Social Influence
- Created by: @jasanascu
- Created on: 21-03-17 14:42
View mindmap
- Social Influence
- Conformity types and explanations
- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalisation
- NSI
- ISI
- Compliance or internalisation? may agree publicly but later forget; difficulty identifying types of conformity
- Evidence for NSI; teens exposed to the message that most of their-age-peers did not smoke were less likely to smoke; suggests that they wanted to fit in
- Evidence for ISI; people exposed to negative info about African Americans later reported negative opinions about a black individual; suggests they thought that the informer was correct/an expert
- Variables affecting conformity (Asch)
- Groups of 7; 6 confederates and 1 participant
- 2/3 confederates answered incorrectly
- Matching lines
- 75% conformed at least once
- Control group; participants answered alone
- 37% conformed overall
- Conclusion; conformity was due to NSI
- Evaluation
- High internal validity; high control over EVs; cause and effect
- Artificial task; wouldn't happen in real life; lacks mundane realism; lacks ecological validity
- Unethical; deception; no informed consent
- 'Child of its time'; McCarthyism anti-communist period; people too afraid to not conform with the majority; results may be different now
- Conformity to social roles (Zimbardo)
- Basement corridor of Stanford university converted into mock prison
- Male student volunteers
- Prisoners and guards wore uniforms
- Initially, prisoners rebelled against guards but soon grew passive
- Guards grew increasingly tyrannical and abusive
- Study was terminated after 6 days
- 5 prisoners went home early due to extreme reactions, e.g. acute anxiety, crying, etc.
- Guards would make prisoners carry out debillitating tasks, e.g. wash toilets with bare hands
- One prisoner actually asked for parole
- Conformity to social roles may not be automatic like Zimbardo proposed; some guards actually did favours for the prisoners; therefore, it seems they chose how to behave
- Demand characteristics; Zimbardo was actively involved as the warden so may have influenced participants; therefore, not remained objective
- Ethical?; it met standards of the Stanford University Ethics Committee; however, Zimbardo acknowledged that it should have been shut earlier due to the distress caused
- Situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram)
- Experimenter and learner were confederates
- Real participant was the teacher
- If learner got word pairs wrong, the teacher shocked them
- Max = 450V
- 65% gave 450V
- 100% gave 300V
- If participants were close to the learner, conformity dropped
- If participants were in a run-down office, conformity dropped
- Bickman found that people were more likely to follow orders from a guard than a civillian
- Agentic state and legitimacy of authority
- Agentic state
- Blame people with higher authority
- Don't feel responsible for their actions
- Moving from the autonomous state to the agentic state is called the agentic shift
- People may carry out tasks due to an increase in demands; e.g. Nazi doctors started doing horrible operations but eventually consented to murder; can't explain gradual changes
- You can apply the agentic state to real life; Lt William Calley and his soldiers murdered 500 unarmed villagers, he said later in court that he was only following his superior's orders
- Legitimacy of authority
- Condition for the agentic shift to occur
- People feel rude if they break commitment from a person in authority
- E.g. Milgram's confederate experimenter
- Positive result is that people generally follow police in an emergency; however, it can justify the harm of others; this kind of extreme influence may occur in places like the army
- Agentic state
- The authoritarian personality
- F-scale; assesses authoritarian characteristics
- Traits: stick to traditional values, dislike those of a lower social class, submissive towards authority figures, etc.
- Milgram and Elms
- Follow-up from Milgram's electric shock study
- 20 obedient ps and 20 disobedient peers
- Higher levels of authoritarian traits among obedient ps (high F-scale scores)
- No differences between MMPI scores
- Obedient ps reported being less close to their fathers during childhood and were more likely to view authority figures as admirable
- All ps were male; sample not representative; gender bias
- Testing characteristics; they aren't changed by the experimenter; can't claim cause and effect
- Other research has found evidence to suggest that authoritarian traits are caused by poor education; contradicting Milgram's findings
- Resistance to social influence
- Social support
- Allies make you feel more confident to stand your ground
- Asch found that conformity levels dropped if you had an ally
- Milgram found the same as Asch
- Locus of control
- Internality; people who are likely to take responsibility for their actions, fate, etc
- Externality; people who are likely to blame external forces, e.g. luck, for their fate, actions, etc.
- Evaluation
- Allen and Levine; response position of ally affects conformity; if ally answered first, conformity with the majority was lowest; first answer either confirms or discourages the person's opinion
- Allen and Levine investigated the validity of social support; visual task, ally wearing glasses was less effective than ally without; suggests social support doesn't have to be valid but valid social support is more effective
- Locus of control is related only to NSI; externals are more likely to conform; he didn't find this link between ISI and internality
- People have become more external; young Americans increasingly believe that their fate is sealed by luck; this may be due to young people experiencing alienation
- Social support
- Minority influence
- Consistency
- Commitment
- Untitled
- Moscovici et al
- Groups of 4 ps and 2 confederates
- 1st condition; confederates always said green
- Shown series of blue slides in varied shades
- 2nd condition; confederates said green on 2/3
- Consistent minority influenced ps to say green 8%
- Inconsistent minority influenced 1%
- Control group; no one said green
- Evaluation
- Research evidence for flexibility; found confederate who compromised influenced more than the one who didn't; however this was only effective if the confederate compromised later in the negotiation
- Nemeth said minorities 'open the minds' of the majority; found improved decision quality if exposed to a minority; suggests minorities are important influencers
- Minorities may not influence as effectively as majorities; minority members seen as 'deviant'; means people are less likely to join a minority and are much more likely to join a majority so they are accepted
- Social change
- Minority influence
- 1. Drawing attention to an issue
- 2. Cognitive conflict
- 3. Consistency
- 4. The augmentation principle; willingness to suffer
- 5. Snowball effect; more and more join the minority
- Social influence through minority influence may be very gradual; strong tendency to conform to majority; groups are less likely to engage in social change
- Evaluation
- The fear of being perceived as 'deviant' limits the effect of minorities; members of the majority may avoid alligning with the minority; majorities may be able to more effectively create social change
- Minority influence
- 1. Drawing attention to an issue
- 2. Cognitive conflict
- 3. Consistency
- 4. The augmentation principle; willingness to suffer
- 5. Snowball effect; more and more join the minority
- Social influence through minority influence may be very gradual; strong tendency to conform to majority; groups are less likely to engage in social change
- Evaluation
- The fear of being perceived as 'deviant' limits the effect of minorities; members of the majority may avoid alligning with the minority; majorities may be able to more effectively create social change
- Not all social norms interventions have led to social change; no one showed lower levels of drinking at uni after a campaign against it
- Social norms interventions
- The fear of being perceived as 'deviant' limits the effect of minorities; members of the majority may avoid alligning with the minority; majorities may be able to more effectively create social change
- Evaluation
- Social influence through minority influence may be very gradual; strong tendency to conform to majority; groups are less likely to engage in social change
- Minority influence
- Not all social norms interventions have led to social change; no one showed lower levels of drinking at uni after a campaign against it
- Social norms interventions
- The fear of being perceived as 'deviant' limits the effect of minorities; members of the majority may avoid alligning with the minority; majorities may be able to more effectively create social change
- Evaluation
- Social influence through minority influence may be very gradual; strong tendency to conform to majority; groups are less likely to engage in social change
- Majority influence
- Minority influence
- Conformity types and explanations
Comments
No comments have yet been made