Social Influence

Katie Mortley
Mind Map by , created over 6 years ago

Psychology Mind Map on Social Influence, created by Katie Mortley on 04/08/2013.

191
1
0
Tags
Katie Mortley
Created by Katie Mortley over 6 years ago
Psychology A1
Ellie Hughes
Memory Key words
Sammy :P
Psychology | Unit 4 | Addiction - Explanations
showmestarlight
Characters in "An Inspector Calls"
Esme Gillen
Using GoConqr to study geography
Sarah Egan
Social Influence
smita089
Social Influence Quiz- Psychology (Version 2)
Grace Fawcitt
Social Influence
reidl003
History of Psychology
mia.rigby
Biological Psychology - Stress
Gurdev Manchanda
Social Influence
1 Conformity
1.1 Kelman (1985): Types of Conformity
1.1.1 Compliance: going along with other to gain approval despite not agreeing privately
1.1.2 Internalisation: going along with others because you have accepted their point of view privately as well as publically
1.1.3 Identification: the changing of attitudes or behaviors due to the influence of someone that is liked in desire to build a relationship
1.2 Research Into Conformity
1.2.1 Asch (1956)
1.2.1.1 A- To investigate whether majority influence works
1.2.1.2 M- 3 lines, ppts (male US students) asked to identify which line was the same length as the 4th line, whilst confederates answered wrong
1.2.1.3 R- 36% of responses made by true ppts were incorrect, 1/4 of ppts never conformed
1.2.1.4 Why did Asch's ppts conform?
1.2.1.4.1 Distortion of Perception: a small number of ppt came to see the lines the same as the majority
1.2.1.4.2 Distortion of Judgement: ppts doubted accuracy of their judgement
1.2.1.4.3 Distortion of Action: publically agreed to avoid disapproval
1.2.1.5 Variations
1.2.1.5.1 Easier task = lower levels of conformity
1.2.1.5.2 Lucas et al: High self efficacy = less conformity
1.2.1.5.3 Majority of 3 led to optimum level of conformity
1.2.1.5.4 Importance of unanimity- one dissenter = conformity dropped to 5.5%, or dropped to 9% if dissenter gave a different wrong answer
1.2.1.6 Limitations
1.2.1.6.1 Validity
1.2.1.6.1.1 Insignificant task- conformity simply to save face
1.2.1.6.1.2 William and Sogon: higher conformity with people they knew
1.2.1.6.2 Ethics
1.2.1.6.2.1 Deception, lack of informed consent, some stress
1.2.1.6.2.1.1 Might have been overcome by debriefing
1.2.1.6.3 Eagly + Carli: females more conformist than males
1.2.1.6.4 Smith + Bond meta analysis: Collectivist cultures are more conformist
1.2.1.6.5 Related to era of McCarthyism
1.2.1.6.6 Mori + Arai: overcame problem of unconvincing confederates by using polarised lenses
1.2.1.6.7 Asch's results show more independence than conformity
2 Independent Behaviour
2.1 Resisting Pressure to Conform
2.1.1 Role of Allies- Asch: showed how introduction of another dissident gave social support to an individual and caused conformity rates to plumet
2.1.1.1 provides individual with independent assessment of reality that makes them feel more confident in rejecting majority position
2.1.2 Valid Social Support- Allen + Levine:
2.1.2.1 A- To investigate validity of support
2.1.2.2 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
2.1.2.3 R- Conditions 1 + 2 were sufficient to reduce the amount of conformity compared to 3rd condition. However 2 had much more impact.
2.1.2.4 C- an ally is helpful in resisting conformity but more so if they are perceived as offering valid social support
2.1.3 Evaluation
2.1.3.1 more willing to maintain their judgement if they have to make a moral rather than physical judgement
2.1.3.2 Hornsey et al (2003): found remarkably little movement towards the majority on attitudes that had moral significance for the individual (e.g cheating)
2.1.3.2.1 Even when this involved public behaviours
2.2 Resisting Pressures to Obey: Status and awareness of consequences increases resistance
2.2.1 Milgram: investigated the situational conditions under which people felt able to defy the orders of an authority figure
2.2.1.1 When the study was moved from Yale Uni to a downtown office more people felt able to resist authority
2.2.1.1.1 tells us that status is a key factor in obedience/resistance.
