Social influence Flashcards
Social influence
- conformity
- minority influence
- obedience
- compliance
Reference group
a group that is psychologically significant for our behaviour and attitudes
Membership group
a group to which we belong by some objective external criterion
Dual-process dependency model
general model of social influence in which two separate processes operate - dependency on others for social approval and information about reality
referent informational influence
Pressure to conform to a group norms that defines oneself as a group member
> arises from social identity theory
> obeys the meta-contrast principle
Power
- Reward power: the ability to give or promise rewards for compliance
- coercive power: The ability to give or threaten punishment for non-compliance
- Informational power: the targets’ believe that the influencer has more information than oneself
- Expert power: the targets’ believe that the influencer has generally greater expertise and knowledge than oneself
- Legitimate power: the targets’ belief that the influencer is authorised by a recognised power structure to command and make decisions
- Referent power: identification with, attraction to or respect for the source of influence
Conformity
- normative influence
2. informational influence
Normative influence:
conformity based on a person’s desire to fulfill others’ expectation, often to gain acceptance
influence to conform to the positive expectation of others, to gain social approval or to avoid social disapproval
The motivation is to seek harmony and approval
Will go along with others’ opinions to avoid confrontation
Asch’s Line Judgment Experiment: conform to the wrong line
Informational influence
conformity that results from accepting evidence about reality provided by other people
an influence to accept information from another as evidence about reality
The motivation is to seek validity and truth
We use other’s judgment to gauge our own understanding of ambiguous stimuli (uncertainty in reality)
Sherif’s Autokinetic Experiment: did not converge
Autokinetic effect
In a dark room looking at a small point of (stationary) light, and the point of light would appear moving after you stare at it for a while
Sherif’s Autokinetic Experiment
Frame of reference: complete range of subjectively conceivable positions on some attitudinal or a behavioural dimension, which relevant people can occupy in a particular context (relevant social comparative context)
Confident and certain about what is appropriate and correct, then others’ behaviour will be largely irrelevant and thus not influential
decreasing uncertainty and decrease in group pressure (i.e. the motivation and ability of the group to censure a lack of conformity) reduce conformity
cultural norms: conformity was lower among participants from individualist cultures in North America and north-western Europe than among participants from collectivist or interdependent cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceana and South America
factors affecting conformity pressure
- group size: plateau at 3; Inverted U shape, optimal at 3 to 5 person majority
- anonymity: When the naive subject put down his or her responses privately, conformity rates decreased
- Unanimity: With one dissenter (agreeing with the naive subject), i.e., No longer a “all-against-one” situation, conformity vanished
- Expertise: if the person is an expert > less likely to conform /task difficulty / ambiguity
Obedience
a person’s willingness to conform to the demands of authority, even if those demands violate the person’s sense of what is right
addresses humanity’s great failings in obedience without thinking of:
- what they are being asked to do
- The consequences of the obedience for other living beings
reason of obedience:
- once people have committed themselves to a course of action, it can be difficult subsequently to change their minds
Similar to that involved in the foot in the door technique of persuasion - immediacy of the victim: how close or obvious the victim is to the participant
> unseen, unheard
> immediacy can prevent dehumanisation of the victim - immediacy of the authority figure
> experimenter absent, relayed directions by telephone
> experimenter: no orders - Group pressure: The actions of others help to confirm that it is either legitimate or illegitimate to continue
- legitimacy of the authority figure: allows people to abdicate personal responsibility for their actions
Milgram electric shock experiment: high compliance 65%
similar results regardless of age, sex, education, and prestige of the institution carrying out the experiment
agentic state: a frame of mind thought by Milgram to characterise unquestioning obedience, in which people as agents transfer personal responsibility to the person giving orders
criticisms:
1. Ethics
Use of deception
Put participants under stress
- Generalizability
Highly contrived situation which did not occur in real life
No real harm done
> Subjects did not really believe that they were causing harm to the learner
> The experimenter assured the teacher (naive subject) that there would be no permanent damage - Is the research important? not justifiable to put such stress on participants
> no way to judge importance - Is the participant free to terminate the experiment at any time?
- Does the participant freely consent to being in the experiment in the first place?
