Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psychology > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

social influence

A

other people make deliberate attempts to persuade us

BUT

we are still susceptible to social influences even when others are not necessarily trying to influence us

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

majority influence

A

(conformity)

Social influence resulting from exposure to the opinions of a majority
or the majority of one’s group

(Hewstone 2015)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

minority influence

A

(innovation)

Situation in which either an individual or a group in a numerical
minority can influence the majority

(Hewstone 2015)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

social norms definition

A

belief systems about how (not) to behave, that
guide behaviour, but without the force of laws, and reflect group
members’ shared expectations about typical or desirable activities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

social norms key features

A

not enforced by law

shared expectations by group members

vital for social life

important mechanism for explaining why people act similarly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Muzafer Sherif study procedure

A

used autokinetic effect (ambiguous stimuli)

asked groups of male participants to determine how much the ligh had moved

the light had never moved (it just looks a bit like it did when you close your eyes)

Ps are very unsure what to answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Muzafer Sherif study condition A

A

CONDITION A

4 sessions to judge how much the light moved

session 1: Alone
session 2-4: in a group

estimates slowly converge towards a common estimate - shows how social norms emerge in the face of uncertain, ambiguous situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Muzafer Sherif study condition B

A

CONDITION B

Sessions 1-3 = Group

Session 4 = Alone

Estimates alone are very similar to converged estimates from when in groups

They have internalised the group norm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Muzafer Sherif study conclusion

A

When confronted with ambiguous physical reality >

we look to others to decide how to perceive our reality rather than simply just rely on our own perception

Others serve as a guide on how we should perceive the world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Asch vs Sherif

A

Sherif = influence of others on our behaviour when faced with and AMBIGUOUS stimuli

Asch = influence of others on our behaviour when faced with an UNAMBIGUOUS stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Asch general procedure - the lines

A

white american males

reference line and then a card of three different lengthed lines on the right

reference line ALWAYS matches ONE of those of the right

correct response very clear

many trials = almost 0 errors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Asch paradigm - basic experiment

A

18 trials
no. of confederates differ but often 9

p’s take turns calling out the marching line

one naive participant = last but one to call out

confederates say errors on 12/18 or 2/3rds of trials - unanimously

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Asch paradigm - basic experiment RESULTS

A

37% of response = incorrect

75% of participants made at least one error compared to 0% when alone

5% of participants conformed every time

Evidence of how conformist people can be –>
Most succumb to majority pressure at least once

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Asch paradigm - basic experiment RESULTS: alternative story

A

Keep in mind full picture

Almost all p’s resisted majority pressure at least once

Almost ⅔ of participants gave correct answers most or all of the time

Not the case every time but most of the time

Asch even said that he found more conformity than expected but the results still supported his aim to demonstrate independence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Situational factors and group characteristics influence conformity

A

group size
unanimity
culture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Asch: group size

A

Increased group size increases conformity up to a point and then it levels off

35% = highest the conformity rate gets

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Asch: unanimity

A

add correct dissenters

2 naive p’s OR
1 naive plus 1 confederate that gives correct answer

Dramatic drop in conformity rates - unanimity is very important

Unanimity variation:
add dissenter that gives different from the majority but still incorrect answers → this still makes majority drop

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

group size reality

A

Bond 2005 - metanalysis > depends on several factors and results are inconclusive

Are they willing to go against what everyone else believes

How likely are we to be leaders and speak up?

In reality, we do not often have to be the leader but decide whether to follow the minority or the majority

  • someone else makes the change first
    Who do we decide to follow?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

unanimity why?

A

When considering real life when you decide to dissent - it makes it so much easier for others to dissent too → this leads to opposition

1 disagreement = more disagreements - encourages expression of alternative perspectives

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

asch: culture

A

Many replications cross-culturally → meta-analysed = effect is replicated across various cultures

Degree of conformity differs depending on some cultural characteristics:

Collectivist cultures show greater conformity compared to individualistic

Western - Northern American, UK, West Europe: lower degree of conformity

Non-western - higher degree

140 studies - vast majority (100) came from US → need more cross-cultural research

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

culture why?

