null
US
Iniciar Sesión
Regístrate Gratis
Registro
Hemos detectado que no tienes habilitado Javascript en tu navegador. La naturaleza dinámica de nuestro sitio requiere que Javascript esté habilitado para un funcionamiento adecuado. Por favor lee nuestros
términos y condiciones
para más información.
Siguiente
Copiar y Editar
¡Debes iniciar sesión para completar esta acción!
Regístrate gratis
41120
Social Influence
Descripción
Psychology Mapa Mental sobre Social Influence, creado por Katie Mortley el 08/04/2013.
Sin etiquetas
psychology
psychology
Mapa Mental por
Katie Mortley
, actualizado hace más de 1 año
Más
Menos
Creado por
Katie Mortley
hace más de 11 años
211
1
0
Resumen del Recurso
Social Influence
Conformity
Kelman (1985): Types of Conformity
Compliance: going along with other to gain approval despite not agreeing privately
Internalisation: going along with others because you have accepted their point of view privately as well as publically
Identification: the changing of attitudes or behaviors due to the influence of someone that is liked in desire to build a relationship
Research Into Conformity
Asch (1956)
A- To investigate whether majority influence works
M- 3 lines, ppts (male US students) asked to identify which line was the same length as the 4th line, whilst confederates answered wrong
R- 36% of responses made by true ppts were incorrect, 1/4 of ppts never conformed
Why did Asch's ppts conform?
Distortion of Perception: a small number of ppt came to see the lines the same as the majority
Distortion of Judgement: ppts doubted accuracy of their judgement
Distortion of Action: publically agreed to avoid disapproval
Variations
Easier task = lower levels of conformity
Lucas et al: High self efficacy = less conformity
Majority of 3 led to optimum level of conformity
Importance of unanimity- one dissenter = conformity dropped to 5.5%, or dropped to 9% if dissenter gave a different wrong answer
Limitations
Validity
Insignificant task- conformity simply to save face
William and Sogon: higher conformity with people they knew
Ethics
Deception, lack of informed consent, some stress
Might have been overcome by debriefing
Eagly + Carli: females more conformist than males
Smith + Bond meta analysis: Collectivist cultures are more conformist
Related to era of McCarthyism
Mori + Arai: overcame problem of unconvincing confederates by using polarised lenses
Asch's results show more independence than conformity
Independent Behaviour
Resisting Pressure to Conform
Role of Allies- Asch: showed how introduction of another dissident gave social support to an individual and caused conformity rates to plumet
provides individual with independent assessment of reality that makes them feel more confident in rejecting majority position
Valid Social Support- Allen + Levine:
A- To investigate validity of support
M- Asch type study, 3 conditions, 1 had invalid social support (bad vision -thick glasses), 2 had valid support (normal vision), 3rd was a lone ppt
R- Conditions 1 + 2 were sufficient to reduce the amount of conformity compared to 3rd condition. However 2 had much more impact.
C- an ally is helpful in resisting conformity but more so if they are perceived as offering valid social support
Evaluation
more willing to maintain their judgement if they have to make a moral rather than physical judgement
Hornsey et al (2003): found remarkably little movement towards the majority on attitudes that had moral significance for the individual (e.g cheating)
Even when this involved public behaviours
Resisting Pressures to Obey: Status and awareness of consequences increases resistance
Milgram: investigated the situational conditions under which people felt able to defy the orders of an authority figure
When the study was moved from Yale Uni to a downtown office more people felt able to resist authority
tells us that status is a key factor in obedience/resistance.
Resistance was also increased when the victim could be seen or when other confederates were present
This shows being made aware of the effects of your actions and having social support are means of increasing resistance
Evaluation
Kohlberg: Resistance greater in people who base decisions on moral principles e.g Martin Luther King
Locus of Control: An aspect of our personality, internals rely less on others opinions, better able to resist coercion
differ in beliefs whether the outcomes of their actions are contingent on what they do (internal)or events outside their personal control (external)
research into this has found a number of characteristics that have an effect on independent behaviour
1- High internals are active seekers of info thats useful to them, so they're less likely to listen to others
2- High internals tend to be more achievement-oriented, so are more likely to become leaders
3- High internals are better able to resist coercion from others
Evaluation
Meta Analysis Twenge et al: Externality is increasing
found young Americans believe their lives are controlled
LOC scores had become more external in student and child samples between 1960+2002
Twenge et al: implications are almost uniformly negative, externality is correlated with poor school achievement, poor self control + depression
since 1960s increase in social factors such as rise in divorce, violent crime, mental health and suicide
could explain increase in externality as people see many aspects of their lives as beyod their control
Linz + Semykina: gender differences in LOC with women more internal than men.
LOC made no difference to success of men, but 'internal' women more successful than 'external'
Understanding Social Change
Minority Influence: where people reject the established norm of the majority group members and move to the position of the minority
Social Change: When a whole society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the 'norm'
Role of Minority Influence
without it we would have no innovation/social change
Conversion- Moscovici: individual exposed to a persuasive argument under certain conditions, they may change their own views to match the minority
Conditions for social change through minority influence
Drawing attention to an issue
creates conflict that we are motivated to reduce
widens audience e.g Father4Justice, costumed high profile stunts
Role of Conflict
can't dismiss a minority as 'odd' or 'abnormal'
examining arguments more closely means we think more deeply about the issues being challenged
e.g Animal Rights may create conflict about what we accept as inappropriate and our current behaviour supporting the industry by buying products
This may change behaviour which could spread across other people
As more people change their opinion to the minority it loosens the pressure to conform to the majority
Consistency
minorities are more influential and taken more seriously if they are consistent
Wood et al: Meta analysis of 97 studies of minority influence
found those who were consistent were more influencial
Augmentation Principle
if there are risks involved in putting forward a point of view, they taken more seriously
By taking up a position opposing the majority, may be subjected to abuse, this could be publically/through media/imprisonment/death
e.g Solidarity, emerged from a strike for workers rights. Despite Gvt initiated censorship, intimidation + imprisonment of its leaders
Grew to a social movement of 10m members.
