39016668
Description
Flashcards by Evelyn Widdrington-Fox, updated more than 1 year ago
|
|
Created by Evelyn Widdrington-Fox
about 1 year ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| SOCIAL THEORY | Flashcard deck covering Social Theory. Includes key terms such as normative social influence, informational social influence, and conformity, as well as the key studies: Asche (1951), Elliot (2016), Orlando (1973) and Sherif (1935). Also covers strengths and limitations of each aspect of Social Theory. |
| KEY ASSUMPTIONS | 1: BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIAL CONTEXT: People are social animals; psychologists study the influence of others to understand behaviour (e.g. in conformity). 2: PEOPLE, CULTURE & SOCIETY: differences can be understood in terms of individualist vs collectivist. |
| CONFORMITY | When we are part of a group, we go along with the others in it, follow their opinions & act in the same way. They don't tell us how to act, but we conform because of ‘invisible’ pressure. Deutsch & Gerard suggested two main reasons for this: NSI and ISI. |
| NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE | In any group, there are norms regarding behaviour & beliefs that guide individuals' behaviour. We follow these norms if we need social support & to avoid rejection. Because of this, it's an emotional process. |
| INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE | If unsure about which behaviours/beliefs are right/wrong, we turn to others perceived to be more informed to guide us. We conform to others as we want to be right. It's most likely to happen in situations that are new to you, when it's unclear what is correct, or when a person is perceived as an expert. |
| ASCHE'S (1951) LINE STUDY | The studies tested how social pressure from a majority group could influence someone to conform. Groups of 6 actors and 1 participant did a line judgement task. In front of the group, each had to match the length of lines on cards out loud. 16/12 times, the group gave the wrong answer, but the majority of participants conformed. |
| LIMITATIONS OF ASCHE (1951) | Lacks temporal validity: conformity rates have dropped & critical thinking is more common. Lacks generalisability & ecological validity: hard to apply to natural situations & all were young white males from the same college. Demand characteristics: performed during Red Scare. Deception: they were told it was an eye test, so might have experienced stress. |
| STRENGTHS OF ASCHE (1951) | It was a lab study so there was good control of extraneous variables. Placing the participant second-to-last in the group meant demand characteristics were less likely (less likely to suspect they were set up than if they were last). |
| INTERNALISATION | We start to agree with the behaviour of the group. Their opinion becomes how we also think - we internalise it. Privately & publicly, we change our views & it becomes part of who we are. |
| COMPLIANCE | When we “go along” with the majority but our personal opinions don’t change. It’s only a temporary type of conformity. |
| IDENTIFICATION | A combination of compliance & internalisation. We change some of our views but only conform when part of the group - not all of the time. |
| SOCIAL CATEGORISATION | Placing people into groups based on their characteristics, generally appearance (gender, ethnicity & age) & form a stereotype. We divide the world into "them" & "us" through social categorisation. |
| GROUPS | Groups (e.g. social class, family, football team, etc.) people belong to are important sources of pride & self-esteem. They give us a sense of social identity. We divide the world into “them” & “us” through social categorisation. |
| IN-GROUPS | We want to belong & be with like-minded people. These are people within our own group (or in-group). We tend to remember positive info about the in-group. |
| OUT-GROUPS | For every group that we are in, there will be other groups that we are not included in (the outgroup). We tend to exaggerate differences & minimize similarities between us & other members of the out-group. We tend to remember negative info about the out-group, which distorts and bias judgements, leading to prejudice & discrimination. |
| GROUP THINK | The tendency for cohesive groups to agree regardless of the correctness of the decision. More likely if it is a stressful or very important situation. |
| GROUP COHESION | Groups stick together to pursue common goals. This is greater if members feel external similarities (e.g. age), or internal similarities (e.g. beliefs) |
| INTRA-DYMANICS | How groups relate to one another. This is especially important in a business application (e.g. in the way management and employee groups interact). |
| STEREOTYPING | Putting people into groups & categories. It's based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to exaggerate: differences between groups & similarities of things in the same group. |
| EFFECTS OF STEREOTYPES | POSITIVE: simplifies interactions. We assume stereotypes are correct so identify characteristics quickly in people, saving time & cognitive processing effort. NEGATIVE: influence behaviour as they're self-fulfilling. We end up behaving towards other people in line with our stereotypes of them. They also impact our memories. |
| PREJUDICE | Result of stereotyping the outgroup as it becomes easier to form negative attitudes about their members. We perceive out-group members as inferior to feel better about the in-group and ourselves. |
| DISCRIMINATION | Often the outcome of prejudice towards the out-group. People are excluded because they share a different characteristic (skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc.) It's also faced by people in less obvious ways, like microaggressions (disrespect, harmful comments, etc.). |
| SELF-ESTEEM | This is our confidence in our worth & abilities. To maintain self-esteem, our group must compare favourably with other groups. Once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem. |
| STRENGTHS OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE | Practical applications (e.g. whistle-blowers resist NSI & don't think others know better (resisting ISI) so can counteract conformity. Asch’s study supports NSI (When people privately wrote down their answers, conformity rate fell to 12.5%) |
