Social Norms
- Explain social learning theory, making reference to two relevant studies.
Social and cultural norms
Definition of norm: A norm is a set of rules based on socially or culturally shared beliefs oh how an individual ought to behave. Being social animals, the need to belong plays a strong role in the desire to conform in group norms.
Social learning theory
Albert Bandura came up wit the social learning theory. The theory assumes that humans learn behavior through observational learning- this means that people can learn by watching models and imitating their behavior.
According to Bandura, social learning involves the following factor
1. Attention: The person must first pay attention to the model
2. Retention: The observer must be able to remember the behavior that has been observed
3. Motor reproduction: The observer has to be able to replicate the action
4. Motivation: Learners must want to demonstrate what they have learned.
There are several factors which may influence whether or not the observer decides to imitate and learn.
1. Consistency: If the model behaves in a way that is consistent across situations, than if the model behaves in different ways depending on the situation.
2. Identification with the model: There is a tendency to imitate models that are like us.
3. Rewards/punishment: Bandura argues that people can learn from observing what happens to others, they don’t have to experience the consequences themselves. This is called vicarious reinforcement.
4. Liking the model: warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models.
Research in psychology
Name: “Bobo doll” experiment
Researchers: Bandura et al.
Date: 1961
Definition: People can learn by watching models and imitating their behavior
Aim: Bandura tried and prove that children would copy an adult role model's behavior.
Method: The participants for the experiment were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled at the Stanford University Nursery School. The children ranged in age between 3 and almost 6 years, and the average participant age was 4 years 4 months. There were a total of eight experimental groups. Out of these participants, 24 were assigned to a control group that received no treatment. The rest of the children were then divided into two groups of 24 participants each. One of the experimental groups was then exposed to aggressive models, while the other 24 children were exposed to non-aggressive models.
Finally, these groups were divided again into groups of boys and girls. Each of these groups was then divided so that half of the participants were exposed to a same-sex adult model and the other half was exposed to an opposite-sex adult model.
Results: Children who observed the aggressive models made far more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the non-aggressive or control groups. The girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female. Boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models than girls. Boys imitated more physically aggressive acts than girls
Conclusion: The findings support Bandura's Social Learning Theory, a behaviorist theory. That is, children learn social behavior such as aggression through the process of observation learning - through watching the behavior of another person.
Evaluation:
Name: Social learning theory in real life
Researcher: Huesmann and Eron
Date: 1986
Definition: What kind of correlation is there between the number of hours of violence watched on television and the level of aggression demonstrated in children.
Aim: Longitudinal study discovering the correlation between the number of hours of violence watched on television and the level of aggression demonstrated in children.
Method: The study is longitudinal which is basically monitoring children’s behavior over a 15-year old period.
Results: They found a positive correlation between the number of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they were teenagers. They also found that those who watched a lot of television violence when they were 8 years old were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults.
Conclusion: There is a positive correlation between between the number of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they were teenagers, therefore, when the number of hours of violence watched on television goes up, the level of aggression demonstrated goes up as well.
Definition of norm: A norm is a set of rules based on socially or culturally shared beliefs oh how an individual ought to behave. Being social animals, the need to belong plays a strong role in the desire to conform in group norms.
Social learning theory
Albert Bandura came up wit the social learning theory. The theory assumes that humans learn behavior through observational learning- this means that people can learn by watching models and imitating their behavior.
According to Bandura, social learning involves the following factor
1. Attention: The person must first pay attention to the model
2. Retention: The observer must be able to remember the behavior that has been observed
3. Motor reproduction: The observer has to be able to replicate the action
4. Motivation: Learners must want to demonstrate what they have learned.
There are several factors which may influence whether or not the observer decides to imitate and learn.
1. Consistency: If the model behaves in a way that is consistent across situations, than if the model behaves in different ways depending on the situation.
2. Identification with the model: There is a tendency to imitate models that are like us.
3. Rewards/punishment: Bandura argues that people can learn from observing what happens to others, they don’t have to experience the consequences themselves. This is called vicarious reinforcement.
4. Liking the model: warm and friendly models are more likely to be imitated than cold, uncaring models.
Research in psychology
Name: “Bobo doll” experiment
Researchers: Bandura et al.
Date: 1961
Definition: People can learn by watching models and imitating their behavior
Aim: Bandura tried and prove that children would copy an adult role model's behavior.
Method: The participants for the experiment were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled at the Stanford University Nursery School. The children ranged in age between 3 and almost 6 years, and the average participant age was 4 years 4 months. There were a total of eight experimental groups. Out of these participants, 24 were assigned to a control group that received no treatment. The rest of the children were then divided into two groups of 24 participants each. One of the experimental groups was then exposed to aggressive models, while the other 24 children were exposed to non-aggressive models.
