Social Influence
- Created by: Abi_xx
- Created on: 01-02-18 20:07
Social Influence
· The effect that others have on our thoughts, feelings and behaviours
· For example, cautionary tales about the ‘wrong crowd’
· Western Cultures
® Seen as a bad thing
® Large value placed on independence and freedom of the individual – McAuliffe, Jetten, Hornsey & Hogg 2003
· Does not have to be negative
® Following driving rules
® Queuing for lunch
· Criticise and punish those who violate the norms of the group
· Reward those who behave prosocially and enhance the lives of others
Radicalisation
· A special type of social influence in which people are encouraged to strike out at a society they believe is fundamentally wrong or immoral
· Ryan 2007
· Not always a negative thing
® For example, striking out against driving rules
· Norm adherence and violation are often a function of punishment and reward
Conformity
· Change one beliefs and/or behaviour
· Influenced enough to change one’s behaviour to match that of others
· The convergence of one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours with an external standard
Compliance
· The outward change of behaviour, going along with others’ requests to keep the peace, for reward or to avoid punishment
· The process of doing as one is asked or as one is required by regulations
· For example, paying taxes
Obedience
· Merely following another’s commands without internalising associated beliefs/behaviours
· For example children doing as their parents have asked
Injunctive Norms
· Norms that are perceived as being approved by other people
Acceptance
· Others’ ideas/behaviours taken on board and internalised
· Become part of the self
· Highest form of social influence
Sherif’s Studies of Emergent Group Norms – 1935, 1
· People have a basic need to feel that they are thinking and acting appropriately in social situations
® They will use other people as frames of reference
§ In times of ambiguity or uncertainty
§ Moderate or average positions are preferred
® Explains how norms emerge in groups
Sherif’s Studies of Emergent Group Norms – 1935, 1
· Visual illusion
· Makes the light look as though it is moving in the dark as a result of eye movements occurring when physical objects are not present to act as frames of reference
· Over 100 trials
1) 2-3 people
2) Dark room
3) Observe people as pinpoint
Asch’s Studies of Conformity – 1951, 1952, 1956:
· Believed that people look to others to help then decide how to act – even in unambiguous situations
Asch’s Studies of Conformity – 1951, 1952, 1956: P
· Control group
® 99% of participants chose the correct line
· Experimental group
® 50% conformed to the incorrect judgement of the group in 6 or more of the critical trials
® 5% conformed to the erroneous group decision in all 12 trials
® 37% average conformity
® 25% did not conform
· In a situation where the consequences for a participant’s actions are minimal, conformity was still present
Asch’s Studies of Conformity – 1951, 1952, 1956: R
· Self-doubt
· Uncertainty
· Fear of disapproval
· Not wanting to stand out
· Feeling of anxiety
Milgram’s Studies of Obedience – 1965, 1973
· The trail of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 motivated the study
· If placed in a situation where the behaviour you were being asked to perform went against your conscience, how would you behave?
· Male participants
· 20-50 years old
· Scientific study on memory and learning at Yale university
Milgram’s Studies of Obedience – 1965, 1973: Resul
· 63% of ‘teachers’ went up to and beyond 450v
· Dangerous shocks were administered to someone in pain
· ‘Teachers’ displayed signs of stress
® Pleading to stop the experiment
® Trembling
® Stuttering when speaking
® Nervous laughing
® Offering to take the ‘student’s place
· People’s attituded often fail to determine their behaviour, especially when the external influences override them
The Stanford Prison Experiment
· Guards used initiative, creativity and some enthusiasm to the tasks demanded by the roles that they had been given
® In contrast to the morally conflicted, reluctant obedience of Milgram’s participants
· Demand characteristics
® Told the study was about prison life in the newspaper article
® Zimbardo took an active role in the experiment
® Told the participants what they can do in their roles
The Lucifer Effect – Zimbardo 2007
· The power of the situation is sufficient to cause good people to do bad things
The Stanford Prison Experiment: The BBC Prison Stu
· Replicated the Stanford Prison experiment
· An almost egalitarian system was developed under certain circumstances
® Guards gave privileges to prisoners
® Guards and prisoners got one quite well
· The way in which the individuals behave in groups is more a matter of the norms and values that are attached to their social identity
® Norms can be antisocial or prosocial – Jetten et al 1997
® How you identify with the group will determine how you behave in the situation
When Does Social Influence Occur: Contextual Facto
· If instructions are delivered by phone, obedience dropped to 21% - Milgram 1974
· In order for people to obey, there must be come physical form of the experimenter
When Does Social Influence Occur: Contextual Facto
· Teacher was unable to hear the student’s pounding, nearly 100% of teachers continued to the maximum voltage and beyond
· If you can hear the results of your actions, you disobey faster – the distance may dehumanise them
When Does Social Influence Occur: Contextual Facto
· Describing a group as less human
· Typically with an animal or machine metaphor
· Makes it easier to harm them