| LIMITATIONS OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE | NSI & ISI are less clear in the real world as they're interdependent. Conforming is less likely if there's another who openly disagrees with the group. Dissenters reduces group power through NSI as they provide social support, & ISI because there's another source of information. Because of this, we can't be sure if NSI/ISI is always responsible for conformity. |
| ELLIOT'S (1968) BLUE EYES BROWN EYES EXPERIMENT | After the murder of Martin Luther King Jr, to show how it felt to be treated as inferior because of a characteristic they have, Elliot divided her class into blue-eyes & brown-eyes. Blue-eyes had privileges & brown-eyes wore a collar to mark their inferiority. In an hour, blue-eyes showed contempt for brown-eyes & worked harder, while brown-eyes were demotivated. Roles were reversed the next day, & the same effects were displayed. |
| ORLANDO (1973) | This showed how conformity can change behaviours to extremes. Staff at a psychiatric ward role-played as patients. After two days, they showed psychological disturbance, anxiety, depression, feelings of isolation & being trapped, & withdrew within themselves. It showed identification, as it wasn't a long term impact. |
| SHERIF (1935) | Participants were put in a dark room with a small light that had no frame of reference, to appear to be moving (the autokinetic effect). They had to state how much the light moved, then discuss it with the group. As a group they were asked again. Most answers changed to match others' guesses. They internalised this view as they didn't change answers if they were alone. |
| STRENGTHS OF CONFORMITY | Research evidence gives it validity (e.g. Asch (1951), Orlando (1973). It can be applied to workplaces. A workforce full of people who agree with each other makes work easier, but if people strongly identify with each other, outside voices are silenced. Destructive conformity can be targeted to ensure organisations run effectively. |
| LIMITATIONS OF CONFORMITY | How it operates may be inaccurate & oversimplified. Research lacks ecological validity as it isn't a real-world scenario. Artificial tasks are used (e.g. the line task or autokinetic effect). It's hard to differentiate between identification & the other two types due to how similar they are. |
| SOCIAL FACILITATION | The tendency for individuals to perform better at a simple task when others are present. Being observed causes psychological and physiological arousal & increased alertness. Higher if being evaluated. |
| SOCIAL INHIBITION | The opposite of social facilitation. Complex tasks lead to worse performance if being watched and/or evaluated. |
| AUDIENCE EFFECT | Social facilitation occurs in the presence of a passive spectator/audience, not just with a co-actor. |
| CO-ACTION EFFECT | Increased task performance comes about by the presence of others doing the same task. |
| NORMAN TRIPLETT (1800s) | Performed a laboratory study which involved children winding up fishing line. Some worked alone, others were watched by another child. The time it took them was measured; children who were being watched worked faster. |
| STRENGTHS OF TRIPLETT (1800s) | Conducted in a laboratory, so good control over extraneous variables. |
| LIMITATIONS OF TRIPLETT (1800s) | Laboratory study, so danger of demand characteristics. Participants were given an artificial task, so lacks ecological validity. Lacks generalisability, as the sample consisted of just children. |
| SELF-CONCEPT | How an individual views themselves. Strongly influenced by others, how they evaluate you & the feedback they give. |
| SELF-IMAGE & IDEAL SELF | SELF IMAGE: how you see yourself. IDEAL SELF: who you want to be. They must be close to each other or you will have low self esteem. |
| SELF-ESTEEM | The extent to which we accept & like ourselves, based on things we do & interactions with others. High self-esteem = high self-image. |
| SELF-EFICACY | Your perceived ability to successfully complete tasks, linked to self-esteem & self-image. |
| DISTRACTION CONFLICT | Proposed by Barron (1986). Suggests conflict between giving attention to a person or a task affects performance, not the presence of others. It motivates us to pay more attention to the task & increases performance for simple, well-learned tasks. |
| AFFECTIVE FACTORS | Proposed by Cottrell (1968). Apprehension about being evaluated is important for social facilitation to occur. Approval/disapproval based on others’ evaluations; presence of others triggers an acquired arousal drive based on evaluation anxiety. We're aroused by audiences as they evaluate us rather than act as passive spectators. |
| PHYSIOLOGICAL FACTORS | Proposed by Zajonc. Behaviour that's intrinsic/well-learned is improved. Novel/complex behaviour is impaired. The presence of others enhances emission of dominant responses (1966). Based on Clark Hull's theory of motivation. |
| CLARK HULL'S THEORY OF MOTIVATION | High level of arousal/drive results in stress & produces often incorrect habitual behaviours. |
| DOMINANT RESPONSE | Response most likely to occur in the presence of the given array of stimuli. The dominant response to an easy task will be the correct one. The dominant response to a difficult task will be the incorrect one(s). In both cases the audience/co-actor helps elicit this. |
| SOCIAL LOAFING | When an individual decreases their effort level in a group as they realise their roles & responsibilities are delegated to others. |
| KEY FACTORS OF GROUPTHINK: GROUP IDENTITY | Key factor of groupthink. Where group personnel are very similar to each other and any different views are shown disdain. |
| KEY FACTORS OF GROUPTHINK: LEADER INFLUENCE | When there is a powerful and well-liked member of the group leading the task. |
| FACTORS OF GROUPTHINK:: LOW KNOWLEDGE | When an individual lacks personal knowledge, or feels others in the group are more qualified. |
| KEY FACTORS OF GROUPTHINK: STRESS | When a group is placed under extreme stress, the likelihood of groupthink is increased |
| INDIVIDUAL ROLES IN A GROUP TASK | RECOGNITION SEEKER: Behaves in any other way to serve themselves, not team needs. DOMINATOR: Asserts authority to manipulate the group or members. AGGRESSOR: Deflates status of others or behaves aggressively. BLOCKER: Overly negativistic & stubborn to new ideas. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.