The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
What was the Milgram's experiment?
Ss are to give shocks to people who get questions wrong. the shocks go up with each question.
What were the results of the Migram Study?
65% of subjects gave the most severe shock (450 Volts)
What are some factors affecting Conformity?
- 1. Abrams & Hogg's (1990) Self Categorization model
- 2. Group Size
- 3. Social Support for nonconformity
- 4. Culture
- 5. Age
- 6. Gender
- 7. a) Ostracism
- 7. b) fear of Ostracism
- 8. Self Protection vs. Mate-Attraction Motives.
What is Abrams & Hogg's (1990) self-categorization model?
Conform to group norms to maintain consistent self-concept.
What is Crandall's (1981) study involving sorority sisters?
binge eating became more similar as the year progressed. Popularity became a positive function of binge eating.
What were the results of Cohen's (2003) study about Ss who identified with political parties?
Adopted party's ALLEGED positions even when antithetical to party's defining goals. They claimed opinions shaped by policy details and own philosophies and they DENIED conforming to others opinions.
In lab studies as group size increases to ___ or ___ conformity ____
In lab studies as group size increases to 3 or 4 conformity increases
According to Allen and Levine (1971) Ss with nonconmforming ally were less likely to conform when:
- 1. when ally was not competent in the situation
- 2. when the ally doesn't agree with the subject
- 3. when support received early (because its more effective earlier)
According to Bond & Smith (1996) conformity is high in ____________ than in _________ cultures.
conformity is higher in collectivist than individualist cultures.
According to Bernt (1979): Conformity is great among _________ than among older and younger kids
Accorering to Pasupathi (1991) 63 to 85 year olds conformed less or more than "whippersnappers"
According to Sistrunk & McDavid (1971): ____ conform to "feminine" topics, and __________ conform on "masculine" topics
Eagly & Chravala (1986) found that _________ are more likely and _________ are less likely to conform in face to face encounters.
Women are more likely and Men are less likely to conform in face to face encounters
Williams et. al. (2000): Ss who were included/excluded in ball-toss game subsequently conformed more/less on judgment task
SS who were EXCLUDED in ball-toss game subsequently conforeed MORE on judgment task.
James and Olson (2000): found that observing someone being "jeered" in one situation led to more/lesss conformity in another situation.
Griskevicius et. al (2006): self-protection goals increased/decreased conformity for both sexes?
Griskevicius et. al (2006): Mate-attraction goals incrased/decreased conformity among women.
Griskevicius et. al (2006): Mate-Attraction goals increased/decreased NON-conformity among MEN? and in what situation?
INCREASED non-conformity. When it made them UNIQUE and the topic was SUBJECTIVE
In Sherif's Autokinetic Effect (when a stationary ligh in a dark room seems to "move". What were the results in whether or not the light moved?
Light-movement estimates converge on group norm. So whatever the group norm was everyone else agreed. (conformed)
Asch's Line-Matching Study: What were the results when Ss were given a false answer?
76% of Ss went along wiht false answer at least once.
What are 2 types of social influence?
- 1. Normative social influence (the desire to be liked)
- 2. Informational Social Influence (desire to be correct)
When is Normative Social Influence (the desire to be liked) more likely to be the influence?
When motivation is low and the task is easy.
When is Information Social Influence (desire to be correct) more likely?
When motivation is high and the task is difficult.
Successful minorities should be 3 things... what are they?
- 1. Consistent
- 2. Judicious and Flexible
- 3. Be Diverse
Moscovici et al. (1961) 2 confederates and 4 subjects judged the color of blue slides. When confederates said the slides were green on all 36 trials ________ of Ss made at LEAST one "green" response. When confederates said slides were green on 24 of the 36 slides __________ of Ss made "green response.
1/3rd of Ss and almost none.
Nameth & chiles (1988) Exposure to consistent dissent in one situation led to more/less conformity to an incorrect opinion in another situation.