A

Induvidualsitic: more emphasis on being independent; separate from others

Collectivist: more emphasis on maintaining social harmony

People manage social relationships differently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

how do we conform? Asch post experiment interviews: independent p’s

A
  • were confident the others were wrong
  • tension and doubt were prevalent –> feeling discomfort and incorrect but felt obliged to answer truthfully

we often think people are brave and fearless but this is unreasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

how do we conform? Asch post experiment interviews: yielding p’s

A

reasons they conformed always involved some kind of distortion:

distortion of perception
distortion of judgement
distortion of action

often fell into more than one group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

distortion of perception

A
  • rare
  • yielding without awareness

Thought they answered truthfully based on their perception, no recognition of conformity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

distortion of judgement

A
  • Aware their is a clash between their own perception and that of others
  • not confident about their own answers and think maybe the others have better judgments
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

distortion of action

A
  • Aware of the clash between their own perception and that of others
  • Do not think they’re wrong - conform to fit in and not stand out
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

theoretical explanations for conformity

A

informational social influence

normative social influence

referent informational influence

28
Q

informational social influence

A

Deutsch and Gerard 1955

  • accept information as evidence of reality
  • goal is to make accurate and valid judgements
  • if valid explanation - should find conformity more likely when we are confronted with ambiguous stimulus situations –> because others help us understand reality better
29
Q

informational social influence: evidence support

A

Sherif (1936) Autokinetic study on norm function

Meta-analysis of Asch-Like experiments where the lines were closer in length (more ambiguity) - conformity = higher

30
Q

Normative social influence

A

Deutsch and Gerard 1955

  • ‘to conform with the positive expectations of another’
  • need for social approval/harmony
  • compliance (public) without acceptance (private)
31
Q

Normative social influence: evidence

A

Asch variation of original experiment:
- naive p’s write down their answers instead of say them outloud

  • hear everyone say their incorrect answers but does not have to show them they disagree →

conformity drops to 12.5%

32
Q

Normative social influence: evidence Deutsch and Gerard 1955

A

had either ambiguous or unambiguous stimuli (high uncertainty vs low uncertainty)

high = judge after lines are removed from view - rely on memory

low = judge as they see it

THEN ALSO HAD

degree of group pressure:
- private & anonymous
- face to face
- face to face AND told group accuracy is
Important

results:
Face-to-face = ^ conformity than private

  • showcasing a fear of not fitting in (normative)

F2F AND group accuracy = biggest increase in accuracy

  • pressure to reply more on group when accuracy is important
33
Q

referent informational influence

A
  • who the group is MATTERS for us to decide if we want to follow them:

people like us = we are more likely to follow

different to us = we are less likely to follow

We seek to maximise our similarity with our in-group

We seek to maximize our differences with our out-group

34
Q

referent information influence

A

Ambrams 1990

either ingroup or outgroup
and
either private or public - do we want to gain approval

Majority by an ingroup = increase conformity* when they have to give answers in public (want to gain approval)

Majority by outgroup = decrease conformity*

  • when they have to give answers in public (want to maximise difference)

*compared to when answering in private

35
Q

minority influence

A

Hewstone 2015

situation in which either an individual or a group in numerical minority can influence the majority

IMPORTANT FOR ACHEIVING SOCIAL CHNAGE

36
Q

minority influence and majority influence

A

if majority was all powerful –> we would all think the same

reality: societies are marked by innovation & change

minorities too have influence

but they lack power

so how?

37
Q

4 behavioural styles important for minority/social influence

A

Moscovici

  1. consistency - over time AND between members
  2. investment - significant personal or material sacrifice
  3. autonomy - no ulterior motives
  4. rigidity - not dogmatic, yet consistent
38
Q

consistency

A

all say the same things as eachother AND over time

→ for the audience this consistency inspires certainty and confidence in the position, which elicits trust

39
Q

Investment

A

readiness to sacrifice themselves in order to uphold their beliefs -

investment = attention and respect → personal investment in to the cause

  • why are these people going to such great lengths? Lets listen and reconsider
40
Q

Autonomy

A

less likely to open up to a minorities position if we think they are not acting autonomously , i.e., they are being paid or manipulated by authorities/outside agents

Real life example: political authorities attempt to delegitimise movements by coming up with conspiracy theories about these people being paid by external agents

41
Q

Rigidity

A

not dogmatic, complete rigidity and no flexibility can backfire > need a happy medium

42
Q

Moscovici: conversion theory

A

When minorites present deviant views > they provoke us and create a psychological conflict within us

As they insist on their views they can get on our nerves - we want to reject it but we definitely can no longer ignore it

in some cases we then begin to lisiten and internalise the views > changing out beliefs

43
Q

minority influence is qualitatively different

A

majorities = introduce compliance through comparison processes - they do not need to win us over –> we agree with them through fear of ostracization, rather than bc we genuinely agree with their views

minorities = we think about the reasons behind our views - they push us to re-examine them –> initiating change on a private level –> validation

majority that show consensus = not much attention
minority that disagree - think more deeply

44
Q

dual process model of social change

A

Moscovici

majority and minority influence operate differently

majority: induces compliance (public conformity) through comparison processes (low attention)

minority: private change through cognitive conflict and restructuring through validation processes (high attention)

45
Q

evidence for dual process of social influence: original Blue-green study

A

4 naive and 2 confederates(minority)

all slides were blue but varied in intensity

consistent condition: confederates called all slides green

inconsistent condition: confederates called 2/3 slides green

results
consistent: 8% call green
inconsistent: less than 2%

46
Q

follow up study: colour thresholds

A

would they show a genuine change in perception?