Finally, these groups were divided again into groups of boys and girls. Each of these groups was then divided so that half of the participants were exposed to a same-sex adult model and the other half was exposed to an opposite-sex adult model.
Results: Children who observed the aggressive models made far more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the non-aggressive or control groups. The girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female. Boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models than girls. Boys imitated more physically aggressive acts than girls
Conclusion: The findings support Bandura's Social Learning Theory, a behaviorist theory. That is, children learn social behavior such as aggression through the process of observation learning - through watching the behavior of another person.
Evaluation:
- Limitations: low ecologically validity, the experiment was unethical
- Strengths: It allows for precise control of variables, Experiments can be replicated, Experiments are the only means by which cause and effect can be established.
Name: Social learning theory in real life
Researcher: Huesmann and Eron
Date: 1986
Definition: What kind of correlation is there between the number of hours of violence watched on television and the level of aggression demonstrated in children.
Aim: Longitudinal study discovering the correlation between the number of hours of violence watched on television and the level of aggression demonstrated in children.
Method: The study is longitudinal which is basically monitoring children’s behavior over a 15-year old period.
Results: They found a positive correlation between the number of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they were teenagers. They also found that those who watched a lot of television violence when they were 8 years old were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults.
Conclusion: There is a positive correlation between between the number of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they were teenagers, therefore, when the number of hours of violence watched on television goes up, the level of aggression demonstrated goes up as well.
- Discuss the use of compliance techniques (for example, lowballing, foot-in-the-door, reciprocity).
Compliance is an important aspect of behavior within a group. One of the leading researchers in the psychology of persuasion, Robert Cialdini, has outlined compliance techniques, or ways in which individuals are influenced to comply with the demands or desires of others. Cialdini outlines six factors that influence the likelihood that people will comply with a request:
Commitment
Commitment is characterized as being consistent with previous behavior. Cialdini argues that once people make a choice or take a stand, they will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Kurt Lewin (1951) argued that behavior is motivated by goal gradients. The longer people commit themselves to something, the less likely they are to abandon the goal.
Example: waiting in a queue that is not moving. The longer one stands in line, the less likely he/she is to give up and live the queue.
Getting people to make a commitment to something small, with the hope of persuading them to agree to something larger often employs the foot-in-the-door technique.
Example. Dickerson et al. (1992) carried out the study that supports this view. They wanted to see if they could get university students to conserve water in the dormitory showers. To do so, they asked them to sign a poster that said, “Take shorter showers. If I can do it, so can you!” Then they asked them take a survey designed to make them think about their own water wastage. Their shower times were then monitored. Students who had signed the poster and then been forced to think about their own water usage had average shower times of about 3.5 minutes. This was significantly shorter than the average shower time across the dormitories as a whole. Limitation if this study is that the students might have signed the poster because they already had a commitment to the cause.
Another technique, low-balling was demonstrated by Cialdini et al. (1974) in a university setting. They asked a class of first-year psychology students to volunteer to be part of a study on cognition that would meet at 7am. Only 24 per cent were willing to leave that early in the morning support research in psychology. In a second group they were asked the same favor but without the time specifies. In this case, 56 per cent agreed to take part. When they were told that they would have to meet at 7am, and that they could back out if they wished, no one backed out of their commitment. On the meeting, 95 per cent of the students who had promised to come showed up for the appointment.
A controversial example is door-in-the-face technique that can be explained by the reciprocity principle – that is: the social norm that we should treat others the way they treat us. In this technique, a request is made which will surely be turned down. Then a second request is made which asks less of someone. People are more likely to accept the second request because they feel that the person has already lowered the request in order to accommodate them.
Example. Posing as representatives of the “Country Youth Counseling Program”, Cialdini et al. (1975) stopped university students on campus and asked them if they would be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo – 83 per cent refused to volunteer. Another time they stopped students and first asked if they would be willing to sign up to work for two hours per week as counselors for a minimum of two years – no one agreed to volunteer. But when they followed up the students’ refusal with the request to take the juvenile delinquents to the zoo, approximately 50 per cent of student agreed to serve as chaperones.
- Authority: People comply more often with those in positions of some authority.
- Commitment: Once people have agreed to something, either by they behavior or by a statement of belief, they are likely to comply with similar requests.
- Liking: People comply with requests from people they like.
- Reciprocity: People often feel they need to “return a favor”.
- Scarcity: Opportunities seem more valuable to people when they are less readily available.
- Social proof: People view a behavior as correct if the see others performing it.
Commitment
Commitment is characterized as being consistent with previous behavior. Cialdini argues that once people make a choice or take a stand, they will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Kurt Lewin (1951) argued that behavior is motivated by goal gradients. The longer people commit themselves to something, the less likely they are to abandon the goal.
Example: waiting in a queue that is not moving. The longer one stands in line, the less likely he/she is to give up and live the queue.
