Social influence
- Created by: Georginaawilkins
- Created on: 04-06-19 22:34
View mindmap
- Social influence
- Conformity: Types and explanations
- Types
- Internalisation: Take on majority view because we accept it as correct. Leads to permanent change. Happens subconsciously and consciously
- Compliance: Temporary type of conformity. Outwardly go along with majority view but privately disagree. Happens unconciously
- Identification:Act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be a part of it. Don't agree with everything they believe. Happens consciously
- Explanations
- Informational Social Influence (ISI)- We agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct, we accept it because we want it to be right
- Normative Social Influence (NSI)– we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance
- Evaluation
- ISI – (Lucas et al) greater conformity to incorrect maths answers than easier ones, especially for those who rated their ability as poor. Shows that people conform when they don't know the answer – which is the outcome predicted by the ISI explanation.
- NSI – (Teevan et al) does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way – people who are less concerned about being liked conform less than those who do. nAffiliators.
- ISI and NSI work together – conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenter. This may be because the dissenter provides social support (reduced NSI) or because there is an alternative source of information (reduced ISI) this makes it hard to know whether a P is conforming because of ISI or NSI.
- Conformity– a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people. Elliot Aronson 2011
- Types
- Conformity: Asch's research
- Procedure: 123 American Male Under graduate students. Groups of 6. 5 confederates and 1 participants. Standard line and comparison lines- clear correct answer
- Findings: P gave wrong answer 36.8% of the time. 25% did not conform, 75% conformed at least once. After interview, most said they conformed due to NSI.
- Variations
- Group size – the bigger the groups of confederates, the more conformity. But it doesn’t change after going past 3.
- Unanimity – dissenter reduced conformity
- Difficulty of task – greater the difficulty, higher the confo
- Evaluation
- Spencer et al repeated experiment, only 1 student out of 396 conformed. Today’s society is less conformist.
- Artificial situation and task – demand characteristics.
- Study done on men, in an individualist culture, other studies done in collectivist culture showed conformity was higher.
- Procedure: 123 American Male Under graduate students. Groups of 6. 5 confederates and 1 participants. Standard line and comparison lines- clear correct answer
- Investigation into social roles: Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment
- Social roles –the ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations of what we and other people have.
- Findings: experiment had to be stopped after 6 days instead of 14. Guards became increasingly brutal; prisoners became increasingly withdrawn and depressed.P’s conformed to their roles as guards or prisoners.
- Behaviour may be determined by social roles.
- Randomly divided group. Prisoners- called by number and Guards- given sunglasses to show social hierarchy
- Evaluation
- Lack of realism – p’s were play acting their roles according to media-derived stereotypes
- Only 1/3 of guards were brutal- conclusions exaggerated
- Ethical issues – student that wanted to leave spoke to Zimbardo as a superintendent and Zimbardo responded as a superintendent.
- High validity – roles were randomly assigned.
- Ethical issues – student that wanted to leave spoke to Zimbardo as a superintendent and Zimbardo responded as a superintendent.
- Only 1/3 of guards were brutal- conclusions exaggerated
- Lack of realism – p’s were play acting their roles according to media-derived stereotypes
- Obedience- Milgram
- Obedience – a form of influence in which an individual follows an order by someone of a higher authority than them who has the ability to punish
- Findings – 65% gave highest shock of 450V; all gave shocks up to 300V, and many showed signs of anxiety.
- Evaluation
- Le Jeu de la Mort- French TV- 80 percent of ppt gave a fatal electric shock to an uncurious man while being cheered on by TV presenter and audience
- P’s realised shocks were fake – but replication with real shocks showed similar results.
- Ethical issues – deception of the P.
- Good external validity – 21/22 nurses obey doctor in a hospital (Hofling et al)
- Ethical issues – deception of the P.
- P’s realised shocks were fake – but replication with real shocks showed similar results.
- Le Jeu de la Mort- French TV- 80 percent of ppt gave a fatal electric shock to an uncurious man while being cheered on by TV presenter and audience
- Situational variables
- Proximity – Obedience decreased to 40% when teacher (P) could hear the learner. It was also reduced to 30% when the proximity was touch-distance
- ‘Obedience alibi’ - I was just following orders – seen with Nazis during and after the Holocaust.
- Location – Obedience decreased to 47.5% when experiment took place in a rundown office.
- Cross-cultural findings support Milgram
- But cultures were similar to the USA so not generalisable
- Cross-cultural findings support Milgram
- Uniform – obedience decreased to 20% when ‘member of the public’ was the experimenter.
- Bickman showed effect of uniform on obedience.
- Lack of internal validity – some p’s knew experiment was fake, especially with Uniform variation
- Proximity – Obedience decreased to 40% when teacher (P) could hear the learner. It was also reduced to 30% when the proximity was touch-distance
- Obedience- Social- psychological factors
- Obedience is due to the influence of other people.