Lortie-Lusie (1987): "you establish _______________ by first agreeing with majority"
Mascovici et al. (1980): consistent, unbiased minorities:
- 1. create uncertainty among the majority
- 2. cause them to process information in greater depth and
- 3. become more likely to "privately accept" view point, especially AFTER a period of time has elapsed and this issue is INDIRECTLY related to the issue under consideration.
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: minorities that FAIL to be consistent and unbiased are _________ and/or _________
ignored and or rejected.
minorities that fail to be ___________ and _________ are ignored and/or rejected
Consistent and unbiased.
Schacter (1951): Groups of Ss discussed "Johnny Rocco". There was a "stooge" in each group who either consistently diagreed (deviant), Disagreed, then conformed (slider), or agreed throughout (mode). Ss rated each other for likeablness and suitability for different jobs. What were the results?
Deviant was liked the least and given the worst job. Group directed attention to the person who didn't agree.
Bassili & Provencal (1988) found that even when influential, opinion menorities tend to be liked/disliked.
Lieberman & Eisenberger (2006): "Relevant Components of Pain Matrix" what was the correlation between neural activity and social pain? and what does this mean?
- .88-DACC, .69-PFC (high)
- Neural areas are responsible for proccessing physical pain also process social pain.
According to Lieberman and Eisenberger (2006) What does the DACC signal and how does it make us feel?
Signals nonsymbolic conflict between expected and current states, makes us feel anxious
Berger & Heath's (2008) Identity-Signaling Approach: "Divergence functions to avoid sending undesired identity signals to others." found that:
- 1. "Cool standford kids stopped wearing wristbands when "geeks" started wearing them.
- 2. Especially likely to abandon style and preference when a dissimilar other adopted it and when the expression was public.
What is the definition of Deindividuation?
A deindividuated state is one in which the individual has lost self-awareness and evaluation apprehension.
What are the 3 Deindividuation cues?
- 1. Accountability Cues
- 2. Attentional Cues
- 3. Group Membership Cues
What is the definition of Accountability cues:
cues that tell people whether they'll be help responsible for behavior.
Things that increase/decrease anonymity tend to increase/reduce perceived accountability.
Zimbardo (1970): Ss (either identified or anonymous) listened to interview between experimenter and nice or obnoxious confederate. Then, as a group, decided how much shock to inflict. What were the results?
For obnoxious confederate, Anonymous Ss gave longer shocks than the identified Ss
Diener et al. (1976) "Trick-Or-Treat" study: some kids asked their names, some were anonymous, some in groups and some alone. Then given opportunity to steal extra candy. What were the results?
Kids who were asked their names and were alone stole the LEAST
Mann (1981): Analyzed 21 instances which crowds were present when someone threated to jump. What happened when there was a small group and what happened when there was a large group?
- Small group - usually didn't "bait"
- Large group - at night usually "baited"
What is the definition for attentional cues?
Potential for deindividuation increases as attention diverted away from self and towards environment.
Prentice-Dunn and Rogers: When in high stimulation environment 3 things happened what are they?
- 1. Attend less to internal standards
- 2. react more to immediate situation
- 3. become less sensitive to long-term consequences of behavior.
Prentice Dunn & Rogers: high stimulation environment you lose the capacity for what?
According to Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (high stimulation environment) what happens when attention is focused back on the self?
The capacity for self-regulation is regained.
Beaman et al. (1979) Trick or Treat study with a small mirror behind the candy for half of the kids. what were the results? (with the mirror present and not present)
- 12% stole with the mirror present.
- 34% stole with the mirror absent.
(attentional cues) What two types of norms can be ATTENDED to (Cialdini et al., (1990))
- 1. Injuctive Norms: more or less explicit do's and don'ts
- 2. Descriptive Norms: What people actually do.
Brocken Windows Theory (BWT: Wilson & Kelling, 1982) states what?
Things like broken windows are indicators that anti-social behavior is acceptable.
