Soc- Social influence
- Created by: Amy
- Created on: 23-12-21 20:42
View mindmap
- Social influence
- Types
- Compliance- behaviour change in a response to an implied social norm without attitude change
- Conformity- attitude/behaviour change in response to am implied social norm
- Obedience- attitude/behaviour change in response to a direct or explicit order
- Expert power
- Bochner & Insko (1966)- ps more accepting of info on sleep when it came from a Nobel prize winning physiologist than from a less prestigious source
- Info lost the power when it became implausible
- Obedience to authority- Milgram (1963 study
- Script of confederate: 150 v- asked to leave, 180 v- can't stand the pain, 300 v- no more answers
- 65% of people obeyed to the end (450 v)
- Explaining obedience
- Cultural norm to obey authority and expect authority figure to be trustworthy and legitimate- study done in the 60s
- Gradual change in instructions
- Shift in agency- ps no longer took responsibility
- Determinants of obedience- modifications eg gender (same), not a legitimate context (decreases), low status of experimenter (decreases), high proximity (increases), support (a confederate also refuses, decreases)
- Ethics- PoP (distress), briefed & debriefed, no evidence of mental illness after, 83.7% glad to have taken part
- Kelman (1967)- reasons for deception
- Script of confederate: 150 v- asked to leave, 180 v- can't stand the pain, 300 v- no more answers
- Conformity- norm development
- groups have consensual and homogenised beliefs
- Sherif (1935)- role of uncertainty, Autokinetic effect, ps converged their answer to others in the group
- Norms as groups attitudes- individual attitudes can change and adapt to form a set of beliefs that define a group, group attitudes= social norms
- Ps were uncertain- other peoples judgements are useful to help us be accurate (the majority is right)
- Postmes et al (2002)- similar effect for attitudes towards legalisation of drugs, monarchy, research on homosexuality
- Provided you could relate to other ps (name, nationality, picture)
- When public & private views diverge
- Asch (1951)- ps had to identify the line of the same length to line x, 18 judgements, 5/6 confederates stated judgements before ps, 2 times they chose correctly then unanimously incorrectly
- Factors influencing conformity- group cohesiveness, group size, social support (Allen & Levine 1971 more conformity with no social support)
- Moderators of conformity- self confidence, task difficulty, cultural norms
- Results- on own 1% of ps made errors, 76% conformed on at least one trial, ps conformed to incorrect majority on 37% of trials
- Asch (1951)- ps had to identify the line of the same length to line x, 18 judgements, 5/6 confederates stated judgements before ps, 2 times they chose correctly then unanimously incorrectly
- Explaining conformity
- Deutsch & Gerard (1955)- two sources of social influence to account for convergence
- Informational- in uncertain situations because of a lack of knowledge (eg Sherif)
- Normative- to gain acceptance, praise and avoid exclusion
- Deutsch & Gerard (1955)- two sources of social influence to account for convergence
- Minority influence
- Consistency and confidence
- Moscovici et al (1969)- asked if different different shades of blue are blue or green, 4 real ps, 2 confederates (went first and said green)
- Consistent wrong answers from confederates led to the greatest amount of conformity (wrong answers), consistency and confidence is key to being credible
- However, majority still subject to normative influence so only private conformity (half conversion as no change in public attitudes)
- Moscovici et al (1969)- asked if different different shades of blue are blue or green, 4 real ps, 2 confederates (went first and said green)
- Compromise
- Divergent thinking (Nemeth 1986)
- Minorities encourage more cognitive processing= better judgement (not necessarily towards the majority view)- broader range of thought, question majority view
- Mass and Clark (1983)- public attitudes reflect that of the majority, private attitudes are that of the majority- used example of gay rights (maj- anti, min- pro)
- Consistency and confidence
- Social impact theory
- Latane (1981)- attempt to explain conformity and obedience in terms of:
- Number- more people/ sources is more impact
- Strength- status, expertise, power lead to more impact
- Immediacy- closer in time and speed lead to more impact
- Latane (1981)- attempt to explain conformity and obedience in terms of:
- Types
Comments
No comments have yet been made