Psychology AQA GCSE - Social Influence

group size

conformity

conformity

conformity

2 confederates= 13.6%

3 confederates = 31.8%

after 3, no effect on conformity

when ambiguous no conformity until 8+ ppl

writing down answers reduced conformity

if pps are friends, more likely to conform

when comparison lines more similar, conformity increased

if pps have more expertise, less likely to conform

expertise, personality

conformity, proximity

conformity, crowd and collective behaviour

is someone has a high external locus of control, they conform more

LoC is less important in familiar situations

experts conform less

experts can still nform to fit in with the group

agency, authority, culture and proximity

obedience

obedience

obedience, crowd behaviour

obedience

autonomous state: feeling no personal responsibility for following orders

agentic state: feeling personally resposible for a free choice made

when someone is in authority, they shift from autonomous state to agentic state so obey

in a social hierarchy, ppl have more authority than others, this authority depends on ones culture

pps in the same room as learner obeyed less due to moral strain

+researchers showed milgrams study to students, they put blame on experimenter as they had legitimate authority so pps listetned to them as predicetd by the theory

- cannot explain why there isnt 100% conformity

authoritarian personality, congnitive style, childhood, scapegoating

some ppl have a stong respect for authority and look down on those with a lower social status

black and white- rigid - not open to change

starct parents only showed conditional love so this gets internalized

misplace hatred for parents onto people of lower social status

- data is based on F-scale which has a response bias

- data is correlational not causational

obedience

obedience

obedience

obedience

presence of others, cost of helping

prosocial behaviour

prosocial behaviour

more ppl present = les likely to help

85% helped a person on their own, 31% helped in a group of 4

cost of helping = high, then no help as danger or embarassment

depends on the situation, doesnt matter in more severe situations

if married couple argued, 19% helped, if stagers argued 85% helped

expertise, similarity to victim

prosocial behaviour

more likely to help someone if they look similar to you, football fans likely to help same team supporter (shirt)

high cost of helping or ambiguous situation then pps less likely to help

ppl w specialist skills more likely to help i.e nurses help workman

normal people help just as much as experts (nurses) but nurses give better quality help

deindividualtion, social loafing, culture

crowd behaviour

crowd behaviour

group norms affect crowd behaviour as person loses their individuality in a crowd

being packed tightly in acrowd can be uncomfortable so can explain antisocial behaviour

putting in less effort in a group as individual effort cant be identified. pps shouted louder when alone than in group of 6

depends on the task - no social loafing in brainstorming

chinese ppl (collectivist culture) put same effor in if individual effort could or couldnt be identified. americans put less if cannot be identified (individualist culture)

not everyone in a culture acts a certain way - overgeneralised

personality, morality

crowdd behaviour

high internal locus of control = less likely to be controlled by crowd behaviour

when ppl whistleblow on unethical studies personality didnt matter

if have stong sense of right and wrong = less likely to be influenced by crowd behaviour

sophie scroll stood up to the nazi regime and got killed for it