social influence Flashcards
social influence=
the process by which attitudes, perceptions & behaviours can be affected by the real or implied presences of others (can be+ or -)
Mechanisms that can give situations their power (3)
- social norms
- conformity
- compliance
social norms= (1) + (3)
“rules” or standards that are understood by a group that guide behaviour & expectations
>emerge naturally our of interactions with others
>may or may not be stated
>social consequences when broken
conformity=
changing one’s behaviour to match other varieties
types of conformity (2)
> internalisation= deep & private, change in personal views that influences behaviour
> compliance= superficial & public, change in behaviour only, not views
Majority influence- internalisation: Sherif (1935): method (6)
makes use of autokinetic effect (optical illusion)
- put participants in pitch black room, except for 1 pin light which was STATIONARY
- asks participants how much light moved back and forth
- some asked alone, THEN in group
- some asked in group, then alone
- tested effect of socail influence by testing similarities/differences of alone> group vs group>alone
Majority influence- internalisation: Sherif (1935): results>
- convergence when moving from alone>group
- maintenance of beliefs when alone
-thus majority influence= internalisation
Majority influence- compliance: Asch (1952): method (4)
- unambigious task “vision test”
- 1 participant, 7 confederates
- asked which does line on L match in length
- 18 trials, 12 “critical trials” where confederates gave same wrong answer
Majority influence- compliance: Asch (1952)> results>
- 36% of critical trials showed conformity
- individual variation: 75% conformed at least once; 25% never; 5% on every trial
- control group: less than 1% errors
-asked participants why> answered felt uncomfortable & out off fear of being “odd”
Majority influence- compliance: Asch»Variation on Asch (1956) Group size>
- 1 confederate= 3%
- 2 confederate= 13%
- 3 confederate= 32%
-ceiling effect= no significant increase in conformity beyond 3
Majority influence- compliance: Asch»Variation on Asch > ambiguity
- increased difficulty increased conformity
Majority influence- compliance: Asch»Variation on Asch (1953)> individual factors (3)
- low self-esteem, low IQ & high need for social approval increases conformity (crutchfield, 1955)
Majority influence- compliance: Asch»Variation on Asch> cultural factors>
- collectivist cultures have higher rates of conformity (smith & bond, 1998)
Majority influence- compliance: Asch»Variation on Asch> influence of one
- presence of one ally (a confederate who diverged from group) reduced conformity from 32%> 5% (asch, 1956)
- even if appear incompetent (Allen & levine, 1968)
results of informational influence vs normative influence on judgements>
informational influence> produces private acceptance
normative influence> produces public compliance
informational influence=
belief everyone else knows what is going on, more so than us
>we change our judgements because we trust others more than ourselves & want to appear correct
normative influence=
we express judgements in line with the group in order to maintain others’ positive evaluations (performative)
minority influence> moscovici (1976,1980, 1985) method
- 36 slide were different shades of blue
- 4 participants & 2 confederates
- consistent: said green to all
- inconsistent: said “green” to 24 & “blue” to 12
results: found consistency is key
>found when minority consistent in “green”, responses of “green” from participants increase (1.25%>8%)
types of consistency in studies>
- diachronic= consistency over time
- synchronic= consistency between members
why does consistency work?> (3)
- disrupts the norm & creates uncertainty
- makes majority re-think their position
- confidence & dedication makes others think you know what you are saying
Obedience: Milgram (1960s): method (5)
- confederate asked qns, each time ans wrong participant has to give electric shock
- participant given taster shock at start
- incremental increase from 15V> 450V
- after each shock, participant hears confederate moaning, shouting etc then silence at 315V (pre-recorded)
- if participant hesitates, experimenter says specific order of phrases telling them to continue (increasing in seriousness ‘requires’ > essential)
- study stops if hesitate a 5th time
Obedience: Milgram (1960s): predictions vs results
- predictions: psychiatrist= 1.25% would reach end; <4% reach 300V
- people on street: all said would refuse
- results:
>62.5% reached highest level
>average maximum shock= 368 V
>demonstrates HIGH obedience to authority
Obedience: Milgram (1960s): variations: effect of proximity>
- if confederate in room= less likely
- if experimenter (authority) in room= more likely
Obedience: Milgram (1960s): method: variation: if another participant (confederate)
- diffusion of responsibility> confederate to give shock
- social support= willing to quit when other confederates quit
group influences (3) + (2)
- social contagion= spread of behaviour, emotions and ideas
- deindividuation= erosion of personal identity
- group performance
> social facilitation
>social loafing
social contagion: Le Bon (1986): 3 stages>
- submergence= loss of individuality
- Contagion= ‘diseased’ ideas being shared + followed
- suggestions= ideas drawn from shared unconsciousness
criticisms of social contagion: Le Bon (1986)
- biases: upper class man writing about poor who were undergoing revolution; thus ignorance to political motivations & impact
social contagion: Le Bon (1986): why was he popular? (3)
- popular with upper classes: discredits issues crowds were fighting for
- suggested ways to ‘control’ crowds & use to advantage
- articulated people’s fears about crowds
Deindividuation theorry (diener, 1980): negative behaviours are more likely when: (2)
–>there is a high level of anyonymity
–>individual lacks self-awareness about how they will be evaluated by others
Deindividuation theorry (diener, 1980): negative behaviours are more likely when: anonymous & lack of self awareness> when this happens we..? (3)
- dont self monitor; dont plan actions
- feel less responsible
- guided by emotion, impulsive
social facilitation=
the presence of other people lifts you up
social facilitation: triplet (1898) (3)
- analyses speed record of cyclists
- racing against each other rather than against the clock alone increased cyclists speeds
- mere presence of otherss impacts performance, whether co-actors or a passive audience
social facilitation & role of arousal: zajonc’s theory of social facilitation>
the presence of others increases the ‘dominant response latency’
>presence of others serves as a source of arousal
>since we cannot predict each other, it is good to alert & ready
social faciliation & role of arousal: evaluation apprehension=
concern about how others are evaluating your performance
outcome of social facilitation: 2 types
> Easy well-rehearsed automatic behaviours=
-dominant response is to perform better & results in improved performance
Difficult, poorly learned, unfamiliar tasks=
- dominant response is to perform less well, results in impaired performance
social loafing=
extending less effort on a task when in a group than when alone, as we expect others to slack
evidence for social loafing= (2)
- men pulling on a rope attached to dynamometer exerted less force in proportion to no of people in group
- clapping, shouting & cheering reduces per person as group gets larger
moderators of social loafing> (5)
- complexity of task
- risk of evaluation
- meaningless/important tasks
- group size
- gender & culture
social loading: gender & culture> (3)
- women loaf less
- indiviualistic cultures have more loafing
- collectivist cultures: more emphasis on group success & social norm of social responsibility
facilitiations vs loafing»
- facilitation= efforts can be evaluated
>thus: alertness & evaluation apprehension
>arousal - loafing= efforts cannot be evaluated
>thus, no evaluation apprehension
>relaxation
