Social Impact Theory

Question 1

Sedikides & Jackson

Date, procedure, results & conclusion

Answer 1

(1990) – Confederate at zoo instructs not to lean on railings.
– Zookeeper (58%) > ordinary clothes (35%)
– Same room (61%) > different room (7%)
– 1-2 plp (60%) > 5-6 plp (13%)
Increased levels of strength, spatial immediacy and less targets increases social impact.

Question 2

Hofling et al.

Date, procedure, results & conclusion

Answer 2

(1966) – Unknown ‘doctor’ instructs 22 nurses to administer an overdose of a drug not on ward list
– 95% of nurses did w/o question
Physical immediacy not key component

Question 3

Social force is comprised of

Answer 3

Strength, Immediacy & Numbers

Question 4

What other studies could support SIT?

Answer 4

Milgram var. 13 (strength individual 65% to 20%), Milgram var. 7 (immediacy 65% to 22.5%), Milgram var. 10 (strength institute 65& to 47.5%)

Question 5

What is psychosocial law/diminishing returns?

Answer 5

As numbers increase, relative increase in impact decreases. Adding one to two people is more impactful than one to fifty-two people.

Question 6

In SIT, you are either a… or a… of social influence

Answer 6

Target or Source

Question 7

Divison of impact

Answer 7

Divisional effect (diffusion of responsibility) as target size increases.

Question 8

Evaluative con of SIT as explanation of obedience?

Answer 8

– Looks at likelihood not mentality of obedience (unlike agency theory, moral strain)