Getting people to make a commitment to something small, with the hope of persuading them to agree to something larger often employs the foot-in-the-door technique.
Example. Dickerson et al. (1992) carried out the study that supports this view. They wanted to see if they could get university students to conserve water in the dormitory showers. To do so, they asked them to sign a poster that said, “Take shorter showers. If I can do it, so can you!” Then they asked them take a survey designed to make them think about their own water wastage. Their shower times were then monitored. Students who had signed the poster and then been forced to think about their own water usage had average shower times of about 3.5 minutes. This was significantly shorter than the average shower time across the dormitories as a whole. Limitation if this study is that the students might have signed the poster because they already had a commitment to the cause.
Another technique, low-balling was demonstrated by Cialdini et al. (1974) in a university setting. They asked a class of first-year psychology students to volunteer to be part of a study on cognition that would meet at 7am. Only 24 per cent were willing to leave that early in the morning support research in psychology. In a second group they were asked the same favor but without the time specifies. In this case, 56 per cent agreed to take part. When they were told that they would have to meet at 7am, and that they could back out if they wished, no one backed out of their commitment. On the meeting, 95 per cent of the students who had promised to come showed up for the appointment.
A controversial example is door-in-the-face technique that can be explained by the reciprocity principle – that is: the social norm that we should treat others the way they treat us. In this technique, a request is made which will surely be turned down. Then a second request is made which asks less of someone. People are more likely to accept the second request because they feel that the person has already lowered the request in order to accommodate them.
Example. Posing as representatives of the “Country Youth Counseling Program”, Cialdini et al. (1975) stopped university students on campus and asked them if they would be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo – 83 per cent refused to volunteer. Another time they stopped students and first asked if they would be willing to sign up to work for two hours per week as counselors for a minimum of two years – no one agreed to volunteer. But when they followed up the students’ refusal with the request to take the juvenile delinquents to the zoo, approximately 50 per cent of student agreed to serve as chaperones.
- Evaluate research on conformity to group norms.
Social influence: conformity
Research in psychology
Name: Asch experiment
Researcher: Asch
Date: 1951
Definition: the power of conformity in groups.
Aim: wanted to find out to what extent a person would conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous.
Method: The participant entered the room where six people and a researcher sat. the men in the room was dressed like a businessman, in suits and ties. These men were part of the study, and they were playing an unknown role to the participant. They were confederates, which helped the researcher to deceive the participant. The group was told that they were going to take part in a psychological experiment on visual judgment. The participant was asked to select the line from the second card that matched the length of the line on the first card. There were 18 trials. In some trials, the differences in lines were hardly noticeable, but in other trials differences were clear. The goal was to see if the participant would conform to the wrong answers given by the confederates, even when it was very clear that this response was incorrect.
Results: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials. Over the 12 critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% of participant never conformed.
Conclusion: people conform, and they do it for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group (normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are (informational influence).
Evaluation: Limitations: Population validity- The participants were all young male students from the same American university. Ecological validity- Judging the length of lines is not really an everyday task that people regularly participate in. Ethical considerations- Participants were deceived into believing they were taking part in a ‘visual judgment’ and were not informed that it was a study of conformity.
- Conformity- tendency to adjust one’s thoughts, feelings, or behavior in ways that are in agreement with those of a particular individual or group, or with accepted standards about how a person should behave in specific situations.
- Peer pressure- is used to describe the conformity seen in schools, but conformity occurs at all levels of society and is not always simply about the need to fit in with a group of friends at school.
Research in psychology
Name: Asch experiment
Researcher: Asch
Date: 1951
Definition: the power of conformity in groups.
Aim: wanted to find out to what extent a person would conform to an incorrect answer on a test if the response from the other members of the group was unanimous.
Method: The participant entered the room where six people and a researcher sat. the men in the room was dressed like a businessman, in suits and ties. These men were part of the study, and they were playing an unknown role to the participant. They were confederates, which helped the researcher to deceive the participant. The group was told that they were going to take part in a psychological experiment on visual judgment. The participant was asked to select the line from the second card that matched the length of the line on the first card. There were 18 trials. In some trials, the differences in lines were hardly noticeable, but in other trials differences were clear. The goal was to see if the participant would conform to the wrong answers given by the confederates, even when it was very clear that this response was incorrect.
Results: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials. Over the 12 critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% of participant never conformed.
Conclusion: people conform, and they do it for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group (normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are (informational influence).
Evaluation: Limitations: Population validity- The participants were all young male students from the same American university. Ecological validity- Judging the length of lines is not really an everyday task that people regularly participate in. Ethical considerations- Participants were deceived into believing they were taking part in a ‘visual judgment’ and were not informed that it was a study of conformity.
- Discuss factors influencing conformity (for example, culture, groupthink, risky shift, minority influence).