Social Influence Flashcards
The four classic studies of social influence
Sherif – conforming to group norms
Asch – complying in social settings
Milgram – obedience to authority?
Zimbardo – conforming to group roles?
Defining Social Influence
“Process whereby attitudes and behaviour are influenced by the real or implied presence of other people” (Hogg and Vaughan 2008: 236)
ACCEPTANCE:
Others’ ideas/behaviours taken on board & internalised; become part of self
Conformity:
Change own beliefs and/or behaviour; IMPORTANT: influenced enough to change one’s behaviour to match that of others
Compliance
Outward change of behaviour;going along with others requests to keep the Peace, for reward, or to avoid punishment
Obedience
Merely following another’s commands without internalising associated beliefs/behaviours
Informational influence
Influence to accept information from another as evidence about reality (Sherif – cognitive change)
Normative influence
Influence to conform with the positive expectation of others (norms) to gain social approval or to avoid social disapproval (Asch – superficial change – compliance)
Dual Process Perspective:
Influence due to dependence or for social approval
Social Identity Theory:
This ignores group dynamics – could be interpersonal only
RII:
People conform because they are group members. They conform to norms not people
Conformity only with ingroup (Hogg and Turner 1987)
Reasons for conformity
Did not want to appear foolish
Didn’t want to spoil the results for others so chose not be different
Thought the first responder was visually impaired and didn’t want to embarrass him
Thought everyone else was conforming to first wrong answer
Believed that they were wrong (conversion)
Reasons given for resisting
Confident in own judgment, didn’t care what others thought
Believed the majority must have been right, but still said what they saw
Being true to own perceptions
But were still troubled by the experience
Relieved to find they were right
Varying Obedience
3 points…
Immediacy (proximity) of ‘Victim’
Victim not seen/heard: 100% shocked to limit
Ps held victim down: 30% shocked to limit
Proximity of authority
Experimenter absent: 20% obedience
Experimenter gave no instructions: 2.5%
1 disobedient peer 10%. 2 obedient peers 92%
Legitimacy of Authority
Uniform 70% Non-uniform 50% (Bushman 1984)
Non University setting 48%
Gibson’s analysis
Exp’s responses to Ps resisting obedience viewed as arguments designed to convince and persuade participants to continue
Not orders
Direct orders were ineffective
Gibson (2013)
Stanford Prison Study
Power of the situation is sufficient to cause good people to do bad things (The Lucifer effect)
Conformity bias
Tendency for social psychology to treat group influence as a one-way process where minorities always conform to majorities
Conversion Theory
Majorities:
Minorities:
Majorities: More public (manifest) than private (latent) change
Minorities: More private than public change
Manifest = aware, Latent =
unaware
Latent (private) influence is the most………..type of social influence
persuasive
Social impact theory (Latane 1981)
Influence =
Influence = S x I x N S= Strength (salience, power, importance, intensity) I= Immediacy (Closeness) N= Number of people in group
Majority Influence:
Two theories?
Sherif: conformity in ambiguous situations
Asch: compliance in unambiguous situations
Obedience to Authority
Who’s studies used to show we comply with authority?
Milgram’s
Obedience to group roles
Who’s study has been replicated with v different results ?
Zimbardo’s
Exposure to majority view stages…
Desire to be liked and correct
Superficial processing of majority’s position
public acceptance, private rejection
manifest/public influence
Exposure to minority view stages….
Intrigue and desire to understand
deep processing of minority’s position
public rejection, private acceptance
latent/private influence
