Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social influence A01 - Coggle Diagram
Social influence A01
Minority influence
- Minority influence: when a small group or individual influences the beliefs/behaviours of the majority, leads to internalisation
- Consistency - keeping the same message over time shows confidence
- Commitment - showing dedication through personal sacrifice increases influence
- Flexibility - willingness to compromise makes the minority more reasonable
- Moscovici et al (1969) - blue - green slides:
- 6 ppts (2 confederates) shown 36 slides (all blue)
- confederates consistently said slides were green -> 8.42% conformity
- inconsistent group -> only 1.25%
- control group (no confederates) -> 0.25% error
- conclusion - consistent minority is more influential than an inconsistent one
-
Conformity
- a form of social influence where an individual's behaviour or beliefs are influenced by a group
-
-
Types + Explanations
Types
- Compliance - superficial, agree in public, disagree privately e.g. laughing at a joke you don't find funny to fit in
- Identification - moderate, conform to the group because we value it, public and private change, but may be temporary
- Internalisation - deep, accept the group norms as your own, long lasting, even when the group isn't present
Explanations
- Normative social influence:
- driven by the desire to be liked + accepted
- more likely in unfamiliar groups or when social approval is important
- linked with compliance
- Informational social influence:
- driven by the desire to be right
- more likely when the situation is ambiguous or others are seen as experts
- linked with internalisation
-
-
Obedience
Milgram
- Aim: to investigate how far people would go in obeying an authority figure, even if it meant harming another
- Method:
- 40 male volunteers
- ppt = teacher, confederate = learner
- task - give electric shocks for wrong answers
- Findings:
- 65% gave the full 450 volts
- many ppts showed signs of extreme stress, sweating, trembling, nervous laughter
- Conclusion:
- ordinary people are likely to follow orders, even if it involves harming somone, when instructed by an authority figure
-
Situational explanations
- Agentic state:
- a mental state where we see ourselves as agents executing orders, not responsible for our actions
- e.g. 'I was just following orders'
- moral strain - discomfort from acting against our values, but the responsibility is displaced.
- Autonomous state: - acting according to one's own principles, taking responsibility
- Agentic shift:
- moving from autonomy to agency when authority is present
- Binding factors: - strategies used to justify obedience (e.g. blaming victim, denying harm, dehumanising)
- Legitimacy of authority: - more likely to obey someone who is perceived to have legitimate power (e.g. police, doctors) - society teaches us to respect hierarchy
-
- social influence - how individuals/ groups affect others' attitudes and behaviours
- Social change - when whole societies (not just individuals) adopt new beliefs of behaviours over time
Lessons from minority influence: - E.g. US civil right movement
- draw attention - e.g. protests + marches
- consistency - across time + individuals
- deeper processing - people begin to question norms
- augmentation principle - activists risked abuse/imprisonment
- snowball effect - more people adopt the view, gaining momentum
- social cryptomnesia - change occurs, origin forgotten
lessons from conformity: - Asch showed how one dissenting voice can break the power of conformity
- environmental/social campaigns use normative social influence
lessons from obedience: - Milgram - disobedient models reduced conformity
- Zimbardo - obedience can be used to drive gradual commitment to social norms