(test to see if 8% were acting due to social desirability)

Participants exposed to the minority have a lower threshold for green compared to the control participants

Shows a lasting effect of exposure - true for both experimental groups

Greater amongst p’s who did not change their opinion in public > Indirect delayed effects of minority influence, change in private, perceptual level

Shows conversion process explained earlier

47
Q

Blue-green study comparing minority and majority influence directly

A

5 conditions

3x minority >
Consistent 2/6
inconsistent 2/6
Consistent 1/6

2x majority >
Unanimous 3/4
non-unanimous 4/6 (one dissenter)

results: minority:
- only changed opinions when confronted with a consistent minority

majority:
- much larger effect p especially when unanimous (40%)

BUT

only the consistent minority shifted p’s colour thresholds

CONCLUSIONS?

48
Q

Indirect/latent effects

A

Minority influence may not successfully change your opinion on the exact thing they are trying to influence BUT may change your opinion of something related to it

49
Q

abortion and indirect/latent effects

A

Perez Mugny 1987

exposed to a pro-abortion message portrayed as a majority OR minority position

results:
- no minority influence on attitudes towards abortion
BUT
- increase in support for birth control

*an indirect change on a related issue

50
Q

gay and military and indirect/latent effects

A

Alvaro Crano 1997

exposed to a position advocating that gay people serve in the military portrayed as a majority OR minority position

results:
- no change on related issues
- increased opposition to gun control

51
Q

Study: How profound and deep is the change that minority influence has? After-image effects

A

After image effects: stare at colour and then look at white screen –> should see the opposite of that colour so:
blue - yellow
green - magenta

Results:
- those exposed to perceptual minority = saw purple → sugests minority influence can change your very perception at a neural level (not just social)

> however never been replicated since

52
Q

wood et al minorities and indirect measures

A

Directly: minorities < majorities

Indirectly: minorities = majorities

Indirect = like abortion increased birth control

53
Q

systematic processes

A

we decide whether we will be persuaded based on how strong we think the arguments are

  • requires deep, effortful form of cognitive processing
54
Q

heuristic processes

A

not content or strength but superficial features in the way the message is conveyed

e.g. more persuaded if a celebrity says it

fast

low effort

55
Q

minority or majority better for processes

A

inconsistent findings
we do not know

56
Q

source-context-elaboration model theory

A

Martin and Hewston 2008

persuasion depends on how much a message pushes us towards cognitive elaboration > to actually think about it

57
Q

source-context-elaboration model elements

A

elaboration = thinking about the message

low elaboration > heuristic > favours the majority

high elaboration > systematic > favours neither

intermediate elaboration > conversion theory > systematic processing of minority view

58
Q

elaboration

A

thinking about the message > different situations allow/encourage more/less elaboration e.g., personal relevance

59
Q

processing for a highly personal, relevant issues

A

we are more likely to process it cognitively and think about whether we are persuaded or not

> we can be persuaded by the minority or the majority depending on the argument

60
Q

processing for low personal relevance issues

A

we go on to heuristics

  • low elaboration modes to decide weather we are going to be convinced or not

e.g. she’s pretty i’ll vote for her

61
Q

intermediate personal relevance

A

most common scenario - social influence experiments mimic this -

argue this where conversion theory is relevant > more likely to process the minority influence

62
Q

If we disagree with the majority

A

> this is stressful and we will adopt convergent thinking - narrow thinking

63
Q

If we disagree with the minority

A

> not stressful and allows for considering other opinions - divergent thinking

64
Q

group membership and referent informational influence

A

minorities often belong to an outgroup

we are more likely to be persuaded by our ingroups

minorities are more likely to be influenced by in-group minorities than out-group minorities because we distance ourselves from out groups

65
Q

prototypical behaviour and social influence

A

we are effected by how prototypical we consider than minority to be - e.g. if they are popular, well respected or liked within the group

66
Q

Nemeth difference between majority and minority influence is the AMOUNT of thinking

A

majority > anxiety > narrow focus on the message

minority > relaxed > broader, divergent thinking

Social Psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions