Social influence mind map

?
View mindmap
  • Social Influence
    • Conformity
      • types
        • compliance
          • a superficial change in behaviour only maintained when a group is present
        • Internalisation
          • taking the majority view and behaviour because we believe they are correct, when the group is and isn't present
        • identification
          • changing behaviour and views to a groups because we value the group and want to be accepted by it
      • explanations
        • normative social influence
          • we conform because we want to have social approval
          • + supported by Asch's study, pps said they gave wrong answers for approval
          • - affects are different on individuals depending on how much they care about social approval
        • informational social influence
          • we conform in ambiguous situations because we have a desire to be right and feel the majority have more information than we do
          • + lucas (2005) asked students to answer maths Q in groups, there was higher conformity with harder Qs
          • - individual differences, when individuals are knowledgableor confident they demonstrate less conformity - Perrin and Spencer
      • Asch (1951)
        • 123 male US undergrads
        • 6-8 confederates
        • 12/18 critical trails
        • findings
          • 36.8% rate
          • 75% conformed at least once
        • variations (1955)
          • group size 1=none 2= 13.6% 3=31.8%
          • Unanimity 1 non-conforming confederate = 25% conformity
          • task difficulty - more difficult= more conformity
        • - taska nd situation artificial - demand characteristics so cannot be generalised to life
        • - findings not consistent over time,Prrin and spencer (1980) had a much lower rate, 1950s america was a very conformist society
        • - limited application of findings, only with male, US rate of conformity in women and people from collectivist cultures may be higher
      • Stanford Prison Exp
        • 24 emotionally stable students
        • findings
          • prisoners rebelled after 2 days
          • guards harrased prisoners enforcing their power
        • given numbers and arrested in homes
        • + control of individual differences, randomly assigned prisoner and guards so effects we due to roles
        • - lack of realism, critisised that ppants were play-acting and portraying stereotypes of guards/prisoners
        • -ethical issues,zimbardo did not end the study when he should have
    • Obedience
      • social -psychological factors
        • Agentic state = when a person believes they are acting on anothers behalf
        • Autonomous state = when a person feels responsivble for their actionsand their consequances
        • agentic shift occurs when a person perceives the person giving orders to have authority
        • + research support, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed milgrams to students and they said they thought the experimenter was responsible
        • - limited explaination, doesn't ecplain why some did not obey, not all situations
      • dispositional explaination
        • authoritarian personality, people who had strict parents tend to be highly obedient
          • suggested hostile feelings towrds parents were moved towards other groups making them more succeptible to histility
            • F scale
          • +research support - all who went to 450V scored highly on the F scale, correlation not causation
          • - the f scale is politically biased, only explains obedience to extreme right wing ideology
      • Milgram
        • 40male ppants for a memory study
        • ppant always assigned role of teacher
        • every time learner got wrong shocked
        • when got to 300v learner protested then stopped responding
        • findings
          • 12.5% stopped at 300V
          • 65% completed up to 450V
          • 3 people had seizures
        • - low internal validity, ppants may nnot have belived shocks were real, many expressed doubts
        • + appication to real life, supported by hofling (1966) where 21/22 gave fatal dose when told to, experimenter-teacher relationship similair to others in real life
        • -unethical, lied to, thought teacher larner was random and cause ppants huge amounts of stress
        • 1.please continue, 2. experiment requires you continue, 3. its essential you go on, 4. you have no choice you must continue
    • resistance to social influence
      • social support
        • if there are others in a group we that do not obey/conform then conformity is much lower
          • in an asch type study conformity decreased when another confederate did not conform, even when it was implied they were blind
          • when people were in groups in an obedience study Gamson (1982) found higher levels of resistance 29/33
      • locus of control
        • internal LOC= people feel responsible for their actions
        • external LOC = people eel that other factors affect their behaviour
          • people who have internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform/obeybecause they fell responsibility of their actions
            • internal LOC= people feel responsible for their actions
        • +research support, 37% of people with internal LOC did not continue to 450V wheras 77% of external LOCs did
        • - twenge (2004)analysed US LOC data over 40 yeaers and found people were becoming more external but less obedient
    • minority influence
      • social change

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

Approaches
Teacher recommended
See all Psychology resources »See all Conformity resources »