Social psychology Cheat Sheet by psychedup

Ways in which indivi­duals are influenced by the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of others

Conformity

Adjusting one's thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors to align with those of a group or social norm
may conform due to a desire to fit in, be accepted, or avoid social rejection
can be explicit (overtly agreei­ng/­ado­pting the group's behavior) or implicit (adjusting behavior w/o overt response)

Sherif's Research on the Autoki­netic Phenom­enon:Muzafer Sherif (1937)
invest­igated (1)how norms emerge and (2)their influence on behavior in a social group
In this study, partic­ipants were indivi­dually shown a small dot of light in a dark room and asked to estimate its movement. When partic­ipants were later placed in groups and asked to make their estimates together, they gradually converged on a common estimate, demons­trating the emergence of a group norm. Sherif's study highli­ghted the role of inform­ational social influence, where indivi­duals rely on others' judgments and conform to establish a shared understanding.
Autoki­netic phenomenon- when placed in a completely dark room and exposed to a single, stationary point of light, most people perceive the light as moving about - in the dark room, there are no clear cues to distance or location, this perceived movement is known as the autoki­netic phenomenon

Asch's Research on Confor­mity:focused on unders­tanding conformity in the context of perceptual judgment
Partic­ipants were shown a line and then asked to match it with one of several comparison lines. There were 9 confed­erates (indiv­iduals working with the resear­cher) and 1 partic­ipant in each case, the confed­erate delibe­rately gave incorrect answers. Asch found that partic­ipants often conformed to the incorrect majority answer, even when it was clear that the majority was wrong. This experiment demons­trated the power of normative social influence, where indivi­duals conform to fit in and avoid social disapproval.

Social Founda­tions of Confor­mity:
Normative social influence-confo­rmity driven by the desire to gain social approval, be liked, or avoid social rejection - to 'fit in' and maintain +ve rxns, we alter our behavior to meet others’ expectations
Inform­ational social influence- conform because they believe that others have accurate inform­ation and can provide valuable guidance - based on the desire to possess accurate percep­tions of the social world

Factors Affecting Confor­mity:
Cohesi­veness-degree of attraction and closeness among group members, high levels can increase conformity
Conformity and group size- as group size inc, so does confor­mity. but if the group size is too large, dec in conformity
Descri­ptive norms- reflect what people typically do in a given situation (what most do)
Injunctive norms- reflect what is socially approv­ed/­dis­app­roved (expected behavior)
Normative focus theory- norms will have an influence on behavior only when they are prominent in the minds of the indivi­duals involved at the time of the behavior (norm should be focal/imp thought in their minds)

Why we don't conform:
Power- people with high power/­status conform less
Sexual motives- women find non-co­nfo­rming traits (asser­tive, desicive etc) attractive on men
Desire to be unique- desire to stand out and be distinct- resist conformity

Obedience

act of following the orders, instru­ctions, or commands of an authority figure
can involve actions that may go against an indivi­dual's personal beliefs

Zimbardo's Prison Study (Stanford Prison Experi­ment): Conducted by psycho­logist Philip Zimbardo in 1971
invest­igated the psycho­logical effects of perceived power in a simulated prison environment
Partic­ipants were randomly assigned to play the roles of either prisoners or guards. The study had to be terminated early due to the extreme behavioral changes observed in both groups. The study demons­trated the powerful influence of the social role and the potential for indivi­duals to engage in abusive and dehuma­nizing behaviors when placed in positions of authority.
important conclusion- just because there are social norms and structures in place that create inequality doesn't mean that people automa­tically accept or agree with those inequa­lities - it depends on how muchh they identify with those roles (if they dont, they might resist and fight against the system)

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment (1960s):aimed to study indivi­duals' willin­gness to obey authority figures, even if it meant causing harm to others
Partic­ipants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a person (actually an actor) in another room when they answered questions incorr­ectly. The experiment revealed that a signif­icant proportion of partic­ipants were willing to administer potent­ially lethal shocks when directed by an authority figure, highli­ghting the power of obedience to authority - pressure to obey in this situation was difficult to resist.

Destru­ctive Obedience:obedience that leads to harmful or unethical behaviors
occurs when indivi­duals prioritize obedience to authority over their own moral judgment or empathy towards others

Contri­buting factors:
1. Perceived Legitimacy of Authority - when indivi­duals perceive the authority figure as legitimate and credible - more likely to obey
2. Gradual Commitment - can escalate gradually, with small initial requests leading to larger and more extreme actions - become progre­ssively desens­itized to the harmful nature of their actions
3. Diffusion of Respon­sib­ility - bcz they don't feel respon­sible for their actions - easy to obey
4. Conformity to Group Norms: others within a group obey, they also obey
5. Fast paced events - less time to consider options, more likely to obey

Factors to reduce destru­ctive obedience: to be aware and remind others of-
1. Assume shared respon­sib­ility for actions
2. Beyond a point, obedience is inappropriate
3. Question authority motives
4. Spread awareness to public on this topic