Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Influence to use bins/take litter home - Coggle Diagram
Influence to use bins/take litter home
Chapter 2: Social influence
Classic approaches to social influence
Conformity
"social influence arising from adherance to group norms"
'Normative influence'
'pressures to 'fit in' with a group, or more broadly with what we perecieve to be expectations about what we should do
Minority influence
'people obtain release in groups... [and] are sometimes more free from restraints, less inhibited, and able to indulge in forms of behaviour in which, when alone, they would not indulge'
could this disinhibiting effect of groups (particularly among those most likely to litter, youths, for example) explain littering?
Compliance
"Social influence arising as a response to a request"
Foot-in-the-door technique
consider a smaller (relevant) request prior to requesting a reduction in littering/taking litter home
voluntary, one-off litter picking
volunteers then feel 'invested' in the reduction of litter in the community
subsequent compliance is then motivated by a desire to perceive oneself as consistent p44
Schedule to be collabortive with other volunteers, reinforcing compliance with conformity
address the drawback of litter picking being reactive and not preventative
but still contributes to a culture of responsibility that will have a secondary preventative effect
'door in the face technique'
ask something unrealistic/disproportionate initially to make a subsequent more trivial request appear especially reasonable
e.g., asking for a substantial and regular commitment to litter picking
this subsequent, trivial request calls upon the 'norm of reciprocity', 'the requester is seen as making a concession... and so the decent thing for the participant to do is to reciprocate and make a concession of their own' p44
Obedience
"social influence arising in response to a direct order"
How could authority be used to discourage littering?
The power of suggestion/implication vs direct instruction
giving overt orders/instruction can backfire as a result of challenging an individuals autonomy
the 'fourth prod' (you have no choice, you must continue) in milgram's shock study demonstrates this p55
use of surveillance to modify behaviour p64
'A panoptic system ensures that an individual is potentially under surveillance at any given time' p67
'but, because surveillance remains an ever-present possibility, the individual ultimately gas to act as if they are under surveillance at all times'
'if they do something they shouldnt be doing, then they may be lucky and get away with it, or they may be seen abd be punished' p67
Social influence: "the process whereby attitudes and behaviour are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people" p41
Chapter 3: Group processes and decision making
Social comparison theory
something which communicated illustrated a majority opinion against littering could be displayed around the playing field to modify behaviour in this way
e.g. results of a poll given to locals condemning littering through an infographic
'social comparison theory predicts that participants will shift toward the socially desirable pole. because the decision issues presented to the participants often involve social values, there is an implied social preference for one of the outcomes' p109
this effect is pronounced when we make comparisons to others in the in-group
how can a positive group identity be fostered?
'interdependence of fate' as one definition of a group
this 'interdepedence of fate' could be ALL residents suffering from polluted green paces, risk of injury from broken glass. irrespective of who litters,
all
locals suffer
Self- categorisation
'two or more people possessing a common social identification and whose existence as a group is recognised by a third party' p90
this recognition by a third party could be the council in their appeal to stop littering
volunteers collaborating to litter pick at the same time and place constitutes a group
constructive attitudes toward littering becomes implicit
organisation of group litter-picking benefits from the phenomena of 'social facilitation'
'how individual performance is impacted by the presence of others' p101
Triplett's cycling study (evidence for social facilitation)
consider the drawback/counter measure of 'social loafing'
5 more items...
'individual performance is enhanced when being watched by 'conspecifics' (those of our own species)
an online group further reinforces this recognition of the group
organising varied clubs/activities on the local playing field to appeal to a wider demographic as possible, creating groups which are invested/ affected by and responsible for the state of the playing fields
these clubs could place emphasis on/create a culture of environmental responsibility. Appeals would be easier when members of the group are directly affected
'the opinion or ability that group members share will come to define the group and thus, pressure to ensure uniformity of the group will increase' p95
easily facilitated by social media
'humans have a need for affiliation'
'we compare our abilities and opinions to those of other people in order to make sense of how to behave in the world'
Chapter 5 why do we help one another?
bystander intervention
Kitty Genovese intervention
diffusion of responsibility
'in the presence of real or imagined others, responsibility for taking action is shared between all of them'
how does this apply to the target behaviour? (littering)
the presence of pre-existing litter on the playing fields may motivate further littering, through an individual seeing themselves as less responsible for the overall state of the area
this also creates a social norm whereby littering/neglecting the playing fields is accepted
consider this as a situational influence to littering behaviour
they may also feel less obliged to pick litter up on the premise that 'somebody else will do it'
People may be reluctant to pick up other's litter from a hygiene/safety point of view - provision of tongs/ litter pickers?
