Social Influence

Pregunta	Respuesta
Types Of Conformity	Compliance: Conforming to gain approval Internalisation: Conforming because of an acceptance of views Identification: Accepting influence because of a desire to be associated
Explanations For Conformity	Normative Social Influence: Conformity based on the desire for approval More likely to occur when under the belief of surveillance Informational Social Influence: Based on an acceptance of information as evidence about reality More likely when the situation is ambiguous
Types of Conformity and Explanations for Conformity (EVALUATION)	1. Difficulties distinguishing between compliance and internalisation 2. Research support for normative influence (Smoking- Linkenbach and Perkins) 3. Research supporting for informational influence (Racial attitudes - Wittenbrink and Henley)
Variables affecting Conformity (KEY STUDY)	Asch, 1956 Procedure: Participants view different lengths of lines and compare them to a standard one Group contained confederates with participants being the penultimate Confederates give wrong answer 12/18 trials Findings: Conformity rate was 33% Without confederates, a mistake was 1% Participants conform to avoid disapproval
Variable affecting Conformity	GROUP SIZE: increased to 30% when 3 people (Campbell and Fairey - Group size has different effect depending on type of judgement) UNANIMITY OF THE MAJORITY: with one dissenter giving the right answer, conformity 5.5% DIFFICULTY OF TASK: if correct answer is less obvious, conformity increased (Lucas et al. Influence of task difficulty moderated by self-confidence)
Variable affecting Conformity (EVALUATION)	1. Asch's research took place at a time of McCarthyism, conformity was high due to fear of communism therefore historical validity 2. Issue with confederates, Mori and Arai (2010), glasses allowed for convincing confederates 3. Independent behaviour since it was only 1/3 of results conformed
Conformity to Social Roles (KEY STUDY)	Zimbardo, The Stanford prison experiment (1973) PROCEDURE: Male volunteers assigned roles of prisoners or guards Prisoners given numbers, guards given uniform and power FINDINGS: Guards became tyrannical and treated the prisoners inhumanly Prisoners conformed to their roles
Conformity to Social Roles (EVALUATION)	1. Ethical Issues of Zimbardo, (Protection of participants, Physical harm, Confidentiality etc) 2.Demand characteristics, being to influential, Banuazizi and Movahedi 3. Not automatic, Guards chose how to act
Research on Obedience (KEY STUDY)	Milgram, 1963 PROCEDURE: 40 volunteer participants in each condition Real participant = Teacher Confederate = Learner Teacher administering increasing shock levels up to a fatal 450V FINDINGS: In voice back condition, 65% went to maximum voltage All participants went to 300V The authority figure and its importance
Situational Factors in Obedience	Proximity: obedience levels decreased with increasing proximity Location: Obedience levels dropped to 48% in lower-status setting Power of Uniform: People more likely to obey someone in uniform
Research on Obedience (EVALUATION)	1. Ethical issues due to deception and lack of informed consent 2. Internal validity- Orne and Holland claimed many saw through the deception 3. External validity- the obedience alibi
The Agentic State	A person sees themselves as an agent for carrying out another person's wishes Binding factors operate to maintain obedience (Look at victims of War and PWS)
Legitimacy of Authority	Person must perceive an individual in a position of social control People accept definitions of a situation offered by legitimate authority figure Legitimate commands arise from, institutions
Explanations for Obedience (EVALUATION)	1. The agentic state does not explain gradual transitions 2. Distinguishing between the agentic state and unflattering aspects of human nature 3. Obedience with Tarnow (2000), pilots being the legitimate figure
The Authoritarian personality	People scoring high on F scale raised within authoritarian family background See the world in 'black and white' Strict adherence to hierarchy's and social rules
Right-Wing authoritarianism RWA	A cluster of personality variables (Conventionalism, submission, aggression) that are associated with a 'right-wing' attitude to life
The Authoritarian personality (KEY STUDY)	Elms and Milgram, 1966 PROCEDURE: 20 obedient participants, 20 defiant Completed MMPI and F scale and open-ended questions FINDINGS: Little difference between obedient and defiant on MMPI Higher levels of authoritarianism with obedient participants Obedient participants reported being less close with their fathers
The Authoritarian personality (EVALUATION)	1. Correlation between RWA scores and maximum voltage shock Dambrun & Vatine 2. Explanations based on authoritarianism lack flexibility 3. Many fully obedient participants had good relationships with their parents
Resistance to Social influence (Social Support and resisting conformity)	Asch, 1956 found that social support enables us to resist conformity (Unanimity) Raise the possibility of them coming to an equally legitimate way of thinking Causes confidence in ones own answer (already seen as a self moderation)
Resistance to Social influence (Social Support and resisting obedience)	Difficult to take a stand against authority, Especially in the situation of others participating in obedient behaviour More confident in disobeying with an ally, who acts as a role model Milgram, one variation involves two confederates walking out, conformity reduced to 10%
Locus of Control	Internal LOC = greater independence and less reliance on the opinions of others (Confidence, skill) External LOC = more passive attitude and greater acceptance of the influence of others (Luck, fate) High internals less vulnerable to influence and better able to resist coercion
Resistance to Social influence (EVALUATION)	1. The Rosenstrasse protest, German women protest, 1943 (defied Gestapo together) 2. Locus of control is relevant only to normative influence not informational (Spector, 1983) 3. Allen and Levine 1969 & 1971, response order and support does not have to be valid to be effective
Minority Influence	Minority influence effective with a consistent, committed and flexible style Wood et al - minorities who were especially consistent were most influential Commitment important as it suggests certainty and confidence Flexibility more effective at changing opinion than rigid arguments
Minority Influence (KEY STUDY)	Moscovici et al, 1969 PROCEDURE: Groups of four naive participants and two confederates Shown blue slides varying in intensity but confederates called them green Group 1 confederates - consistently Group 2 confederates - inconsistently FINDINGS : Consistent minority influenced naive participants to say green on 8% of trials Inconsistent minority exerted very little influence
Minority Influence (EVALUATION)	1. Research support for flexibility (Nemeth and Brilmayer - Jury) 2. The real value of minority influence is that it 'opens the mind' - Nemeth) 3. Mackie argues that it is the majority that processes information more
Social influence processes in social change	Through minority influence: 1. Drawing attention to an issue 2. Cognitive conflict 3. Consistency of position 4. The augmentation principle 5. The snowball effect
Social change through minority influence, Conformity	If people percieve something as the norm, they alter their behaviour to fit that norm Correcting misconceptions about 'actual norms' using social norms interventions 'Most of us dont drink and drive' - 13.7% drop
Social Influence processes in Social Change (EVALUATION)	1. Influence of minority more likely to be latent rather than direct 2. Being percieved as 'deviant' limits the influence of minorities 3. Social norms interventions have their limitations (De jong - alcohol)

Siguiente

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por olimcconnell hace más de 8 años