Psychology In Society Flashcards
Defining power
1) The capacity to influence others whilst resisting their attempts to influence (Hogg and Vaughan)
2) The relative control over another’s valued outcomes. ‘People who control other’s outcomes have power, like it or not.’ (Fiske and Berdahl, 2007)
Harsh vs soft bases of power
1) Harsh:
- Use economic and physical outcomes
- Work with outcomes that are more tangible and explicit
- Rely upon power differentials that are more obvious
- Are more likely to exist when power is illegitimate
- Require surveillance
2) Soft:
- Use social outcomes
- Work with outcomes that are more subjective and intangible
- Rely upon power differentials that may be less obvious
- Are not weaker than harsh bases of power
- Tend to produce influence that is self-sustaining
Example of harsh and soft power
1) Coercive: The ability to give or threaten punishment for non-compliance (harsh)
2) Reward: The ability to give or promise rewards for compliance (harsh)
3) Legitimate: The targets belief that the influencer is authorised by a recognised power structure to command and make decisions (both)
4) Informational: The targets belief that the influencer has more information than oneself
5) Expert: The targets belief that the influencer has generally greater experience and knowledge than oneself
6) Referent: Identification with, attraction to or respect for the source of influence
Approach/inhibition theory of power
High power > approach:
- Attention to rewards
- Positive emotions
- Automatic cognition
- Disinhibition
- State/trait driven behaviour
Low power > inhibition:
- Attention to threats
- Negative emotions
- Systematic, controlled cognition
- Inhibition
- Situationally constrained behaviour
Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee (2003): from power to action
- Studied the relationship between feelings of power and subsequent action orientation
- Participants either in high or low power group. In the high power condition, participants had to recall a time when they had power over someone. Low power condition had participants recall a time when someone had power over them
- They then completed an action-oriented task after the power manipulation to assess their willingness to take action
- High power group: showed significantly greater action orientation and engagement in proactive behaviours. A higher likelihood to initiate tasks and make decisions
- Low power group: displayed less action-oriented behaviour and were more passive, showing less initiative and more caution
Dominance vs prestige
Dominance: the degree of deference, respect, and attention one receives as a consequence of the perceived ability to coerce, intimidate and impose costs and benefits (harsh)
Prestige: the degree of deference, respect, and attention an individual receives as a consequence of the perceived attractiveness as a cultural model or coalition partner (soft)
Cheng et al (2013): dominance vs prestige study
- Aimed to explore how dominance and prestige (to distinct pathways to social status) affect influence and perception
- Participnats completed the lunar landing task alone or in a group. The groups were observed for dominance and prestige behaviours, as well as using peer evaluations to rate perceptions of status
- Dominance: attained status by imposing control and displaying forceful behaviours. Their influence was associated with fear and compliance rather than admiration. However, the status gained was less stable
- Prestige: earned status through demonstrations of competence, skill and wisdom. Their influence was characterised by voluntary respect and defence from group members. The status was stable and linked to group cohesion and trust
- Both pathways were effective in gaining status
Motivation and leadership
- Unstable leadership led dominance-oriented individuals to act in their own self interest, undermining group member performance and excluding highly skilled individuals
Manners and Mead (2012): dominance-related individuals and types of leadership
- This study looks into how individuals with dominance-related traits function within different leadership contexts, and how these dynamic influence team performance, motivation and resource allocation
- Participants were placed in groups to complete a collaborative task. Leaders of the groups controlled the distribution of clues or granted by a computer
- The IV was the type of leadership:
1) Directive leadership (D)- leaders made unilateral decisions, with team member having minimal input
2) Participative leadership (P)- leaders encouraged input from all the team members, with collaboration on cue allocation and strategies - Directive leadership: dominance-oriented leaders frequently acted selfishly, focused on control over the team. This resulted in a consistent but limited performance. Low motivation and low cohesion
- Participative leadership: dominance-oriented individuals exhibited less selfish behaviour due to group accountability. Performance higher, more motivation, more cohesion
Group-based dominance
- Group-based dominance occurs across many societies, based on: ethnicity, religion, gender etc
- Group-based dominance exerts itself via force, out-group derogation (e.g disproportionate punishment of specific groups), in-group bias
Theories that explain group-based dominance: social identity approach
- Groups provide us with a social identity
- Through a process of categorisation, group identity increases stereotyping, depersonalisation and perceived inter group difference
- This results in the individual feeling like an integrated group member, therefore striving for positive distinctiveness between them and other groups. This is achieved through individual mobility (if groups are permeable), social creativity and social competition
- Group identity forms and influences behaviour
Tajfel et al (1971): social identity approach support
- Aimed to test whether categorisation into groups is sufficient to elicit in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination
- Participants were organised into groups based on arbitrary categories, with each individual having no prior interaction with other participants. They were tasked with disrupting money between anonymous in-group and out-group members. The distribution patterns were analysed for signs of bias
- They found that participants allocated more money to in-group members, despite the lack of meaningful connection of interaction. Fewer resources were given outwards, even at a cost to maximising their own group’s gain. Even trivial group assignments were sufficient to trigger biases in resource distribution
- This study showed that individuals derive part of their identity from group membership, leading to preferential treatment of in-group members, and harsher treatment of out-group members
Explanations for group-based dominance: social dominance theory
- Group-based hierarchies exist across societies. Some have positive social value (e.g access to power, wealth, healthcare etc). Some have negative social value (substandard housing, underemployment etc)
- Discrimination is coordinated via legitimising myths (e.g societal, shared social ideologies). These myths serve to coordinate discrimination across societal institutions
- Asymmetrical in-group bias: dominant groups show greater favouritism to their own group to maintain power. Subordinate groups exhibit less in-group bias, often internalising dominant group ideologies
- Social dominance orientation (SDO): an individual’s preference for group-based hierarchies and dominance over subordinate groups. It correlates positively with sexism, racism, nationalism. It correlated negatively with tolerance, egalitarianism, support for human rights
Explanations for group-based dominance: system justification theory
- This is the process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest
- This theory argues that people have a psychological motive to perceive the current social system as fair and natural. These leads to the justification of group-based dominance, where dominant groups are seen as deserving of their power, while subordinate groups are viewed as naturally disadvantaged.
- Dominant groups: rationalise their superiority position as earned or inevitable, and maintain group-based dominance by spreading legitimising myths, such as stereotypes that justify inequality (e.g subordinate groups lack ambition)
- Subordinate groups: often internalise system-justifying ideologies, even when they are harmful. This can lead to out-group favouritism, where subordinate group members support the dominance of higher-status groups
- As political conservatism increases, members of high status groups with exhibit increased in-group favouritism, and members of low status groups will exhibit increased out-group favouritism
Obedience
- A change in behaviour or expressed attitudes and beliefs in response to a direct request of a powerful person or group
- It does not require internalisation
Conformity
- A change in behaviour or expressed attitudes and beliefs in response to social norms or other’s behaviour
- It does not require internalisation
Persuasion
- A change in attitude, beliefs or behaviour in response to direct messages
- It requires internalisation
Milgram’s obedience experiment
- Aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals obey authority figures, even when their actions conflict with personal morals
- He was motivated by the holocaust and causes of obedience among German soldiers
- Participants were told it was a memory and learning study. They were assigned as the teacher, while a confederate was the learner. The experimenter was the authority figure
- The teacher and learner were in different rooms. The teacher was instructed to electrically shock the learner with increased voltage each time they got a question wrong, with the teacher believing the shocks were real. At predetermined voltage levels, the learner would scream, bang on wall and eventually go silent
- Obedience rate: 65% of participants the maximum 450 volt shock. 100% of participants continued to at least 300 volts, despite hearing the learners protests
- Participants showed signs of extreme stress. Many protested or questioned the experiment, but continued under the experimenter’s authority
Key variations in Milgram’s obedience study
1) Proximity to learner: obedience decreased when learner was in the same room as teacher, or when the teacher had to physically place the learner’s hand on the shock plate
2) Proximity to authority figure: obedience decreased when the experimenter gave instructions over the phone or wasn’t present at all
3) Legitimacy of authority: obedience decreased when the experimenter was not wearing a lab coat or when the study was not conducted in a prestigious location
4) Group influence: obedience decreased when teachers worked in groups and others refused to continue
5) However, obedience increased when the teacher simply read the words and another person administered the shocks
How do we process persuasive messages: dual process models of persuasion
1) Heuristic processing: argument quality is not so important. Less cognitively demanding e.g ‘he look trustworthy’, ‘lecturers are always right’.
2) Systematic processing: argument quality is important. Involves effortful scrutiny of all relevant information e.g ‘are the arguments logically coherent’, ‘do they fit with my existing knowledge’. Attitude change is more enduring and more resistant to change
influences that affect which type of processing we use (distraction and motivation)
1) Motivation to be accurate
- High motivation: systematic processing (more reliable and accurate)
- Low motivation: heuristic processing
2) Distraction
- High distraction: if individuals are distracted (e.g by time constraints), they are less able to engage in systematic processing, and more likely to use heuristic processing. This may result in being influenced by peripheral cues like attractiveness or authority
- Low distraction: individuals can engage in systematic processing, carefully evaluating arguments to form attitudes based on content
What factors affect persuasion?