What did Keizer, Lindenberg, and Steg (2008) find in their study. In an area with NO GRAFFITI sign, how much littering was there in areas where there was graffiti or there wasn't?
graffiti present - 69% more littering than when there was no graffiti - (only 33% littering)
What did Keizer, Lindenberg, and Steg (2008) find in their study. In an area with NO LITTERING sign & NO LOCKING BIKES TO FENCE, what percentage trespassed when there were bikes locked up vs. when there were not bikes locked up?
When there were bikes locked to the fence 82% trespassed. when there were not bikes locked only 27% trespassed.
what did Keizer, Lindenberg, and Steg (2008) find in their study. When they put money in a mailbox that was visible how much more likely was it to be stolen if there was grafitti on the mailbox?
when graffiti was on the box it was more likely stolen (27%) than when no graffiti (13%)
If group norms prescribe prosocial behavior, deindividuation may decrease/increase the probability of PROsocial behavior
Johnson & Downing (1979): Ss dressed in either KKK outfits or nurse outfits. Half in each group were either identified or anonymous and given task of shocking a learner. (allowed to increase or decrease shock). What were the results?
Deindiviuated "Klan" Ss INCREASED and deindividuated "Nurse" Ss DECREASED shock levels the most.
Why in Johnson & Downings (1979) KKK and nurse study produce those results?
Deindividuated "nurses" adopted the "nurse" norm and deindiviuated "klansmen" adoped the "klan" norm.
What are the 2 things deindividuation typically reduces?
- 1. self-awareness and
- 2. awareness of norms associated with social identities.
According to Mullen et al. (2003): while completing measures of self-awareness and social identity Ss either sat in front of a mirror, wore a mask, or filled out a family tree. What were the results?
- Mirror: Increased self-awareness but decreased social identity
- Family tree: Incrased social identity but decreased self-awareness
- Mask: reduced both self awareness and social identity.
Frank & Gilovich (1988) Found what about NFL and NHL teams wearing black jerseys? What did they find in the lab studies about those wearing black?
- That those wearing black were penalized the worst.
- Ss in lab studies wearing black tend to behave aggressively.
What are the 3 reasons for Bystander Apathy?
- 1. Diffusion of responsibility
- 2. Time Pressure
- 3. Perceiving that there is an emergency.
Darley and Latane (1968) Ss led to beileve that there were 1 other, 2 other, or 5 others. the first speaker had a seizure or something and they measured % of Ss looking for victim and the latency of "looking response" what were the results?
- with 1: 85% went looking, 52 seconds
- with 2: 65% and 93 seconds
- with 5: 31% and 166 seconds.
- So with more people less went looking and it took longer for those who did.
Garcia et. al (2002) Ss imagine having dinner with either a group of friends or one person (or were in control condition) then asked to volunteer to help in another experiment. What were the results? and why?
- Relative to control, Ss who imagined LARGE group volunteered LESS time.
- Concepts like unaccountable and exempt found to be more cognitively accessible among "imagine-group" Ss
P.M. Markey (2000): internet chatroom version of Darley and Latane (1969) responsibility diffusion experiement. response time to help was a direct function of chatroom ___. UNLESS what?
size. Unless called by name!
Darley & Batson (1973) seminary student Ss gave talk about: 1. Parable of the Good Samaritan or 2. Jobs. They were either told they were ahead of schedule, on time, or late. What were the results of helping the man coughing and groaning at the door?
- Ahead: 63% stopped
- On Time: 45 % stopped
- Late: 10% stopped.
Wilson & Petruska (1984): Found that subjects are inattentive/attentive to information indicating that something/nothing is wrong.
What are 2 ways you perceive that maybe an emergency exists or does not exist?
- Social comparison: How are the people around you reacting?
- Social Convention: man and wife vs. woman and stranger
Latane & Darley (1968) Ss filled out a questionnaire either alone, in groups of 3 "naive" Ss, or in groups of 2 "silent" confederates. They measured the percentage of people who reported the smoke within 6 minutes. what were the results?
- Alone: 75%
- 3 "Naive": 38%
- 2 Silent: 10%
Shotland & Straw (1976): Ss were believed the fight was between a man and wife or a woman and a stranger. what were the results of intervention in each situation?