- Agentic State – state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we believe we are acting for an authority figure. – opposite is the autonomous
- Legitimacy of Authority – we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us (higher in the social hierarchy). Some people use this
- Binding factors– aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore/minimise the effect of their behaviour and reducing the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling. E.g. Nazi’s saying the Jews deserved it
- Evaluation
- Blass et al showed video of Milgram's study to students, they said the Experimenter was to blame – legitimacy of authority.
- Cultural differences – 16% of P’s in Australia went to highest voltage, 85% of Germans – shows different cultures have different social structures etc. – high validity.
- Agentic shift does not explain why some people don’t obey. – only accounts for some situations of obedience.
- Shows behaviour of Nazi’s cannot be explained in terms of Agentic shift – some shot down civilians without orders.
- Agentic shift does not explain why some people don’t obey. – only accounts for some situations of obedience.
- Cultural differences – 16% of P’s in Australia went to highest voltage, 85% of Germans – shows different cultures have different social structures etc. – high validity.
- Blass et al showed video of Milgram's study to students, they said the Experimenter was to blame – legitimacy of authority.
- Obedience- Dispositional factors
- Obedience is due to factors within the individual.
- Social identity theory - behaviour is motivated by your social identity. Self image has 2 components – personal identity (your characteristics and achievements) and social identity (where you belong in social groups)
- Authoritarian Personality – type of personality that is susceptible to obeying people in authority. They are thought to be submissive to those of a higher status and dismissive of inferiors. Characteristics: extreme respect for authority and obedience to it, score high on the F-scale. Positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.Origin: harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced to those lower in the social hierarchy (scapegoating)
- Evaluation
- Some of Milgram’s obedient P’s had authoritarian personalities (Elms)
- Can’t explain increase in obedience across a whole culture (Nazi’s) – better explanation is social identity theory
- Authoritarian personality ? right wing ideology ignores extreme left-wing authoritarianism bolshevism. When study took place- 1950's America- anti McCarthyismwas there. People more likely to conform. Lacks temporal validity.
- Can’t explain increase in obedience across a whole culture (Nazi’s) – better explanation is social identity theory
- Some of Milgram’s obedient P’s had authoritarian personalities (Elms)
- Resistance to social influence
- Social support– the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others do the same, they act as models
- This reduces conformity from 65% to 10% in Milgram’s study. Other person’s disobedience acts as a ‘model’ for the P to copy and relieves social pressure
- Research support – Allen et al fund conformity decreased in Asch-type study, even if the dissenting participant was not credible (said they had bad vision) Gamson et al also showed this (88% of p’s resisted when they were in groups
- This reduces conformity from 65% to 10% in Milgram’s study. Other person’s disobedience acts as a ‘model’ for the P to copy and relieves social pressure
- Locus of control
- Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens (internal LOC). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces that are responsible
- People who have an internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey; they take more personal responsibility for their actions so will not rely on others to make a decision. They are more confident and achievement orientated, have higher intelligence and less need for social approval.
- Research support – Holland showed internals less likely to obey in Milgram-type procedure
- Contradictory research – Twenge et al showed people have become more external and disobedient recently
- Limited role – past experiences of obedience play more of a role than LOC
- Contradictory research – Twenge et al showed people have become more external and disobedient recently
- Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens (internal LOC). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces that are responsible
- Social support– the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others do the same, they act as models
- Minority influence
- Minority influence leads to internalisation.
- Minority influence – when a minority of people (or one person) persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion – private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.
- Consistency –minority influence is most effective if minority keeps the same beliefs for some time (diachronic consistency) or all is the same within all individuals of the minority (synchronic consistency) draws attention to minority view
- Commitment– Minority influence is more powerful if they demonstrate dedication to their position, draws attention as it shows minority is not acting out of self
- Flexibility – minority influence is more effective if they show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.
- Evaluation
- Research support – Moscovici et al showed consistent minority opinion had greater effect than inconsistent opinion. Wood et al carried out meta-analysis and had similar results.
- Research support for depth of thought. Deeply processed opinions = more likely to change (Martin et al)
- Artificial tasks – Moscovici’s blue-green slides lack external validity
- Limited application – real life situations are more complex, minority have less power and status as well as people
- Artificial tasks – Moscovici’s blue-green slides lack external validity
- Research support for depth of thought. Deeply processed opinions = more likely to change (Martin et al)
- Research support – Moscovici et al showed consistent minority opinion had greater effect than inconsistent opinion. Wood et al carried out meta-analysis and had similar results.
- Social change
- Minority influence is a powerful force for innovation and social change e.g. civil rights movement in the USA.
- NSI can lead to social change by drawing attention to what the majority is doing.
- Disobedient role models can gradually lead to social change through gradual commitment.
- Evaluation
- Research support – Nolan showed that NSI was a valid explanation of social change in reducing energy consumption.
- Effects of minority influence are limited because they are indirect and appear later (Nemeth)
- Majority views are processed more deeply than minority views.
- Effects of minority influence are limited because they are indirect and appear later (Nemeth)
- Research support – Nolan showed that NSI was a valid explanation of social change in reducing energy consumption.
- Conformity: Types and explanations
Comments
No comments have yet been made