Social impact theory 1980 Flashcards
Social impact theory 1980
Source and target
Source
- person who is doing the influencing
Target
- the person being influenced
Social impact theory 1980
Impact on target formula
Impact on target
impact on target = f[SIN]
- SIN refers to the sources
function of Strength X Immediacy X Number of Sources
Social impact theory 1980
Strength
Strength
- the perceived power/ authority of the source and the messages they convey
- e.g. source speaking in an authoritative strong tone
- this can be affected by: socio-economic Status, age and the nature of any past or future relations with the targets
Social impact theory 1980
Immediacy
Immediacy
- the closeness of the source to the target in terms of physical space and also in terms of relationship
- is affected by physical or psychological communication barriers
- such as a wall or not physically being there and communicating via telephone
Social impact theory 1980
Number
Number of Sources
- how many sources of present during the interaction
- this determines the level of social impact
Social impact theory 1980
Multiplicative effect
How increasing: strength, immediacy and number significantly increases the impact on the target
THE LIGHTBULB ANALOGY
the brightness of the bulb is effected by
- the STRENGTH of the bulb (100w >10w)
- the IMMEDIACY of the bulb (how close is the light source)
- The NUMBER of bulbs
Social impact theory 1980
Divisional effect
The divisional effect refers to when the social impact is reduced if there are more targets than there are sources
- the impact of the sources is ‘divided’ by the number of targets and therefore the impact on each target is reduced
- Impact on Targets = f(1/SIN) (where SIN refers to the targets)
Social impact theory 1980
The law of diminishing returns
The law of diminishing returns
- once the group of sources is = (number of targets+3) then each new source that is added has less of an increase in influencing effect
so 1 2 and 3 all increase by 100% influencing effect
but 4 is less than 100% and 4 is less than 4 and so on
Social impact theory 1980
Social impact theory is an explanation of the extent to which other people’s real or imagined presences can alter the way in which individuals thinks feel acts the impacted to them by strength immediacy and the number of sources during any given interaction
Social impact theory 1980
Reductionist
- SIT is reductionist as it reduces the complexity of human thoughts feelings experiences and functions to 3 numbers to predict outcomes
- in particular strength is hard to measure at his subjective to the sources and targets and difficult to quantify as there is no objective way to measure it
- so for SIT to be effective qualitative data must be gathered to account for how the individual sources and targets perceive each other to get an idea of the strength
Social impact theory 1980
Evidence +
Sedikies and Jackson (1990) zoo
Sedikies ans Jackson (1990)
They tested different conditions relating to SIT at New York Zoo to instruct visitors on:
-not to lean on the railing
Pro SIT conditions:
- Strength : instructer wore zookeeper uniform : 58% obeyed
- immediacy: instructed in the same room (to not lean on the railing) : 61% obeyed
- Strength: Small group instructed (Apx. 2 ppl in group reducing Division of impact) : 60% obeyed
No SIT conditions
- No Strength: instructor was dressed in shirts and shorts : 35% obeyed
- no Immediacy: instructed from an ajacent room : 7% obeyed
- No Number : Big group of 5+ ppl (increase divison of impact) : 14% obeyed
Overall the results showed that all aspects of SIT increase obedience providing evidence to support social impact theory
Social impact theory 1980
Evidence -
Hofling (1966) nurse unkown drug
Hoffling 1966
- an unknown doctor individually asked 22 nurses over the telephone to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list and they were unfamiliar with
- 95% of nurses did it (they was stopped before injection)
- this shows that immediacy has little to no importance on the impact of target as the dr. wasnt in the room and communicated by tellephone, so the impact should have decreased, therefore being against immediacy and being evidence Against SIT
Social impact theory 1980
How good research
- Sedikides and Jackson 1990
Sedikides and Jackson (1990) is bad evidence to support SIT due to the influence of an unnacounted for extraneous variable that could mean the results are invalid
- The extraneous variable in question is in the Against Number condition, as it may be that those in larger groups do not hear the instructions or have less obedient personalitys, the larger the group the more likley this is to occur, and due to it being a field study they cannot control the size of the group or those who are in the group.
- meaning of extraneous variable could affect the validity of the results
- therefore meaning the study has low internal validity as cause and effect cannot be accurately established and therefore this is Poor research to support social impact theory
Social impact theory 1980
How good research
+ Hoffling (1966)
Hoffling 1996 is good research to opose SIT
- this is due to being a field study and the nurses would not have known they were part of a study and therefore their reaction would have been genuine
- due to this taking place in a real setting, rather than a lab experiment, this means that the study has high ecological validity as it is more likely to occur in real life
- therefore making hoffling (1966) good evidence to oppose SIT
Social impact theory 1980
Compared to Agency Theory + and -
good
- (+) social impact theory unlike agency Theory is more objective as it has a quantitative formula to measure the impact on the target
- Impact on target = function of Strength x Imnediacy x Number of sources
- wall strength is harder to measure agency Theory has no way to definitively measure what state a participant is in nor when the agentic shift occurs
- meaning that social impact theory is a better explanation of obedience and social influence than agency theory due to being objectively measurable and quantifiable
BAD
- evidence to support social impact theory is mainly studies such as sedikides and Jackson (1990) which was a field study where social impact theory was used to prevent people from leaning on railings
- however agency Theory has real life examples of it occurring
for example the 2004 Iraq war pictures of inhumane treatment of prisoners which soldiers claims that they were simply following orders - this shows that the soldiers were in the eigenetic state as they believed that they would not be responsible for the actions when committing them and that they blindly followed orders of superiors
- due to real life examples having higher ecological validity than Field studies, agency Theory is a better explanation of obedienc as it has been found to occur in real life settings
while Social impact theory has fewer real life examples.
