Social Influence
Compliance
- Superficial, public and transitory change in behaviour and expressed attitudes in response to requests, cohersion or pressure.
Kelley 1952: Reference Groups: psychologically significant for peoples attitudes and behaviour – either in positive (compliance) or
negative sense.
Membership Group: groups which we belong to by some objective criterion or social consensus.
A negative reference group that is also our membership group has enormous power for compliance.
Turner 1991: dual-process dependency model: a general model of social influence is which 2 seperate processes operate – depending on
others for social approval (normative) and for information (informational). But challenged for underemphasising the role of group
belongingess (social identity approach)
Power isn’t the only thing needed to influence – needs to be something believable – information might have to be consistent with
normative expectations
Bochner & Insko – people were more likely to believe that you didn’t need much sleep when the information came from a Nobel prize
winner – but this effect went away when the information was implausible (told you need no sleep) .
Moscovici 1976: power is the control of behaviour – through domination producing compliance and submission – if people have power
they don’t need influence
Milgram’s Study
Milgram was trying to replicate Asch’s study with more real life consequences
Came at a time of important social implications – concentration camps – the people doing the killing were normal mild mannered people
just carrying out orders.
- A panel of 110 experts predicted how far people would go
- Predicted 10% would exceed 180V
- Actually, 65% carried on to XXX 450V.
Participants were male 20-50 year olds
Less shocks administered when the learner was closer – next to the participant – but still 30%
Group pressure: - when 2 disobedient confederates compliance dropped to 10%
When 2 obedient peers compliance rose to 92%
Proximity of authority figure – reduced to 20% when absent from the room
Legitimacy of authority figure – lab coats at Yale University – compliance reduced when conducted in less formal settings – but still 48%.
Ethics: Milgram followed up with most of his pps – 83% were glad to have taken part. The research was very important,
Sheriff
Les extreme compliance to group norms
Deutch & Gerard 1955: found decreasing uncertainty and decreasing group pressure reduced conformity
- But participants did still conform when in isolated booths (anonymous)
Who conforms?
Those who conform tend to have low IQ, low Self Esteem, high anxiety, insecurity. But situational factors may be more important than
personality.
Women are generally found to conform more – but this is more likely because the tasks used are harder for women – more uncertainty.
Cultural norms: Smith& Bond 1988: low in Belgium (14%)
- High in Indian teachers in Fiji 58%)
- Low in individualist
- High in collectivist
, Group size: conformity rises with each participant – until 5 then additional members have little effect.
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE: looking to others for information when people are uncertain. Sheriff
NORMATIVE INFLUENCE: conforming for social approval when the group has power – just surface compliance.
Referent Informational Influence: (Hogg & Turner ) operates via the process of self categorisation, responsible for group belongingness
and group behaviour
Minority Influence
- Based on leadership/ legitimate power
- However, sometimes a minority can change a majority without any of those things
- Causes social change – antiwar rallies, suffragettes, green peace
Moscovici developed a model of minority influence – focusing on the way in which the dynamics of social conflict can produce social
change – people try to avoid conflict or try to resolve the conflict.
Behavioural Style of Minorities:
- Consistency
- Draws attention to self
- Disrupts the majority norm – produces uncertainty and doubt
- Commited
- Shows the only solution to the conflict is adhering to the minority view.
Mosocivi 1969: “blue-green” slides – 4 pps and 2 confederates. –
- Colour perception task
- Confederates were consistent (all green ) or inconsistent (2/3 green)
- Consistent minority had more influence
- In a private testing afterwards, participants said more green as well
Prejudice / Discrimination
- Very important implications
Alport 1954: a traditional view of prejudice has three components
1) Cognitive (beliefs about the attitude object)
2) Affective (emotions about the object)
3) Conative (intentions to behave in a certain way towards the attitude object)
- However not all theorists are happy with this accounts
SEXISM
- Perhaps sex stereotypes reflect actual personality differences between the sexes
- Swim 1994 sex stereotypes are more a myth than reality
- Sex typing of occupations
- “man kind” “chairman”
- Sexism is now illegal – harder to detect
Eagly & Mladinic 1994: there is no longer any tendency to devalue womens work. (in Western societies )
But denial of education for women in Afghanistan and female abortion/ infanticide in India.
