DOC PREVIEW
TAMU PSYC 107 - Social Influence
Type Lecture Note
Pages 4

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

PSYC 107 1nd EditionLecture 34Outline of Last LectureI. Social Psychology II. Schizoid Personality DisorderIII. Social ThinkingIV. Fundamental Attribution ErrorV. Attitudes Predicting ActionsVI. Actions Predicting AttitudesVII. Cognitive DissonanceOutline of Current LectureI. Social InfluenceII. Obedience to Authority III. Individual Behavior in a GroupIV. Deindividuation Current LectureI. Social Influence-ConformitySocial normsResearch:Sherif (1930s) - autokineticAsch (1955) - used lines of different lengths- The participants were presented with lines and asked which line is the same length,- Some participants were in on it and then they would pick the wrong line- 33% of people would go along with the wrong answer-Factors that contribute to whether people go along with the wrong answer or not:-If one feels incompetent or insecure-The group has to have 3 people-The group is unanimous-One admires the group status and attravticenessThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.-No prior commitment to a response-The group observes one behavior-One's culture strongly encourages respect for socialstandard-Groups enforce conformityReasons:Normative social influence-Influence resulting from a person's desire to gain approval-Fads-Fashions- Informational social influence-The group that may provide valuable informationAmbiguous or crisis situationCrisis Individual differencesLow self esteemFeelings of insecurityIndividualist culture has lower conformity-ObediencePeople comply to social pressuresHow would they respond to an outright commandInterested in Nazi Germany and HolocaustStanley Milgram's studySlight - gruntModerate - painfulStrong - "get me out of here; I refuse to go on"Very strong - Pounding on the wall; "I demand to get out"IntenseExtreme Intensity - No noise from learnerDanger: severeXXXThe teacher gives words to learn; if the subject gets the words wrong he is shockedEvery 60 volts the level increases; every time the word is wrong, the voltage increases by 15 voltsThe teacher must go on until he refuses to go on66 people went all the way to the end (XXX at 435 volts)Original Experiment62% went to full 450 voltsThere were no gender differences or racial differencesVariations:-Teachers observe learner's agony - 40% to the end- Teacher holds learner's hand to shock plate - 30%-Less prestigious location - 48%- Second experimenter disagrees - 0%-Teacher asks another subject to deliver shock - 93%What was learned:Power of authority is greater than imaginedDestructive obedience does not result from sadismPeople underestimate situational influences (Fundamental Attribution Error)Modified from Milgram's-Stopped at 150 volts- Prescreened individual's (40% rejected)-Experimenter was clinical psychologists- Reminded they could stop at any time-Results were comparable to Milgram'sII. Obedience to Authority-Sweat Lodge Deaths-James Ray Self helpFinancial guru-Used a sweat lodge3 people diedMany hospitalized-Why did people continue?Charismatic leader who told them they must continueThey paid $10,000III. Individual Behavior in a Group-Social facilitation: refers to improved performance on tasks in the presence of others-Social inhibition: reduced performance due to presence of others-Presence of others enhances the emission of the most likely responseWell-learned tasks - best performanceNew or difficult tasks - worst performance-Social loafing: the tendency of an individual in a group exert less effort toward attaining a common goal than when tested individuallyClassical rope-pulling studyOne person = 63 kg of forceGroup of 3 = 53 kg/personGroup of 8 = 32 kg/personCollectivists are less likely to social loafIV. Deindividuation-Engaging in atypical behavior due to feelings or anyonymity and lack of personal responsipilityOccurs in;GrousDarknessDisguiseCostumes-Examples;Abu-Ghraib Iragi prisonCrowdsGamesConcertsHazingFraternitiesSororitiesLootingVandalismGang


View Full Document

TAMU PSYC 107 - Social Influence

Type: Lecture Note
Pages: 4
Documents in this Course
Load more
Download Social Influence
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Social Influence and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Social Influence 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?