1) Source: expertise, trust, likability, status, group membership etc
2) Message: emotional vs cognitive appeal, explicit vs implicit conclusion etc
3) Audience: intelligence, self-esteem, need for cognition, cognitive load etc
- These factors interact to determine the efficacy of persuasion
Dubois, Rucker and Galinsky (2016): Matching source and audience: power
- Sources are more persuasive when they share characteristics with the audience
- This study aimed to examine this matching benefit in terms of power
- IVs: Power (high or low) and role (wrote a persuasive speech about their university)
- DVs: Audience attitudes toward the university, coding of argument competence, coding of argument warmth
- They found that high-power communicators use competence-related arguments, which are more persuasive for high-power audiences. Low-power communicators use warmth-related arguments, which are more persuasive for low-power audiences
- This research suggests that matching the communicator’s traits (competence or warmth) to the audience’s expectations based on power dynamics increases persuasive. The power dynamics between the communicator and audience shapes the effectiveness of persuasive communication
Need for affect vs need for cognition
- Need for affect: refers to individual’s tendencies to seek out emotional experiences (more likely to be persuaded by messaged focusing on empathy, affection or emotional connection)
- Need for cognition: refers to individual’s tendencies to seek out cognitive experiences (more likely to be persuaded by logical, fact-based information)
Haddock et al (2008): need for cognition/affect
- Investigated how individual’s need for cognition or affect influences their responses to different types of persuasive messages
- Participants were either read a transcript about an encounter with a lemphur that included emotional language (affect condition) or an encyclopaedia excerpt providing factual information (cognition condition)
- The cognition-oriented message: best received by individuals with a high need for cognition
- The affect-oriented message: best received by individuals with a high need for affect
- This study demonstrates the importance of matching the message orientation to an individual’s need for cognition or need for affect.
Source expertise and audience motivation
- Findings are mixed and go in both directions
- People may process expert’s message heuristically when not very motivated
- On the other hand, people are likely to attend more closely to expert’s arguments (and process them more systematically) when they are interested. This is because we seek to confirm our existing attitudes
Proattitudinal vs counterattitudinal
- Proattitudinal: when people agree with us, we trust experts and process their arguments heuristically. But we scrutinise non-experts in order to identify weaknesses in ‘our side’
- Counterattitudinal: when people disagree with us, we ignore non-experts. But we scrutinise experts in order to better counter them
Brands as social objects
- Brands are social objects and, like humans, are perceived in terms of intentions and ability. The combination of these dimensions elicits different emotional responses
Brand relationships
Strong brand relationships:
- elicit loyalty that goes beyond habit
- reflect or contribute to the self-concept
- lead to resistance to negative information about the brand
- lead to feelings of betrayal when the brand falls short of expectations
- rely to some extent on anthropomorphism of the brand
- vary with individual differences on personality
Anthropomorphism
- This refers to the attribution of human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals etc
- It is used in branding whereby by brands themselves are anthropomorphised.
- It is used in product design whereby products have humanlike features
- These features can have a positive effect on product impressions
Entity theorists vs incremental theorists
- Entity theorists expect behaviour to be consistent over time. They tend to characterise a person based on a single act
- Incremental theorists believe that behaviour changes with context. They do not expect behaviour to be stable over time
Puzakova, Kwai and Rocereto (2013): anthropomorphism and customer attitudes
- Examined how anthropomorphism influences customer attitudes, particular when the product fails. It is hypothesised that the effect depends on the customer’s underlying beliefs
- Participants were introduced to a product that was either anthropomorphic or not. They learn that the product did not work properly, with the attitudes of the participant towards the brand after learning about it’s failure being recorded
1) Anthropomorphised products: - Entity theorists: had a more negative view towards anthropomorphised products after failure. They viewed the failure as a reflection of the ‘character’.
- Incremental theorists: more neutral and forgiving toward anthropomorphised products after failure. Viewed the failure as an isolated incident or opportunity for improvement
2) Non-anthropomorphised products: - Less impact of social beliefs on attitudes
- Both groups judged the failure based more on functional attributes than on perceived human-like characteristics
Resisting persuasion
1) Avoidance
2) Contesting
3) Empowering
Norms
- Implicit or explicit rules or principles that guide or constrain behaviour
- Norms are understood by members of a group and applied without the force of laws
Sherif et al: autokinetic effect
- The autokinetic effect is an illusion in which a point of light in a dark room appears to be moving
- Participants estimated how much the light was moving
- When responding alone, individuals came up with their own distinct estimates
- When responding in groups, they converged on common estimates
- Norms helps resolve uncertainty
Asch et al: conformity study
- Participants were to say aloud which of three lines on the right were the same length as the line on the left
- When alone, participants were correct 99% of the time
- In a group of confederates who provided wrong answers:
> average conformity rate was 33%
> only 25% answered correctly consistently
> 50% conformed on 6 or more critical trials (out of 12) - When participants recorded their responses alone, conformity dropped to 12.5%
- When the confederate was in the minority, participants ridiculed the confederate
- Normative influence
Why do we conform?