Broken glass is especially hazardous, this danger can be used to appeal to residents to be more conscientious
Latane and Darley (1970) decision-making model of helping behaviour p196
decide they are personally responsible
signage adressing the reader directly, 'YOUR playing fiel/neighbourhood/community
decide how they might help
provision of PPE to do it themselves, whatsapp group of litter pickers making them aware of location etc?
a positive and socially desirable social identity of litter pickers could be used to contrast against the inconsiderate 'yob' stereotype
interpret it as an emergency
Evoke concern through signage, childrens knees/legs cut from broken glass, a popped football?
this also targets 'expectation of outcome' in the theory of planned behaviour model
'feelings of empathy that predicted helping when they were in-group members' p218
signage showing injury from broken glass could appeal to readers, 'this could be you, or your children'
include dogwalkers too
Thomas et al 2009's three primary prosocial emotions
sympathy/empathy
anger/outrage - likely to be evoked in particular by the idea of childen being at risk of harm from broken glasss
Guilt
'because guilt is primarily a self-focused emotion, it maintains boundaries between groups - and is thus more likely to lead to top-down, tokenistic forms of helping'
this count be counter-intuitive in the sense that it could re-enforce the social identity divide between those who do and dont litter, e.g, "i shouldn't feel guilty, i don't litter and definitely don't leave broken glass on the ground' - reducing motivation to help
this affective component can help to re-enforce condemnatory attitudes toward littering
'rather than a more traditional social identity approach that tends to place a salient identity as causally prior to an experienced emotion, they suggest that emotions can equally give rise to social identities' p219
addresses the affective component of the CAB model of attitude p301
'there is evidence that pairing affective information with an object can influence the affective component of the attitude object'.
1 more item...
be explicit in communicating assignment objective,
USE THE BINS
implement that help
notice the event
adequate lighting on the playing fields, regularly cut grass so that litter/glass is visible (regarding glass this is also a safety concern if its concealed in long grass
Grusec and Redler's children's marble study
Praise, recognition, or a positive
internal/dispositional
attribution of the desired behaviour increases subsequent altruism as measures on a scale.
8 year old children told they were a 'nice person' as opposed to being told their marble donation was a 'nice thing to do' showed higher generalisation altruism thereafter p207
Gintis (2000s) 'strong reciprocity'
Altruistic punishment
Members of clubs using playing field rewarded for reporting in-group instances of littering, perpetrators are then punished (mandated litter picking, pushups, laps?)
'the human predisposition to cooperate with others and punish non-co-operators, even when punishment is costly to the punisher' p207
'in dissuading individuals from behaving selfishly , altruistic punishment helps the group to remain cooperative and seems to be designed to promote group interest.'
The boundaries of social identity
'we are more likely to help those who fall inside the boundaries of the group than those left outside' p215
'identities with more inclusive boundaries will mean that a greater number of people are likely to be helped' p215
Levine et al 'football fans' vs 'Manchester united fans'
scopes of social identity of the target intervention
'playing field users?'
local community of [town/city/village name]
anybody who accesses the park (and therefore could be argued are directly affected)
Hopkins et al 2007 p216
'helping behaviour can be used to counter negative or unflattering stereotypes of the group'
how could an unflattering stereotype be communicated to prospective litterers?
incorporate into signage depicting consequences of broken glass?
Chapter 7 attitudes
definitions of attitudes
'A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour' p292
A disposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to an object, person, institution or event
'an attitude is not simply an expression... it is an
underlying
tendency or disposition that is expressed in our thoughts, feelings and actions
Strength dimensions p297
Centrality/relevance
this dimension in increased community involvement/utilisation of green spaces. Those who use the playing fields will adopt a stronger negative attitude toward littering
relatability to other attitudes
respect for the environment/facilities feeds into broader notions of discipline which are often implicit in sporting events/clubs
Certainty; affected by the amount, origin or nature of information we have about the attitude object, social consensus
accessibility - 'strong attitudes tend to be more readily accessible... they tend to 'spring to mind' and be easier to recall
this is facilitated by the implementation of signage designed to evoke an emotional response, essentially priming a negative attitude toward the target behaviour of littering
stability: there is a positive relationship between strength of attitudes and their consistence over time. the permanence of the installed signage will help to maintain this stability.
stability may be lacking in both the sporting/community events and the litter picking group as peoples personal commitments, schedules, and life circumstances more broadly often change
Cognitive dissonance
evoked when residents compare their behaviour to that of the 'yob' depicted on the signage
Purposes of attitudes p299
utilitarian or instrumental function
'we are likely to have more positive attitudes about things that benefit us and more negative attitudes about things that cost us'
the more people who can be encouraged to participate in community/sports activities, the more people who are affected its (lack of) upkeep
social identity/adjustment
attitudes against littering are strengthened by belonging to groups/community whom utilise the playing field
Object appraisal
ego-defense
invoking a negative stereotype of those who litter could engender a compensatory attitude toward litering in service of ego-defence, to distance oneself from the negative stereotype depicted on the signage
value expression
Theory of planned behaviour (explains the conditions under which attitudes become effective predictors of behaviours)
what component of these models (TRA & TBP) to the suggest interventions target? p307
outcomes beliefs
those who litter likely thought their behaviour was inconsequential, belonging to groups who suffer/are inconvenienced by such behaviour forces attention onto the consequences of such behaviour
viewers of the signage placed around the playing fields are confronted with potential consequences of littering behaviour, harm to pets, children and themselves
those who are involved in litter picking can better appreciate the collective/cumulative effect of individual behavioural choices
subjective norms
others who belong to clubs/groups who use the playing fields are likely to condemn littering as a result of their hobbies/sporting activities being directly affected by this
attitude toward behaviour
individuals who litter come to appreciate their behaviour as selfish and inconsiderate, including the scope of people their behaviour negatively effects
'arguably the single most important contribution of our approach to the problem of effect behaviour change interventions