lecture 5 social influence Flashcards
define social influence
allport 1954
effortfull manipulation and change of attitude/beliefs and values due to the actual or implied presence of others
define conformity
change in behaviour/attitude/values due to real or imagined pressure from others/members of group
based on the subjective validity of social norms
ie descriptive - what people do, or injunctive - what should be done
define compliance
change in response to implied or explicit request
- difficult to know when compliant beh reflects internalisation
define coercive compliance
superficial public and transitory change in behaviour and expressed attitude that is not internalized
define obedience
change in response to order from percieved authority figure
define norms
explicit or implicit rules that define a group membership and regulates the behaviour of its members
can be descriptive ie what most do
or injunctive ie what must be done
deutsch and gerard informational influence
ambiguous situation - unsure of how to respond then look to others based on the belief that others are better informed and will know how to act appropriately
deutsch and gerard normative influence
conform so as to avoid punishment or to receive rewards - even if dont believe correct to conform
asch 1956 normative influence study
conformity reflects a rational process of constructing a norm from others beh
given visual perception test - which line is longer A B or C
75% give incorrect answer at least once when confederate also give wrong answer - knew correct but purposefully gave wrong (norm)
33% average conformity and expected to be higher amongst salient groups
asch 1956 when do people conform
group size
unamity
individual diferences
sex/gender influence on conformity
eagly 1978
often use tasks unfamiliar to woman so more likely to conform ie woman dont know how to do the task and therefore follow mens lead and conform more - occurs vise versa in men
cultural norms on conformity
bond and smith 1996
meta of asch paradigm across countries
collectivist countries ie norway have high score on hofstede (1980) collectivism scale than individualist countries ie france
USA - decline since 50s
what determines perception of an authority figure
coercive - can punish or remove good reward - provide good or take away bad expert - provide knowledge not widely available legitimate - influencial social role referent - want to identify/be like
reducing obedience
milgram exp
- increase distance from authority
-increase no of disobredient peers
visualise learner in pain
minority influence
moscovici 1980
social psych conformity bias - focus on minority conformity to majority
majority influence exerts compliance - publically accept but not private in motivation to not appear deviant
a viewpoint that is consistent overtime can lead to conversion towards the attitude, that is more cognitive and privately accepted - rigid
types of social influence
conformity
compliance
obedience
deutsch and gerard rational normative influence
dual process dependency
influenced by others because they are dependent on them for info to remove ambiguity or for approval/acceptance
but also for ‘group belongingness’ - pressure to conform to group when define self as member
asch 1956 reasons for conformity
experience initial uncertainty and self doub
evolve to self consciousness- fear of disaproval, anxiety and lonliness
most respond because did not want to stand out
asch group size and conformity
low conformity when 1-2 confederates but high when 3-5 and plateau if larger
size may alter dependent on the judgement and motivation of the individual - when no objective right answer then more likely to want to fit in and conform
group unanimity and conformity
allen 1975
when majority unanimous - conformity 33%
BUT sig reduce when not unanimous
1 member of majority agree with naive participant then conformity reduce to 5.5%
individual differences in conformity
personality attributes: low self esteem need social approval need self control low IQ high anxiety self blame insecure, feel inferior
sistrunk and mcdavid 1971 gender and conformity
m+f exposed to group pressure in identification of various stimuli
traditionally masculine, feminine or neutral
woman more conformity in masculine and men more conformity in feminine - equal when neutral
BUT - women conform more in interactive public situations (maintain group harmony?) and men more resistant in public (need for dominance/independence?)
collectivist vs individualist countries in conformity
markus and kitayama 1991
conformity increase in collectivity
viewed more favourably as seen as way to bring pepole together
desire for independence viewed as unnatural and immature (markus and kitayama 1991)
individualists view unique as positive
conformity still high in individualist- find difficult to resist group pressure
kim and markes
collectivist vs individualist in conformity
chose a pen from a st of colours
americans chose colour that stands out
asian aversive to deviant pen
problem with looking at cultures on conformity
individualists conform and collectivists deviate
actions that people enagage in are reproductions of small parts of culture of which they share with the massess
BUT culutres are constantly changing
define social roles
pattern of beh expected in certain positions within society
expectations within your occupation
abu graib social role conformity
iraqi prisoners tortured, isolated, deprived of sleep, and exposed to sexual and cultural humiliation
- in group vs outgroup dehumanisation
“bad apples amongst good soldiers” or “good apples in a soured barrell?”
zimbardo 1971 stanford prison experiement
conformity to social roles
see how readily people conform to social role of guard and prisoner in role play simulation
mock prison in uni basement - 10 prisoners and 11 guards
prisoners blindfolded, stripped of possesions, given only no
guards in identical uniforms, wore sunglassess (remove eyecontact)
within hours - harass prisoners, increase agg, increase prisoner submission and greater demands for obedience
once removes after 36 hours and overall terminated after 6 days
implications of zimbardo prison experiment
people readily conform to social expectations
thought to be dependent on 2 processess
deindividuation and learned helplessness
define deindividuation
immersion in social role that lose sense of identity and personal responsibility
define learned helplessness
submission- learn actions have little impact on consequent so stop fighting back
sources of power in obedience
coercive reward expert legitimate referent
define coercive power in obedience
authority has power to remove positive or punish
define reward power in obedience
authority has power to provide pos or remove neg
define expert power in obedience
authority has knowledge not widely available
define legitimate power in obedience
authority due to social norms
define referent power in obedience
idenify with autority figure
nazis and obedience
eichmann nazi official responsible for hitler final solution - slaughter of 6m ews
argued that did because ordered to
but hard to know if had internalised nazi beliefs
milgram 1963 obedience study
18 experiments
pps teacher (read list of paired words) and confederate learner (recall word pairings)
if learner wrong then teacher told to shock, increasing voltage each time
100% gave high and over 60% up to 450v *fatal
milgram 1963 culture and obedience
90% spain and netherlands BUT 40-16% in aus
obedience and sunk costs + natural setting
meeus and raajmakers 1986
administrative obedience in interview setting - interviewer told to harradd interviewee
sunk costs - harrass because commit to course of action and find difficult to change despite dramatic increase in costs
milgram 1963 immediacy of the learner
65% obey when learner unseen and unheard except for wall pounding
100% when no feedback
decrease to 40% when in room and 30% when hold hand - STILL HIGH
- dehumanisation
milgram 1963 immediacy of the authority figure
decrease to 20.5% when out of room via telephone
2.5% when no orders given
bushman 1984 legitimacy of the authority figure on obedience
confederate in uniform, neat attire or shabby clothing
70% obey uniform
50% obey neat
sig lower for shabby
- if obey latter two then say being altruistic
milgram blind obedience
people have a tendency to obey without thinking about what they are being asked to do and the consequences of their actions
milgram 1963 group pressure and obedience
no peers = 62.5%
2 obedient peers - 92.5%
2 disobedient peers = 10%
majority vs minority conformity
minorities viewed as smaller and less legitimate power and worthy of less serious consideration
asch 1952 minority vs majority
1 confederate deviant amongst majority = ridiculed by pps
increase no of minority then decrease ridicule/take more seriously but majority still dont change answer
minority social influence
most influential when maintain consistent view over tiem
most influential when active, organised and innovative
minority influence
moscovichi 1980
social adapation is gained via minority confomity
conversion to minority via informational influence - leads to a cognitive change in attitude/belief/behaviour
greater support when people want to deviate and gains in no.