Compliance
- Superficial, public and transitory change in behaviour and expressed attitudes in response to requests, cohersion or pressure.
Kelley 1952: Reference Groups: psychologically significant for peoples attitudes and behaviour – either in positive (compliance) or
negative sense.
Membership Group: groups which we belong to by some objective criterion or social consensus.
A negative reference group that is also our membership group has enormous power for compliance.
Turner 1991: dual-process dependency model: a general model of social influence is which 2 seperate processes operate – depending on
others for social approval (normative) and for information (informational). But challenged for underemphasising the role of group
belongingess (social identity approach)
Power isn’t the only thing needed to influence – needs to be something believable – information might have to be consistent with
normative expectations
Bochner & Insko – people were more likely to believe that you didn’t need much sleep when the information came from a Nobel prize
winner – but this effect went away when the information was implausible (told you need no sleep) .
Moscovici 1976: power is the control of behaviour – through domination producing compliance and submission – if people have power
they don’t need influence
Milgram’s Study
Milgram was trying to replicate Asch’s study with more real life consequences
Came at a time of important social implications – concentration camps – the people doing the killing were normal mild mannered people
just carrying out orders.
- A panel of 110 experts predicted how far people would go
- Predicted 10% would exceed 180V
- Actually, 65% carried on to XXX 450V.
Participants were male 20-50 year olds
Less shocks administered when the learner was closer – next to the participant – but still 30%
Group pressure: - when 2 disobedient confederates compliance dropped to 10%
When 2 obedient peers compliance rose to 92%
Proximity of authority figure – reduced to 20% when absent from the room
Legitimacy of authority figure – lab coats at Yale University – compliance reduced when conducted in less formal settings – but still 48%.
Ethics: Milgram followed up with most of his pps – 83% were glad to have taken part. The research was very important,
Sheriff
Les extreme compliance to group norms
Deutch & Gerard 1955: found decreasing uncertainty and decreasing group pressure reduced conformity
- But participants did still conform when in isolated booths (anonymous)
Who conforms?
Those who conform tend to have low IQ, low Self Esteem, high anxiety, insecurity. But situational factors may be more important than
personality.
Women are generally found to conform more – but this is more likely because the tasks used are harder for women – more uncertainty.
Cultural norms: Smith& Bond 1988: low in Belgium (14%)
- High in Indian teachers in Fiji 58%)
- Low in individualist
- High in collectivist
, Group size: conformity rises with each participant – until 5 then additional members have little effect.
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE: looking to others for information when people are uncertain. Sheriff
NORMATIVE INFLUENCE: conforming for social approval when the group has power – just surface compliance.
Referent Informational Influence: (Hogg & Turner ) operates via the process of self categorisation, responsible for group belongingness
and group behaviour
Minority Influence
- Based on leadership/ legitimate power
- However, sometimes a minority can change a majority without any of those things
- Causes social change – antiwar rallies, suffragettes, green peace
Moscovici developed a model of minority influence – focusing on the way in which the dynamics of social conflict can produce social
change – people try to avoid conflict or try to resolve the conflict.
Behavioural Style of Minorities:
- Consistency
- Draws attention to self
- Disrupts the majority norm – produces uncertainty and doubt
- Commited
- Shows the only solution to the conflict is adhering to the minority view.
Mosocivi 1969: “blue-green” slides – 4 pps and 2 confederates. –
- Colour perception task
- Confederates were consistent (all green ) or inconsistent (2/3 green)
- Consistent minority had more influence
- In a private testing afterwards, participants said more green as well
Prejudice / Discrimination
- Very important implications
Alport 1954: a traditional view of prejudice has three components
1) Cognitive (beliefs about the attitude object)
2) Affective (emotions about the object)
3) Conative (intentions to behave in a certain way towards the attitude object)
- However not all theorists are happy with this accounts
SEXISM
- Perhaps sex stereotypes reflect actual personality differences between the sexes
- Swim 1994 sex stereotypes are more a myth than reality
- Sex typing of occupations
- “man kind” “chairman”
- Sexism is now illegal – harder to detect
Eagly & Mladinic 1994: there is no longer any tendency to devalue womens work. (in Western societies )
But denial of education for women in Afghanistan and female abortion/ infanticide in India.
