Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

The Influence that Personal Implication has on Social Norm Deviance

No description
by

Tiante' Weaver

on 7 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of The Influence that Personal Implication has on Social Norm Deviance

The Influence that Personal Implication has on Social Norm Deviance Goldberg's Experiment Social Norms He wanted to study the conditions in which people within a group conform to social norms Social Control When an individual within a society shows dissatisfaction to another for their deviance towards a social norm so the individual may conform to that norm Brauer and Chekroun's Experiment 3 years later Cohesiveness Research have been shown that the more the individuals feel comfortable with one another the more likely they will be to intervene; this is known as cohesiveness Rutkowski, Gruder and Romer's Experiment Wanted to look at group cohesiveness and social responsibility and how they both interact with each other Three hypotheses: Social Norms are unwritten rules that society expects one to follow regarding how one should behave Some people will break these rules which is known as deviance while others will conform to these rules He looked at three variables: -The amount of occurrences a subject has been exposed to social norms -The extent to which an individual agrees or disagrees with the social norm (distance) -The size of the group the individuals are in He found: -Subjects were likely to conform to the group within the first few times they were exposed -The more subjects disagreed with the social norm the more likely they were to conform -The number of people that were in the group did not show any significance Chekroun and Brauer's Experiment They wanted to examine if people feel that they should intervene with social norm deviance because they feel that they are personally implicated by the deviance -The results suggested that the more people feel personally implicated by the deviance the more likely they will be to intervene -They also found that the participants underestimated what they would do in real life situations from the written situations They conducted another experiment to further look at how individuals react based upon how they viewed the level of deviance -The participants intervened more when they felt the behavior to be more deviant and they felt more personally implicated This allows them to feel more comfortable with each other and they are able to handle the situation appropriately. They believed that bystanders who are more cohesive will want to help others in an emergency because they feel responsible Found that high cohesiveness does positively influence when individuals help victims no matter if alone or among others In my research study -To give evidence that when college students are personally implicated by an incentive they will exert more social control by leaving comments about the social norm deviance than when there is no incentive -To give evidence that when college students are personally implicated by an incentive their viewpoint on social norm deviance will be more against the deviant behavior than when there is no incentive -To give evidence that college student's viewpoint on social norm deviance will not be related to how they exert social control Methods Participants: -Undergraduate college students
-Age: 18 to 25 years old
-Two psychology classes
-Control group: 12 students
Experimental group: 14 students Materials: -Demographic Questionnaire: age, sex, ethnicity, religion, and grade
-Written Instruments: questions to assess their knowledge of social norms and two scenarios to assess their viewpoint
-Comments: asked to leave any additional comments concerning the assessment Experimental Condition: -Informed to complete the assessment
-Received the independent variable
-The incentive was extra credit for the class Control Condition: -Informed to complete the assessment
- Were not told about the incentive Procedure: -Informed to complete the assessment
-Randomly assigned for the first classroom to be the control group
-Experimental group the second classroom received the incentive
-Teacher and I left the classroom
-The two confederates then asked the answer to one of the questions and gave the answer out loud
-Confederates were there to see if participants would leave comments; exerting social control of the deviant behavior Results Effect of Personal Implication on Exerting Social Control -Hypothesis: When college students are personally implicated by an incentive they would exert more social control by leaving comments about the deviant behavior than when there was no incentive -Independent Samples t-test:
M=1.86 (SD=.36) for the incentive group
M=2 (SD=.001) for the no incentive group
No significant difference between the two groups, t(24)=-1.47, p>.05 Effect of Personal Implication on Viewpoint Scores -Hypothesis: When college students are personally implicated by an incentive their viewpoint on the deviant behavior would be more against the behavior than when there was no incentive -Independent Samples t-test:
M=20.29 (SD=12.82) for the incentive group
M=31.42 (SD=12.37) for the no incentive group
Significant difference between the two groups, t(24)=-2.24, p>.05 Correlation between Viewpoint Scores and Comments -Hypothesis: College student's viewpoint on the deviant behavior would not be related to how they exerted social control -Pearson's correlation analysis:
No Significant Correlation between viewpoint scores and comments, r=-.07, p>.05 Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate how personal implication can influence the way people react to social norms deviance In the first hypothesis the null was accepted because the participants did not leave comments at the end of the assessment like it was expected Why:
-This could have been due to the incentive and the deviant behavior not being strong enough
(In previous research (Chekroun & Brauer, 2002) they identified that the more people feel personally implicated by the deviance the more likely they will be to intervene) In the second hypothesis the null was rejected because there was a significant difference between the incentive and the no incentive groups viewpoints Why:
-Since the students were imagining themselves being on their campus with the two scenarios, cohesiveness could have had an effect
(In previous research (Rutkowski et al., 1983) they identified that the more cohesive you are with the people who you are surrounded by the more likely you are to intervene In the third hypothesis the null was rejected because how the participants viewed the two scenarios did not relate to them leaving comments about the deviant behavior in the classroom Why:
-No matter what group participants were in their viewpoint did not correlate with them leaving comments
(In previous research (Chekroun & Brauer, 2002) they identified that people tend to underestimate what they will do in real life situations from the written situations Conclusion -Personal Implication can influence the way people react to social norm deviance
-The more the individual feels personally implicated the more they will exert social control Limitations and Future Directions -The deviant behavior and incentive may not have been strong enough
-Students may not have connected the deviant behavior with leaving any additional comments in the study
-Other students may have been cheating themselves which may be the reason why they did not leave any comments -Could benefit from doing a different deviant behavior outside the classroom
-Or if you use this behavior have more than two classes
-Make the incentive stronger (some people may not have needed the extra credit)
-Measuring the exerting social control could have been better Personal Implication When an individual feels personally responsible to intervene due to an incentive or because they that it is their duty
Full transcript