Social Influence
- Created by: emilyhirst
- Created on: 05-03-15 16:22
View mindmap
- Social Influence
- Conformity
- Compliance
- Internalisation
- Normative social influence
- informational social influence
- Asch (1951)
- Participants conformed on 32%of trials
- 74% conformed at least once
- Low population because used male college students, can't generalise
- Zimbardo Stanford Prison (1973)
- Observed how quickly people would conform to roles
- Participants who were guards harassed prisoners, conformed to their roles
- Study ended in 6 days
- Ethical issues
- Resisting pressures to conform
- Desire for individuation
- Snyder and Fronkin
- Prior commitment
- Variation of Asch where participants answered first
- Desire for individuation
- Obedience
- Milgram (1963)
- 65% gave the full 450v
- Hofling
- 21/22 nurses started to give medication
- Bickman (1974)
- People obeyed guard over civilian
- Why people obey
- Buffers protect people from seeing the effect of their actions
- 65% with buffer 40% without buffer
- Gradual commitment
- 15v increase Milgram
- Buffers protect people from seeing the effect of their actions
- Resisting pressures to obey
- Disobedient models
- Milgram with disobedient model, obedience dropped to 10%
- Feeling responsible
- Participants feel responsible for giving learner distress in Milgram
- Disobedient models
- Milgram (1963)
- Implications of social influence
- Educating nurses: senior staff educating junior staff
- Foot in the door: used by charities to give small donations and then gradually increase the payment
- Minority Influence
- Consistency
- Snowball effect
- Moscovici (1969)
- Consistent: 8.4% influence Inconsistent: 1.3% influence
- 2/6 were confederates and the consistent= green on all sildes and the inconsistent=green 24/36 of the slides
- Conformity
Comments
No comments have yet been made