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
Processing of persuasive images
Dual processing models: heuristic processing is when quality of argument not important, less cog demanding and simple rules/just accept info. Systematic processing says quality is important, effort to look at all info, past knowledge and attitude change is more resistant to change/lasts longer. Heuristics the default, systematic needs person to be motivated to be accuracy and want + impression, cog capacity and need clear explanations
Example of dual processing
one group gets weak, one gets strong arguments, if heuristic, no diff but systematic more persuaded by strong arguments. If no cog capacity e.g. a distractor task, if more distraction- no diff between weak and strong e.g. use heuristic
Factors affecting persuasion
Source: expertise, trust, likeability, status, group
Message: one vs two sided arguments, emotional vs cog, exp vs imp (vote for jones or look at this stuff jones did)
Audience: intelligent, esteem, need for cog, cog load
These factors determine efficacy of persuasion
Source and audience
Dubois et al 2016: sources more persuasive when share characteristics w audience. Gave people diff amounts of power by writing about time they had it or lacked it, gave role of audience of communicator by asking to write speech about uni. Measured audience attitudes to uni and coded arguments as either intelligence or by warmth. Evidence of matching as if audience high in power, more persuaded by high powered communicator and same for low. High powered less dependent on others, more age tic and focused on competence- low on warmth.
Need for affect
Need for affect is liking thinking about emotions. Need for cognition is coming up W new solutions/thinking. Haddock 2008: shown affect or cog orientated messaged about lemphur (made up). Affect said it made good sound, amazing to see and cog had factual info about where found and behaviour. High need for affect persuaded more by affect and cog for cog
Source expertise background / pro/counter attitudinal
Findings mixed as some process experts heuristicsllt when not mitvated but more likely to attend to experts, and process system when interested. Clark 2012: pro attitudinal: when ppl agree W us, we trust experts and process heuristic but scrut non experts and process systematic to id weakness in our side. Counterattitudinal: when ppl disagree w us, ignore non experts but scrut experts to counter them
Clark 2012
Used pre test to ask if junk food should be taxed then split into pro or counter. Split into given info from expert in health or non expert high school junior. Gave strong argument like gives money for health programs or weak like tax won’t provide much. When pro attitude: no diff for strong arguments but attitudes lower for non expert in weak arguments. In counter: no diff in strong but in weak, expert ranked lower
Brands as social objects
Popular and envied brands are high in ability and intentions e.g. apple. Low in both are paternalised and troubled e.g. public transport. Strong brand relationships elicit loyalty, contribute to self concept, lead to resistance to - info about brand, lead to feeling of betrayal when bran falls short, rely on anthropomorphism of bran and vary w ind diffs - alvarez and fournier 2016
Anthropomorphism
Puzakova 2013: ps shown phone that look human or not and had descriptions using I or it’s, then told product didn’t work. Entity thoeuries expect behaviour to be consistent over time, characterise ppl based on single acts, incremental believe behaviour changes W context. No diff in incr but in entity, more - toward brand if had been anthro as want ppl to be the same across situations. Company then did denial, apology or compensation. If not anthro- denial worse in both and liked apology or comp in ent and inc but in anthro- inc no diff but ent only comp made them happy
Resisting persuasion
Can avoid, contest or empower (tell us we’re right, seek others W same attitudes). Companies contrast this by using forced exposure and branding for avoidance. For contesting used two sided ads, cog depletion and distraction and to revisit empowering: use self affirmation and freedom - fransen 2015