- 19% intervened in man-and-wife.
- 65% intervened in woman-and-stranger
You are more likely to help if what? (4)
- 1. Feel competent
- 2. Perceive few costs (intervening won't hurt me)
- 3. with a group of friends: triggers feelings of compassion towards folks in general, and can communicate and get accurate information about what is going on and what to do
- 4. have consumed alcohol
According to Steele et al (1985) why does consuming alcohol make it more likely that you will help?
- Alcohol causes "cognitive myopia" - attend to fewer cues.
- They attend to the victim's needs. Relatively unaware of situational ambiguities and negative consequences.
What are the 4 reasons for obedience?
- 1. norm of obedience to authority
- 2. gradual escalation and cognitive dissonance
- 3. Authoritarian Personality
- 4. Deindividuation: loss of sense of individuality and personal responsibility
What are the 4 things that have to be true for the Norm of Obedience to Authority?
- 1. Authority must be legitimage
- 2. Authority must accept responsibility
- 3. Norm of Obedience must be assessible
- 4. Other Norms Must Not Be Accessible.
In Milgram's experiment, what were the results when the person giving orders were in a lab setting, office setting, or orders were just given by an "ordinary" person?
- Lab: 65% gave full shocks
- Office: 43 % gave full shocks
- Ordinary person: 20% gave full shocks
Brickman (1974): Stranger orders people to give him a dime. What were the results when the stranger was in uniform vs. when in street clothes?
- uniform: 92% gave a dime
- street clothes: 49% gave a dime
What do we mean by the norm of obedience must be accessible?
"You must continue" or "you have no choice" (reminders of norm obedience)
As distance is increased/decreased, "norm of obedience" is more/less saliant nd the "norm of social responsibility is more/less salient.
DECREASED, LESS, MORE
In Milgrams shock study what were the results when the learner was heard on the intercom, was in the same room, or Ss touched the learner?
- intercom: 61%
- same room: 40%
- Ss touch learner: 30%
Adorno's (1950) Authoritarian Personality (Elms and Milgram, 1966) includes:
- 1. exaggerated need to submit to authority
- 2. Rigidly adhere to conventional patterns of behavior. Prescribe harsh treatment for deviance.
- 3. Suspicious and cynical
What are 4 things that promote resistance to authority?
- 1. Focus Responsibility for Harm on the Subject
- 2. Exposure to disobedience
- 3. Subjects' arly questioning of experimenter's definition of the situation
- 4. Physical closness To Victim
In Kilham & Mann (1974) experiment if Ss were told they were responsible, obedience increased/decreased.
In Milgrams (1965) study, Exposure to a disobedient confedererate substantially increased/reduced?
What was the difference in the results between Burgers (2009) shock study and Milgrams shock study?
- Burger's study stopped Ss at 150 volts. If Ss pressed it, Milgram's Ss were 80% likely to continue all the way. so Burger ended the study if they pressed the 150 volts. (also they were carefully screened for psychiatric disorders)
- 30% of Burgers Ss stopped before or at 150 Volts where as milgrams was 17.5%
What is the definition of group polarization?
Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than average of members' initial positions.
Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) - One group discussed De Gaulle and how much they LIKED him and another group discussed Americans and how much they DISLIKE them. What were the results individually?
The group that discussed how much they like De Gaulle liked him even more and the group that discussed how much they hated Americans hated them even more.
What are the reasons for Group Polarization?
- 1. Persuasive Arguments
- 2. a) Social Comparison (self-presentation)
- 2. b) Self-categorization (self-knowledge)
What do we mean by Social Comparison being a reason for group polarization?
People both want to fit in with the group and think they are particularly exceptional members. So they adopt the general consensus and then go to the extreme about it. (If Ss merely learned of distribution of positions within group, they took a more extreme position)
What do mean by Self-Categorization (self-knowledge) as being a reason for Group Polarization?
group members seek to firmly establish ingroup identity by becoming or "prototype" or "paragon" of group. (polarization is more extreme when members identify strongly with the group.)