2.2.1.2 Resistance was also increased when the victim could be seen or when other confederates were present
2.2.1.2.1 This shows being made aware of the effects of your actions and having social support are means of increasing resistance
2.2.2 Evaluation
2.2.2.1 Kohlberg: Resistance greater in people who base decisions on moral principles e.g Martin Luther King
2.3 Locus of Control: An aspect of our personality, internals rely less on others opinions, better able to resist coercion
2.3.1 differ in beliefs whether the outcomes of their actions are contingent on what they do (internal)or events outside their personal control (external)
2.3.2 research into this has found a number of characteristics that have an effect on independent behaviour
2.3.2.1 1- High internals are active seekers of info thats useful to them, so they're less likely to listen to others
2.3.2.2 2- High internals tend to be more achievement-oriented, so are more likely to become leaders
2.3.2.3 3- High internals are better able to resist coercion from others
2.3.3 Evaluation
2.3.3.1 Meta Analysis Twenge et al: Externality is increasing
2.3.3.1.1 found young Americans believe their lives are controlled
2.3.3.1.2 LOC scores had become more external in student and child samples between 1960+2002
2.3.3.1.2.1 Twenge et al: implications are almost uniformly negative, externality is correlated with poor school achievement, poor self control + depression
2.3.3.1.3 since 1960s increase in social factors such as rise in divorce, violent crime, mental health and suicide
2.3.3.1.3.1 could explain increase in externality as people see many aspects of their lives as beyod their control
2.3.3.2 Linz + Semykina: gender differences in LOC with women more internal than men.
2.3.3.2.1 LOC made no difference to success of men, but 'internal' women more successful than 'external'
3 Understanding Social Change
3.1 Minority Influence: where people reject the established norm of the majority group members and move to the position of the minority
3.2 Social Change: When a whole society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the 'norm'
3.3 Role of Minority Influence
3.3.1 without it we would have no innovation/social change
3.3.2 Conversion- Moscovici: individual exposed to a persuasive argument under certain conditions, they may change their own views to match the minority
3.4 Conditions for social change through minority influence
3.4.1 Drawing attention to an issue
3.4.1.1 creates conflict that we are motivated to reduce
3.4.1.2 widens audience e.g Father4Justice, costumed high profile stunts
3.4.2 Role of Conflict
3.4.2.1 can't dismiss a minority as 'odd' or 'abnormal'
3.4.2.2 examining arguments more closely means we think more deeply about the issues being challenged
3.4.2.3 e.g Animal Rights may create conflict about what we accept as inappropriate and our current behaviour supporting the industry by buying products
3.4.2.3.1 This may change behaviour which could spread across other people
3.4.2.3.1.1 As more people change their opinion to the minority it loosens the pressure to conform to the majority
3.4.3 Consistency
3.4.3.1 minorities are more influential and taken more seriously if they are consistent
3.4.3.2 Wood et al: Meta analysis of 97 studies of minority influence
3.4.3.2.1 found those who were consistent were more influencial
3.4.4 Augmentation Principle
3.4.4.1 if there are risks involved in putting forward a point of view, they taken more seriously
3.4.4.2 By taking up a position opposing the majority, may be subjected to abuse, this could be publically/through media/imprisonment/death
3.4.4.2.1 e.g Solidarity, emerged from a strike for workers rights. Despite Gvt initiated censorship, intimidation + imprisonment of its leaders
3.4.4.2.1.1 Grew to a social movement of 10m members.
3.4.4.2.1.1.1 Led to overthrow of Communist Gvt in 1989
3.5 Evalutation
3.5.1 + Suffragettes
3.5.1.1 Drawing attention: used a variety of educational, political and occaisionally millitant tactics to draw attention to the issue
3.5.1.2 Role of Conflict: those in the majority would experience conflict between the norms and the suffragettes views.
3.5.1.2.1 Some dismissed the suffragettes as troublemakers, others moved towards the suffragette position
3.5.1.3 Consistency
3.5.1.3.1 persistent regardless of attitudes around them
3.5.1.3.2 their fight for the vote continued 15 years even when imprisoned for civil disobedience their protests continued in jail
3.5.1.4 Augmentation Principle
3.5.1.4.1 willing to suffer to make their point, risking inprisonment/death from hunger stikes meant they were taken seriously
3.5.1.4.2 e.g Emily Davidson ran out infront of horses at the Derby of 1913, she died 4 days later
