SOCIAL INFLUENCE
- Created by: beckyyatess
- Created on: 13-12-17 17:56
View mindmap
- SOCIAL INFLUENCE
- Conformity
- Types and explanations
- InternalisationIdentification. Compliance
- Research support
- ISI: Lucas et al - maths problems
- NSI: Asch - found that participants went along with the wrong answer just because other people did
- Individual differences
- ISI: Perrin and spencer
- NSI: nAffiliators
- Asch;s research
- Procedure: 1 standard line / 3 comparison - 123 American undergraduates - 6-8 confederates - 18 trials and 12 critical trials
- Findings: wrong answer 36.8% of the time - 75% conformed at least once
- Variations: Group size, task difficulty and unanimity
- Child of its time
- Limited application of findings
- Artificial situation and task
- Findings only apply to certain situations
- Artificial situation and task
- Limited application of findings
- Zimbardo's research
- Procedure: Mock prison, emotionally stable
- Findings: 1) guards took up roles with enthusiasm 2) stopped after 6/14 days 3) one prisoner released after 1 day (psychological disturbance)
- Conclusion: revealed power of situation
- Control
- Lack of realism
- Ethical issues
- Lack of realism
- Types and explanations
- Obedience
- Milgram
- Procedure: 40 males aged 20-50 - adverts and $4.50 - rigged draw - Mr Wallace always the learner - experimenter - lab coat - given shocks after incorrect answers - 30 levels - after 315 volts learner pounded on the wall and gave no further answers
- Findings: NOT EXPECTED, no participants stopped below 300v - 65% continued to highest level
- Low internal validity - orne and Holland - participants didn't believe set up
- Good external validity - Hofling et al
- Supporting replication: jeu de la mort
- Situational variables
- Proximity
- Original = ajoining rooms Variation = same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40% (extreme version, forced hand down and 3rd variation telephone instruction resulted in further reduction
- Location
- obedience dropped to 47.5%
- Uniform
- "member of public" obedience dropped to 20%
- Research support - field experiment in NYC - jacket and tie, milkman and security guard
- Lack of internal validity: didn't believe set up in variations either
- control: systematically altered one variable at a time
- Lack of internal validity: didn't believe set up in variations either
- Proximity
- Milgram
- Resistance to social influence
- Social support
- Obedience - helps participant to resist if someone disobeys
- Conformity: pressure to conform reduced with dissenter - acts as a model - HOWEVER if dissenter conforms again so does participant
- Locus of Control
- Rotter
- Internals - things that happen are under their control
- Externals - things that happen are out of their control
- Continuum
- Resistance to social influence
- Internal LOC More likely to resist pressures
- High internal LOC more self confident, more achievement orientated, higher intelligence and less need for social approval
- Rotter
- 1. Resistance to conformity research support
- Allen and Levine - conformity decreased with dissenter even when they wore glasses and said they couldn't see well
- 2. resistance to obedience research support
- Gamson et al - 29/33 groups rebelled with peer support
- 3. research support
- supports link between LOC and resistance to obedience - Holland found 37% of internals did not continue to highest level which was more than the externals - internals greater resistance
- 4. contradictory research
- Twenge et al - data from LOC studies over a 40 year period - become more resistant but more external
- Social support
- Minority influence
- Moscovici et al - blue green slide study
- Procedure: 6 participants viewed 36 blue slides that carried in intensity - 2 confederates who consistently said slide were green on 2/3 of trials
- Findings: gave same wrong anser on 8% of trials and 32% gave same answer as minority on at least one trial
- - second group exposed to inconsistent minority (agreement fell to 1.25%
- third control group with no confederates (only got an incorrect answer 0.25% of the time
- - second group exposed to inconsistent minority (agreement fell to 1.25%
- Factors that affect minority influence
- Consistency
- Synchronic consistency - all saying same thing
- Diachronic consistency - all saying some thing for a while
- Commitment
- Flexibility
- being extremely consistent can be seen as rigid / inflexible - prepared to adapt
- 1. Research support for consistency
- wood et al - meta analysis found minorities who were more consistent were most influential
- 2. research support for depth of thought
- Martin et al (see flashcards)
- 3. artificial task
- can't generalise
- 4. Research support for internalisation
- allowed to write answers down - agreement with minority greater - due to not wanted to be associated with minority for fear of being "radical" or " awkward"
- Consistency
- Special role of minority influence (the African-american civil rights movement)
- 1. Drawing attention - 1950s black separation in American - civil rights marches drew attention by providing social proof
- 2. Consistency - many marches and many people taking part
- 3. deeper processing - the attention meant more people began to think about the unjustness
- 4. Augmentation principle - risked their lives eg "freedom rides" got on buses
- 5. Snowball effect - MLK pressed for changes and got attention from US government - in 1964 civil rights act was passed
- 6. social cryptoamnesia
- 5. Snowball effect - MLK pressed for changes and got attention from US government - in 1964 civil rights act was passed
- 4. Augmentation principle - risked their lives eg "freedom rides" got on buses
- 3. deeper processing - the attention meant more people began to think about the unjustness
- 2. Consistency - many marches and many people taking part
- 1. Research support for NSI - \Nolan et al - energy consumption - decreases in energy consumption in those who knew about what others were doing
- 2. MI is only indirectly effective - they are delayed bc the effects may not be seen for some time
- limitation to explain social change with MI bc its effects are fragile and role is limited
- 3. role of deeper processing - Mackie - evidence that majority influence may create a deeper processing
- central element of MI has been challenged - casts doubt on validity of moscovicis theory
- 4. methodological issues - all studies can be evaluated and this is just as applicable here
- we like to think that people share same views as us
- 2. MI is only indirectly effective - they are delayed bc the effects may not be seen for some time
- 1. Drawing attention - 1950s black separation in American - civil rights marches drew attention by providing social proof
- Moscovici et al - blue green slide study
- Conformity
Comments
No comments have yet been made