Social Psychology Lewin 1939 Leadership Style and Resulting Behavior including how group identity impacts behavior Experiment 3 groups of boys 3 types of leaders Autocratic leaders make all decisions for the group Laissez Faire leaders allow complete freedom with little guidance Democratic leaders actively encouraged and assisted group decision making Leadership Styles Findings 3 groups 3 types of leaders Autocratic worked hardest when watched most hostile aggressive Laissez Faire least productive poorest quality Democratic highest motivation most original most playful most praise Conclusion leadership style and social situation created differences not individual personalities Implications for parenting Conform change behavior to match others self initiated Good or bad It depends 2 types informational use others when unsure want to be right normative copy others to fit in want to be accepted Asch 1955 Findings 70 side with wrong atleast once Effect inc with group size As long as one dissents effect stops Answer in private reduces but does not stop Recent studies still powerful More likely ambiguous task attractive group low status Male vs Female depends on the situation Milgram 1963 Obedience Obedience change behavior at a command of authority figure again not necessarily bad Experiment teacher shocks learner for mistakes to see if punishment increases learning but really looking at obedience Findings 2 3 went all the way Extremely difficult for most to disobey authority even if it goes against own values Conclusion Obedience is part of basic human condition brought out by situations There are some qualifying circumstances Contributing factors All of these increase obedience Authority claims responsibility Demands escalate gradually Authority close Authority appears legitimate prestigious Victim out of sight See others obeying no role model for disobeying Zimbardo Stanford Prison 1970s Experiment would random assignment to roles create behavior differences Study on conformity to social roles prisoners and guards Situational cues were powerful Findings Even with ewual chance at group placement nice boys became brutal guards healthy kids got sick extreme stress reactions active became passive and zombie like all particimants easily lost all perspective When situations end people may return back to regular behavior Ethical Concerns Serious ethical concerns have been raised Re Milgram Zimbardo studies Unlikely you could do either today standards and procedures have changed Compliance Change behavior at the request of another due to direct social pressure Many techniques identified that increase compliance different ones work for different reasons Don t always work but generally pretty powerful Compliance Tactics special techniques used to get people to say yes Tactics grouped by principle they target why work 1 Some work because of peoples need for consistency aka commitment More likely to say yes 2nd time if you already said yes the 1st time Example Foot in the door o Ask small then larger more agree if than started with larger Lowball o Reveal hidden cost after agree 2 Some work because of peoples need for reciprocity Most like to give when they get Goal get them to give more than they get Examples Gifting o Free samples Door in the face thing o No to 1st big thing increases chance you say yes to smaller 3 Some work because of how people react to scarcity Called reactance taken o I want it more if you say I cant have it don t like freedom o Examples limit 6 while they last deadline
View Full Document
Unlocking...