· For example, refugees, those who have received the death sentence
When Does Social Influence Occur: Contextual Facto
· Helps determine whether or not it is the right thing to conform
· Nurse compliance – Hofling, Brotzman, Dairymple et al 1966
® 22 nurses
® Unknown doctor phone call
® Administered a known drug overdose to a patient
® 21/22 obeyed the instruction
When Does Social Influence Occur: Group Related Fa
Group Pressure
· Two disobedient peers, obedience dropped to 10%
· Two obedient peers, obedience increased to 92.5%
Total Unanimity
· Makes it harder to obey
· Conformity – Asch 1955
® One disagreement , conformity dropped by 25%
When Does Social Influence Occur: Group Related Fa
Group Cohesion – Berkowitz 1954
· Level of attraction
· Power over members
Prior Commitment
· Moderates group disapproval effect because they will not want to (…), but may still align more to the group opinion in future decisions – Deutsch & Gerard 1955
® Lose face
® Appear weak
When Does Social Influence Occur: Group Related Fa
Group Disapproval
· Fear increases obedience – Asch 1951
Perceived Similarity
· Increases obedience – Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane et al 1990
Perceived Interdependence
· When people perceive that their fates depend upon other people, and that they need to work together to reach a common goal, conformity increases – Allen 1965, Deutsch & Gerard 1955
When Does Social Influence Occur: Group Related Fa
Group Size
· The more people there are, the more likely you are to obey/comply – to an extent
- Milgram, Bickman & Berkowitz 1969
Why Are People Affected by Social Influence
Normative Social Influence
· Desire to be liked
· Comes about when people wish to gain the social approval/avoid disapproval from others
· Individual believes they are being watched or monitored by a powerful group (in terms of rewards/punishments)
· Private views do not change
· Asch 1955
® May have still believed that another line was the right answer, but said a different answer because everyone else was
Why Are People Affected by Social Influence - Info
· Desire to be right and private views do change
· Comes about when people wish to be correct and accurate, therefore accepting the information from others
® When the task is ambiguous
® When there is a disagreement among a group about the correct response
· Sherif 1935, 1937, Deutsch & Gerard 1955
® Unambiguous task with private answers that are not monitored by the group
® Condition 1- face to face with people who made unanimous wrong decision
® Condition 2 – provided responses privately and anonymously
Why Are People Affected by Social Influence - Soci
· Dual process dependency model of social influence is inadequate – Turner 1991
· Norms of the group are adhered to because the group is perceived as part of the individual
· Example – Platow, Voudouris, Coulson et al 2007
® Ice bucket challenge – placed hand in a bucket full of ice and measured the galvanic skin response
® Condition 1 – put hand in bucket of ice cold water and keep it there for as long as you can
® Condition 2 – do it again, but are reassured from ingroup/outgroup
® Lower GSR when reassured by the ingroup
Why Are People Affected by Social Influence
Intergroup Sensitivity Effect – Hornsey, Oppes & Svennson 2002
· You take criticism from ingroup member a lot better than from outgroup member
· Less threatening
Who Is Influenced? - Personality
· Little research to support the idea that personality factors predict conformity
· More of an average tendency and context being primary determinant
· Examples
® Elms & Milgram 1966
§ ‘Blue-collar’ vs ‘Professional’
® Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford 1950
§ Conventionalism, submission to authority and aggression
§ Authoritarian personality
Who Is Influenced? - Gender
· Inconclusive
® No gender differences in social influence – Milgram 1974
® Women conformed more to group pressure for the traditionally masculine issues. Men conformed more on the traditionally feminine issues – Sistrunk & McDavid 1971
® Women conform in more public settings – Eagly 1978
Who Is Influenced? - Culture
· Relatively robust and significant differences across cultures in conformity
· Conformity tends to be higher in
® ‘Tight’ cultures where strong traditions are displayed – Huang & Harris 1973
® Communal social organisations – Boldt 1976
® Authoritarian structures – Chandra 1973
® Sedentary, agricultural groups – Whittaker & Meade 1967
® Collectivist cultures such as Asian and Non-Western cultures - Bond & Smith 1996
· Obedience to authority is universal and is found regardless of the culture
Resisting Social Influence
Reactance
· Deliberately reacting against an influence attempt – Brehm 1966
® Can lead to rebellion
· Reasons to resist include
® Influence attempts are blatant or obvious
® Our personal freedom is being violated
® We feel we are being manipulated
· Example
® Reverse psychology
Resisting Social Influence
Asserting Uniqueness
· Reclaiming individuality by not conforming to the norms of too-similar others – Snyder & Fromkin 1980
· Establish your own sense of self
· Establish yourself – make yourself unique
Related discussions on The Student Room
- as psychology edexcel - predicted questions »
- psychology a level application questions »
- AQA A Level Psychology Paper 1 (7182/1) - 17th May 2024 [Exam Chat] »
- Paper 3 psychology »
- Psychology degrees »
- Psychology, Politics or History Degree »
- Survey - social media addiction »
- A-level Psychology Study Group 2023-2024 »
- Aqa psychology 16 markers help »
- Psychology: A Student Helps »
Comments
No comments have yet been made