1) Informational influence: One assumes the other individual knows better than themselves
2) Normative influence: One conforms to gain social approval or avoid social disapproval
3) Referent informational influence: One conforms to the norm of a group when one’s membership in that group is important or salient
Illusionary norms: false consensus effect
- When one overestimates the degree to which their attitudes or beliefs are shared by others. This leads people to believe their views are more common or normal than they actually are
Ross, Greene and House (1977): false consensus effect
- Participants were asked to ‘put on a sandwich board and walk around campus for a period of time’. This created a scenario where participants could either say yes or no to the request
- Participants were then asked whether they would personally where the board, as well as to estimate what percentage of peers would agree to wear the board
- Personal agreement:
> 53% agreed to wear it
> 47% declined to wear it - Estimates of others’ choices:
> Participants who agree to wear it estimated 64% of their peers would also agree
> Participants who refused estimated 35.4% would agree to wear it - This demonstrates the false consensus effect, whereby those who chose to wear the sign overestimated the number of others who would share their view. Similarly, those who refused overestimated the number of those who would also refuse
- It shows that people tend to project their own choices and beliefs onto others, assuming others are more similar to themselves than they actually are
Illusionary norms: pluralistic ignorance
- This refers to conforming to what one mistakenly believes is the majority view, despite not personally endorsing it
Shelton and Richeson (2005): pluralistic ignorance
- Aimed to investigate PI in the context of inter-group interactions, focusing on misperceptions of interest and fear
- Participants read a hypothetical situation: “You enter the dining hall for dinner. You are alone because your close friends are in a review session. As you look around the dining hall for a place to sit, you notice several White [Black] students who live near you sitting together. These students also notice you. However, neither of you explicitly makes a move to sit together.”
- Participants were asked to explain why this situation occurred of using on two potential reasons:
1) Fear of rejection
2) Fear of interest
White and Black participants’ perceptions: - Self: reported a higher likelihood of fear of rejection as reason for not interacting
- Others (black/white students): assumed black students’ actions were driven by a lack of interest
- This research showed that while both groups desired more inter group friendships but misinterpreted each other’s intentions. They attributed their hesitation to fear of rejection, and other group’s hesitation to lack of interest. This can result in social distance, even when mutual interest exist
- Fear of rejection and assumptions about others’ lack of interest creates a feedback loop of inter-group segregation
The costs of nonconformity
1) Emotional: guilt, shame, embarrassment, humiliation
2) Social: isolation, ostracism, perceived as disruptive
The costs of nonconformity: black sheep effect
The black sheep effect: the costs of nonconformity can be particularly harsh for in-group deviants e.g alcoholics are judged more harshly by people from their in-group
Cultures differ in their sanctioning of norm violations
- Tight: cultures that have many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behaviour
- Loose: cultures that have weak social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behaviour
Moral norms
- These are subset of social norms
- These explicitly govern behaviours that have positive or negative outcomes for both the self and others e.g fairness, trust, cooperation etc
Beersma and Van Kleef (2011): policing nonconformity: gossip
- It was hypothesised that gossip can play a moderating role in promoting pro-group behaviour
- Participants played a dictator game, where they decided how many lottery tickets to donate to the group or keep for themselves
- There were two IVs:
1) Traceability: the degree to which their behaviour in the game was identifiable to others
2) Gossipy-ness: participants were provide with a communication profile of tendencies they showed in their group (e.g tendency to talk to others) - Groups with higher gossip tendency saw increased group contribution and deterred selfish actions
- In high-traceability conditions, participants contributed more, likely due to fear of being identified and judges by the group
- in high-gossip groups, traceability had less impact because gossip already regulated behaviour
Moral outrage
- Occurs when a moral norm is violated
- Reports of moral norm violations spread quickly
- Social media has emerged as a powerful force in spreading moral outrage
Hofmann et al (2014): moral outrage in response to norm violations
- This study looked at how people respond emotionally to moral and immoral acts across different media sources
- Participants were prompted 5 times per day for 3 days to record instances when they learned about moral or immoral acts. Data was collected about the source of information (e.g in-person, online etc) and emotional response (e.g levels of anger or disgust)
1) Moral vs immoral acts: participants were more likely to learn about immoral acts than moral acts. Immoral acts were most encountered through online media
2) Moral outrage: the highest levels of moral outrage were expressed in response to immoral acts encountered online compared to in-person interactions or traditional media
Bradey et al (2017): emotion and norm transmission
- Moral emotions refer to emotions associated with morals e.g emotions associated with moral outrage
- Predictors:
1) Moral-emotional language: number of moral-emotional words in tweets
2) Valence: emotional positivity or negativity of the tweet’s language
3) Group membership: classified