> not given fully informed consent: just volunteered, the true nature was not fully explained
Factors affecting obedience
- Personal responsibility: Being personally responsible diminishes obedience rates
- teacher-learner proximity: A closer physical proximity with the victim diminishes obedience
- Rebellion partners: Obedience rates decreased when the naive subject was supported by “rebellions” against the experimenter
principal components of the code of performing psychological experiments
- must be based on fully informed consent
- must be explicitly informed that they can withdraw, without penalty, at any stage of the study
- must be fully and honestly debriefed at the end of the study
Administrative violence
administrators believe the authority, who instructed them to disrupt the job applicants, were responsible for the consequences
> People complied to administering violence to others because they did not feel they were personally responsible for the consequences
Exp 1: Naive subjects (as interviewers) were instructed by the experimenter to deliver stress remarks to candidates (confederate) during job interviews to disrupt their performance: 90% obedience
Exp 2: hospital experiment: 21/22 nurses obeyed Dr Smith who agreed to sign an authorisation letter even though it might be wrong
Assumptions: Symmetric influence
Both majority and minority can exert influence towards each other
Unlike the “traditional” model that majority is always the source and minority is the target of social influence
Assumptions: Two-processes
Social influence processes differ depending on whether the majority or the minority is the source of influence
Unlike the “traditional” model that both majority and minority influence share the same process
Majority influence
~conformity
The minority (the target) engages in social comparison
Recognizes the majority norm
Under majority pressure, avoids confrontation
Immediate public compliance and delayed private rejection
Minority influence
social influence processes whereby numerical or a power minorities change the attitudes of the majority
usually more innovative
The majority (the target) engages in cognitive conflict
Resists minority opinion publicly (not to associate with minority [the deviant])
Reexamines the issue privately
When the threat of the minority is removed, change privately
Immediate public rejection and delayed private acceptance (internalization)
> Indirect, often latent, private change in opinion due to the cognitive conflict and restructuring that deviant ideas produce > people engage in a validation process: carefully examine and cogitate over the validity of their beliefs
outcome: little or no overt public agreement with the minority, for fear of being viewed as a member of the minority
private internal attitude change
the judging blue experiment
measure: public vs private response
private response: higher rate of being different
conformity bias
tendency for social psychology to treat group influence as a one-way process in which individuals or minorities always conform to majorities
conversion effect
When minority influence brings about a sudden and dramatic internal and private change in the attitude of a majority
normalisation
Mutual compromise leading to convergence
The most important behavioural style for effective minority influence
- disrupts the majority norm and produces uncertainty and doubt
- draws attention to the minority as an entity
- conveys the clear impression that there is an alternative coherent point of view
- demonstrates certainty and an unshakable commitment to this point of view (consistent!!)
- shows that (and how) the only solution to this conflict is espousal of the minorities‘ viewpoint *be consistent in all context and time
conversion theory
> Direction-of-attention hypothesis: majority influence causes people to focus on the relationship to the majority (interpersonal focus), whereas minority influence causes people to focus on the minority message itself (message focus)
> content-of-thinking hypothesis: majority influence leads to superficial examination of argument, whereas minority influence leads to detailed evaluation of arguments
> differential-influence hypothesis: majority influence produces more public/direct influence than private/indirect influence whereas minority influence produces the opposite
Convergent-divergent theory
Majority influence: disagreeing is surprising and stressful > self-protective narrowing of focus of attention > convergent thinking that inhibits consideration of alternative views
Minority influence: disagreeing is unsurprising and not stressful > does not narrow focus of attention > Allows divergent thinking that involves consideration of a range of alternative views
Compliance
the action or fact of complying with a wish or command.
- Reason-based (foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face)
- Emotion-based (negative state relief hypothesis: human beings have an innate drive to reduce negative moods, reduced by engaging in any mood-elevating behaviour, including helping behaviour, as it is paired with positive value such as smiles and thank you)
foot-in-the-door
Make a small, initial request that virtually everyone would agree to, and then follow it up with a larger request for what you really want.
door-in-the-face
where larger requests are asked, with the expectation that it will be rejected, in order to gain compliance for smaller requests
negative-state relief hypothesis
human beings have an innate drive to reduce negative moods. They can be reduced by engaging in any mood-elevating behaviour, including helping behaviour
negative mood increases helpfulness because helping others can reduce one’s own bad feelings
