Social Influence
- Created by: Hema
- Created on: 30-04-15 19:53
View mindmap
- Social Influence
- Conformity
- Internalisation: Deep conformity, views of the group are taken on permanently eg. becoming vegetarian after listening to animal right activists
- Compliance: Superficial, Conforms publicly, Privately disagree, eg. laugh at a joke that you dont find funny
- WHY do we conform?
- Normative: desire to be liked, gain approval, not seen as deviant, usually compliance McCarthyism - comply so as not to be seen as devient
- Informational: desire to be right, for help to reduce ambiguity of task, usually internalisation Bond + Smith said that the more ambiguous the task, the more conform
- ASCH
- straight forward, unambiguous study judging length of straight lines
- ambiguity tested in pilot study - pps made 3 mistakes out of 720 trials
- All confederates but 1 pp always last/ but 1. confeds answered wrong in 12/18 trials
- 123 American male undergrads shown a series of line - standard + comparisons
- MEAN conformity rate- 37% - in this: 5% everytime, 25% completely independant
- found a stable phenomenon - minority group are faced with consistent wrong majority they will conform - The Asch Effect.
- WEAKNESS: lack of population validity american male undergrads, cant apply results to women
- WEAKNESS: lack of temporal validity, Mcarthyism, didn't wanna be accused communist conform not to stand out
- STRENGTH: Perrin and Spencer replicated with youths + probation officers and found similar results
- Independance
- Why we don't OBEY + eg. Milgram
- Lack of authority if authority figure is not seen as legit people will be less likely to obey. when experiment was in run down office block obedience dropped
- Humanisation less likely to obey to harm someone if we see them as a person, when learner was in the same room, 20.5% went to 450
- presence of allies easier to resist authority if youve got back up, see disobedience as acceptable if someone else is doing it. when 2 confederate teachers refused, almost all pps did
- Why we don't CONFORM + eg. Asch
- Withdrawal of a true partner, if confed answering correctly defects back halfway through - mean conformity rate goes from 5.5% to 28.5%
- Unanimous majority, in ASCH more naive pps, mean conformity changes from 37% to 10%. they are reassured that theyre right by others
- ambiguous task, if majority are giving clearly wrong answers, pps less likely to conform - when lines made more similar in length conformity increased
- Locus of control ROTTER
- Weakness: Williams and Warchal, gave students conformity tasks- people who conformed got same LoC but different assertiveness
- STRENGTH: Atgis, meta analysis of studies looking at relationship between LoC + conformity. external were more easily persuaded - strong positive correlation
- INTERNAL: personal control - resist coercion from others, seek info, leaders
- EXTERNAL: Behaviour is controlled by others or luck. easily persuaded, more passive.
- Why we don't OBEY + eg. Milgram
- Social change
- Moscovicci
- 172 pps with good eyesight, group of 6 estimate colour of 36 slides, all blue diff brightness. 2 confeds + 2 conditions- consistent: all slides green + inconsistent- 24green and 12blue
- consistent: pps said the slides were green in 8.4% of trials and 32% called it green at least once. inconsistent pps called it green 1.4% of trials
- in conclusion- its important to be consistent if a minority wants to change views of majority
- Aim to see if consistant minority could influence majority
- W: gynocentric sample- only female pps unrepresentitive, cant generalise
- S: lab exp- conrol
- S: easy to replicate- reliable
- Milgram argues that if people disobey power crumbles so change can be achieved through disobedience
- Snowball effect: once a few members of the majority start to agree with minority, more people can get other people to join then social cryptoamnesia- forget what caused alternative view
- Rosa Parks- refused to obey unjust law, arrested, sparkes a chain of events
- Minority must: draw attention to message, be consistent, make personal sacrifices
- Suffrogettes- minority of women wanted ability to vote
- Moscovicci
- Obedience
- Milgram
- Aimed to test the hypothesis 'germans are different'
- 40 male pps at yale uni
- shocks ranged from 15V to 450V - milgram wanted to see how far pps would go
- confederate - learner and pps- teacher fake set up where teacher was instructed by an authority figure to give electric shocks to learner for incorrect answers
- pps argued and showed extreme tension
- ALL pps went upto at least 300V and 65% went to 450V
- so germans are not different, we are all capable of blind obedience to unjust orders from authority
- STRENGTH: conrolled ex variables lab exp high internal val
- WEAKNESS: Lack of mundane realism - unrealistic task may encourage demand characteristi
- WEAKNESS: ethical issues deception, lack of informed consent, lack of protection
- Why do we obey?
- Dehumanisation: more able to harm someone if we distance ourself from them as a person. when they were in the same room 20.5% went to 450V + when teacher placed learners hand 30%
- Gradual Commitment: foot in the door technique, once theyve made some sort of commitment its hard to go back pps had to increase shock by 15V
- agentic shift: deny responsibility assume authority will we are agents. we obey because of: external authority + internal authority researcher left + spoke through phone 20% went to 450V
- Legitimate Authority: obey legit authority because we trust them or they have power to punish Researcher was dressed in a lab coat so appearance gave authority 65% - 450V
- Milgram
- Conformity
Comments
No comments have yet been made