3.5.2 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
4 Obedience
4.1 Behaving as instructed, usually in response to an individual rather than group pressure.
4.2 Usually take place in a hierachy when the person ordering is of higher status.
4.3 It is unlikely to involve a change in private opinion
4.4 Milgram(1963):
4.4.1 A- To investigate whether ordinary people will obey a legitimate authority even when required to injure another
4.4.2 M- 40 male ppts, 2 confederates, experimenter + 'learner'. Ppts were the teacher. Told to administer shocks each time the ppt got question wrong
4.4.3 R- 65% continued electric shocks to a max voltage
4.4.4 C- This shows that ordinary people are astonishingly obiedient
4.4.5 Variations
4.4.5.1 Proximity of Victim: 62.5% obedience in voice feedback, 40% in proximity, 30% in touch proximity
4.4.5.2 Proximity of authority figure: 21% obedience when experimenter absent
4.4.5.3 Presence of allies: 10% obedience with 2 peers rebel study
4.4.5.4 Increasing teacher's discretion- 95% refused to obey
4.4.6 Validity
4.4.6.1 Realism- Orne + Holland: ppts knew study was fake
4.4.6.1.1 Milgram pointed to ppts distress
4.4.6.1.2 Sheridan + King: repeated experiment with a real puppy + shocks
4.4.6.1.2.1 found 20/26 participants complied to the end
4.4.6.1.2.1.1 the 6 that refused were male (54% of males were obedient, 100% of women obeyed)
4.4.6.2 Blass: looked at historical relevance and found no difference over time
4.4.6.3 Obedience alibi- Mandel: looked at WWII police battalion who obeyed despite presence of Milgrams inhibitory factors
4.4.6.4 Generalisability- Hofling et al: found high levels of obedience in nurses
4.4.6.4.1 Rank + Jacobsen: found opposite in more realistic study
4.4.7 Ethics
4.4.7.1 Deception: Lack of informed consent
4.4.7.1.1 OK because 74% said they learned something of personal importance
4.4.7.2 Right To Withdraw: Prods made this difficult
4.4.7.3 Baumrind: Psychological harm wasn't justified
4.4.7.4 Study criticised because of findings rather than procedures
5 Why Do People Obey?
5.1 Gradual Commitment: Because participants had already given lower level shocks it was harder to resist request to deliver higher shocks
5.2 Agentic Shift: ppt sees himself as an agent carrying out another persons wishes
5.3 Buffers: the screen the learner and teacher are separated by
5.3.1 protects teacher from seeing them be shocked.
5.3.2 Obedience lowered when buffer was removed
5.4 Justifying Obedience: makes people more willing to surrender their freedom of action in the belief they're serving a justifiable cause
5.4.1 e.g 'needed for science advancement'
5.5 Evaluation
5.5.1 Monocausal emphasis- Mandel argued that by focusing on obedience Milgram ignored other explanations
5.5.1.1 Goldhagen: e.g Anti Semitism
5.5.2 Agentic Shift: important differences between Milgram's lab and Holocaust crimes
5.5.2.1 Therefore comparison not appropriate
5.5.3 Obedience explanation as alibi: negative consequences because exonerates war criminals
5.5.3.1 does an obedience alibi act as an excuse for actions rather than a justification?
6 Why Do People Conform
6.1 Normative Social Influence
6.1.1 result of wanting to be liked and be part of a group
6.1.2 Humans have natural need for companionship and fear of rejection
6.1.2.1 going against conformity isn't easy e.g Asch
6.1.3 Evaluation
6.1.3.1 Garandeau + Cillessen: Normative Social Influence explain bullying
6.1.3.1.1 found groups with low quality of interpersonal friendships may be manipulated by a skillful bully
6.1.3.1.1.1 victimisation of another child provides group with a common goal
6.1.3.1.1.2 creates pressure on all children to comply so they're not cast out
6.1.3.2 Shultz et al: NSI used to increase conservation behaviour among hotel guests
6.1.3.3 Linkenbach + Perkins: Success of NSI in reducing smoking among young people
6.2 Informational Social Influence
6.2.1 result of wanting to be right, looking to others for the right answer
6.2.2 some cases we go along with others because we believe them
6.2.2.1 This leads us to change our own opinion (internalisation)
6.2.3 Likely to occur when situation is ambiguous/a crisis/others are experts
6.2.4 Evaluation
6.2.4.1 Witterbrink + Henly: changed social stereotypes of African Americans
6.2.4.1.1 ppts exposed to negative info later reported more negative beliefs about a black target individual
6.2.4.2 Fein et al (2007): important in shaping political opinion
6.2.4.2.1 judgements on US President candidate could be influenced through others reactions
6.3 Social Impact Theory
6.3.1 Number: more people=more influence
6.3.2 Strength: more important people=more influence
6.3.3 Immediacy: more likely to listen attentively in small groups
6.3.4 Support- Sedikides + Jackson:
6.3.4.1 high strength + imediacy exerted more impact than low stregth + immediacy

Media attachments