level of conformity was hearing the incorrect was hearing the incorrect answers previously given. Reason for giving wrong answer- not going against group, wanted to fit in. Evidence of normative social influence Asch (1951)- Conformity in an unambiguous situation Evaluation -Low ecological validity: artificial environment +Ease of replication: highly controlled lab study with a standardised procedure of comparing a standard line and three comparison lines.
Factors Affecting Conformity -Size of the group -Task difficulty -Unanimity Factors Affecting Conformity Size of the group Conformity rates increase as the size of the majority increases, but there is a point where further increases in the size of the majority does not lead to further increases in conformity. Asch found that where there was one participant and one confederate conformity levels were very low, but it increased as the number of confederate increased.
Factors Affecting Conformity Task Difficulty Greater conformity rates are seen when the task difficulty increases as the answer becomes less obvious. Asch increased the task difficulty by making the comparison lines more similar to each other and found this lead to an increase in conformity levels. Factors Affecting Conformity Unanimity Conformity rates decline when the majority does not all agree. Asch found if there was one confederate who went against the other confederates conformity dropped from 32% to roughly 5%.
Explanations of Social Influence Informational Social Influence (ISI) We conform because we genuinely want others to be right and we want to be right in our attitudes and behaviours. Conformity the individual is showing: Internalisation. this is where you change your attitudes and behaviours in both public and private. ISI is more likely to when the situation is ambiguous, the situation is a crisis or we believe others to be experts. Explanations of Social Influence Normative Social Influence (NSI) We conform because we want to fit in, be liked, be accepted by others and we fear rejection. Conformity type: Compliance. This is where you change your behaviours but not attitudes. As a result it leads to public conformity. NSI is more likely when the group is important to us and we spend a lot of time with them.
Explanations of Social Influence Evaluation- ISI + In Asch's variation, where he made the task more difficult, by making the difference between the lines smaller, conformity levels rose. This therefore supports ISI as an explanation of conformity because it shows when people feel unsure about an answer they look to the majority because they believe others to be experts and more likely to know what to do. Explanations of Social Influence Evaluation- NSI +Asch's original study supports NSI as an explanation of conformity because the main reason participants gave for conforming was: not wanting to go against the the majority group. This shows that individuals will conform in order to fit in, be liked and be accepted
Research on institutional aggression: Zimbardo (1973) Aim- To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in role play of prison life. To test whether the prison violence they saw was due to the individual personalities of the guards and prisoners, or to do with the conditions of the prison environment Research on institutional aggression: Zimbardo (1973) Description- Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford university. then advertised and thoroughly tested student who volunteered. Two dozen were then randomly assigned to guard or prisoner. Both were given uniforms: Guards, khakis, batons, mirror sunglasses. Prisoners, Smocks, caps, chains and numbers.
Research on institutional aggression: Zimbardo (1973) Description- In 2 days prisoners rebelled, the rebellion was beaten down with fire extinguishers, guards then became harsh, put prisoners in a small room (solitary), harassed prisoners constantly. Some prisoners suffered psychological breakdowns. Experiment ended 8 days early, after only 6 days. Zimbardo (1973) Conclusions- this study clearly demonstrates the power of the situation to influence a person's behaviour and an individual's tendency to conform to social roles. This is because despite all the participants being deemed physically and psychologically stable prior to the study.
Zimbardo (1973) Evaluation - Can be criticised for lacking population validity. This is because the study only used American men, who were also volunteers and students. This is bad because the findings cannot be generalised to other people e.g. women and non-Americans Zimbardo (1973) Evaluation +Can be praised for control over participant variables. When selecting participants they gave participants a test which allowed them to select the most emotionally, physically and socially stable. This is good because all of the individuals are similar, so differences will not affect results, therefore increasing internal validity.
What is Obedience? When somebody follows an order from a figure perceived to be in authority. Milgram