Cade-psych In Society Flashcards
Defining power
Hogg and Vaughan: cap to influence others/resisting their attempts to influence. Fiske and berdahl: control over another’s outcomes (physical, money,social..) if you control, automatically have power even if don’t want it
Harsh bases of power
Tangle and explicit like economic and physical. Rely on obvious power diffs, more likely to exists when power illegitimate (dictators), requires surveillance so doesn’t self sustain. E.g: coercive, reward like bully or a donor. Both soft and hard is legitimate e.g. judge
Soft bases - both fiske and berdahl
Not weaker than harsh, relies on less obvious power diffs, uses social outcomes that are more subjective and intangible. Produce influence that is self sustaining -still occurs when the power isn’t in the room. E.g. informational-influencer has more info like spy. Expert like doctors. Referent are people you admire like celebs
Approach theory of power /inhibition theory
When in position of power: more approach oriented, more attentive to rewards, associated w emotions like pride and enthusiasm, more instinct/automatic cog, disinhibited/do what you want, driven by traits. When low power: more inhibition orientated, more attentive to threats, linked to fear/shame, more systematic/controlled cog, more inhibition and guided by situation
Evidence for approach/inh theory
Keltner 2013: when feeling powerful, ppl are more willing to engage in action, act in line w own preferences, express ops openly, more good emotions, decreased motivation to be w low power ppl, less likely to take perspectives and show empathy in low power, lower basal cortisol levels and lower cortisol reactivity
Evidence for approach-Galinsky et al 2003: from action to power
1st: ps built Lego, high power were manager and low were workers. Game of black jack and found high power took more cards. 2nd: wrote passage about being in high/low power position then high allocated lottery tickets, low predicted. Then in room W fan that blew them away, high power dealt with the fan. 3rd: same as 2 but had pool of money where you could add, takeaway or do nothing, high took both actions. Evidence how power would change ps likelihood to take action/inhibition
Dominance vs prestige Cheng 2012
Dom is degree of respect and attention you get from ability to coerce/intimidate/impose cost/benefit. Prestige is degree of respect due to traits. Lunar landing task (crashed ship, decide what to take on trip to base) alone then in group. Measures degree groups aligned with own to tell persuasion, measures of dominance and 3rd party gaze. Both Dom and prestige predicted influence and predicted attention
Motives behind influence Dom vs prestige
Cassidy and lynn 89: Dominance said like to give orders, enjoy authority over others, enjoy planning and deciding what others do
Prestige had like when ppl come to for advice, admired for achievements, job where ppl look up to me
Motivation and leadership maner and mead 2010
Followers give leaders power to make decision to benefit group, leaders bound to group interest but leads to conflict if diff to self interest so may lose power. Teams did puzzle, each had clues and performance earned money to split, ps could select quality of clues for others. Stable leadership: made person leader, unstable told could change based on performance or control. No diff in low Dom in high, gave worse clues to others spec in unstable. Repeated by said scored high, so did one other, low Dom no diff but only in unstable they were more likely to exclude the other. (When power unstable, dom act in self interest to maintain)
Group based power- SID , tajfel and turner 86, Hogg and vaughn 2008
Groups give us a social id, increases self stereotypes, depersonalisation, perceived intergroup diffs. Want + image so use indv mobility, social creativity (change rules) or social competition (ingroup favouritism). Shown in minimal group paradigms (ps assigned group and favour own members)
Social Dom theory - Prato 2006
Group hierarchies exist, + have access to power, wealth - don’t. Maintained by legitimising myths like men less intelligent. Asymmetry hyp: ingroup bias the higher up they are. Ideological asymmetry: higher up endorse the system . Social dom orientation: higher up endorse e.g. some groups just inferior- correlates W sexism, racism and - tolerance and rights
System justification theory
Low groups endorse hierarchy as believe in the system, leads to outgroup favouritism e.g. favour members of higher up groups than you, unconscious. Jost and banaji 94: due to ego (maintain image)system (fair system) and group (good image of own group). “2004: in implicit measures, gay people showed out group favouritism . As conservatism (like system) increases, ppl in high show more ingroup favour and low show more outgroup
Obedience
Obedience/coercive compliance is change from request, no internalisation. Conformity is change to norms no internalisation. Persuasion is change W internalisation. Milgram : 65% went to 330, replicated by burger 2009. Disobedience increased when: no explicit instructions, confed pressured them to disobey, teacher touching learner, experimenter not in room, gave mixed instructions. Increased when teacher read words but another did shocking. Most disobeyed when confed begs to stop-conflicting requests
Ind/situation obedience
Milgram says situation, others say diffusion of response , SID, conformity, persuasion. Hannah arednt wrote about eichman and believed in personal responsibility. Harold Kelly: reference groups can be + (want to act like them) or - (avoid)
Definitions and diffs in measuring
Persuasion involved internalisation. Attitude: some just say affect (+or-) others say affect and readiness to act. Others say affect behaviour and cognition e.g. diff associations. Imp is automatic, lower processing and no spec mental construct. Greenwald: hard to show attitude linked to behaviour as not clear what’s driving, could be controlled by snojtehr