Led to overthrow of Communist Gvt in 1989
Evalutation
+ Suffragettes
Drawing attention: used a variety of educational, political and occaisionally millitant tactics to draw attention to the issue
Role of Conflict: those in the majority would experience conflict between the norms and the suffragettes views.
Some dismissed the suffragettes as troublemakers, others moved towards the suffragette position
Consistency
persistent regardless of attitudes around them
their fight for the vote continued 15 years even when imprisoned for civil disobedience their protests continued in jail
Augmentation Principle
willing to suffer to make their point, risking inprisonment/death from hunger stikes meant they were taken seriously
e.g Emily Davidson ran out infront of horses at the Derby of 1913, she died 4 days later
x Minority influence may have latent rather than direct effect on majority because of fears of being labeled as deviant or rejected by the majority
Obedience
Behaving as instructed, usually in response to an individual rather than group pressure.
Usually take place in a hierachy when the person ordering is of higher status.
It is unlikely to involve a change in private opinion
Milgram(1963):
A- To investigate whether ordinary people will obey a legitimate authority even when required to injure another
M- 40 male ppts, 2 confederates, experimenter + 'learner'. Ppts were the teacher. Told to administer shocks each time the ppt got question wrong
R- 65% continued electric shocks to a max voltage
C- This shows that ordinary people are astonishingly obiedient
Variations
Proximity of Victim: 62.5% obedience in voice feedback, 40% in proximity, 30% in touch proximity
Proximity of authority figure: 21% obedience when experimenter absent
Presence of allies: 10% obedience with 2 peers rebel study
Increasing teacher's discretion- 95% refused to obey
Validity
Realism- Orne + Holland: ppts knew study was fake
Milgram pointed to ppts distress
Sheridan + King: repeated experiment with a real puppy + shocks
found 20/26 participants complied to the end
the 6 that refused were male (54% of males were obedient, 100% of women obeyed)
Blass: looked at historical relevance and found no difference over time
Obedience alibi- Mandel: looked at WWII police battalion who obeyed despite presence of Milgrams inhibitory factors
Generalisability- Hofling et al: found high levels of obedience in nurses
Rank + Jacobsen: found opposite in more realistic study
Ethics
Deception: Lack of informed consent
OK because 74% said they learned something of personal importance
Right To Withdraw: Prods made this difficult
Baumrind: Psychological harm wasn't justified
Study criticised because of findings rather than procedures
Why Do People Obey?
Gradual Commitment: Because participants had already given lower level shocks it was harder to resist request to deliver higher shocks
Agentic Shift: ppt sees himself as an agent carrying out another persons wishes
Buffers: the screen the learner and teacher are separated by
protects teacher from seeing them be shocked.
Obedience lowered when buffer was removed
Justifying Obedience: makes people more willing to surrender their freedom of action in the belief they're serving a justifiable cause
e.g 'needed for science advancement'
Evaluation
Monocausal emphasis- Mandel argued that by focusing on obedience Milgram ignored other explanations
Goldhagen: e.g Anti Semitism
Agentic Shift: important differences between Milgram's lab and Holocaust crimes
Therefore comparison not appropriate
Obedience explanation as alibi: negative consequences because exonerates war criminals
does an obedience alibi act as an excuse for actions rather than a justification?
Why Do People Conform
Normative Social Influence
result of wanting to be liked and be part of a group
Humans have natural need for companionship and fear of rejection
going against conformity isn't easy e.g Asch
Evaluation
Garandeau + Cillessen: Normative Social Influence explain bullying
found groups with low quality of interpersonal friendships may be manipulated by a skillful bully
victimisation of another child provides group with a common goal
creates pressure on all children to comply so they're not cast out
Shultz et al: NSI used to increase conservation behaviour among hotel guests
Linkenbach + Perkins: Success of NSI in reducing smoking among young people
Informational Social Influence
result of wanting to be right, looking to others for the right answer
some cases we go along with others because we believe them
This leads us to change our own opinion (internalisation)
Likely to occur when situation is ambiguous/a crisis/others are experts
Evaluation
Witterbrink + Henly: changed social stereotypes of African Americans
ppts exposed to negative info later reported more negative beliefs about a black target individual
Fein et al (2007): important in shaping political opinion
judgements on US President candidate could be influenced through others reactions
Social Impact Theory
Number: more people=more influence
Strength: more important people=more influence
Immediacy: more likely to listen attentively in small groups
Support- Sedikides + Jackson:
high strength + imediacy exerted more impact than low stregth + immediacy
Mostrar resumen completo
Ocultar resumen completo
¿Quieres crear tus propios
Mapas Mentales
gratis
con GoConqr?
Más información
.
Similar
History of Psychology
mia.rigby
Biological Psychology - Stress
Gurdev Manchanda
Bowlby's Theory of Attachment
Jessica Phillips
Psychology subject map
Jake Pickup
Psychology A1
Ellie Hughes
Memory Key words
Sammy :P
Psychology | Unit 4 | Addiction - Explanations
showmestarlight
The Biological Approach to Psychology
Gabby Wood
Chapter 5: Short-term and Working Memory
krupa8711
Cognitive Psychology - Capacity and encoding
T W
Nervous Systems and the Brain - Lecture 1
Georgina Burchell
Explorar la Librería