Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Topic 7 - Social Influences - Coggle Diagram
Topic 7 - Social Influences
Kelman (1958) Social Influence theory
Social influence is how the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others
Compliance
Acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing, for fear of punishment or loss of reward
People accept influence at this level because they perceive the rewards or avoidance of punishments for being influenced to be in their best interest
Only lasts if the individual sees compliance as beneficial
Identification
Adoption of a decision or behaviour to maintain a positive self defining relationship with another person/s
People do come to believe in the opinions and values adopted, though not very strongly
Internalisation
Adoption of a decision, value or behaviour based in the congruence of one's values with the values of another
THe most permanent deeply rooted response to social influence
If the person who provides the influence is perceived to be trustworthy and of good judgement, the individual will accept the belief they advocate and integrate it into one's belief system
Milgram (1963) Behavioural study of Obedience
Obedience is when people comply or change their behaviour in response to a direct request from an authority figure
Aim
To determine the extent individuals would obey an authority figure
Sample
40 American males 20-50yrs old
Population
All people
Unrepresentative, low generalisability
Sampling
Convenience sampling
Opt in volunteers to an add
Procedure
Participants were paired with a confederate
Fixed lots were drawn so that the participants was always the 'teacher' and the confederate was always the 'learner'
The confederate learner was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arm
The participant and experimenter sat in a room with an electric shock generator with switches marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 375 volts (danger severe shock) to 450 volts (XXX)
The participant teacher read aloud pairs of words that the confederate learner had to remember
If the learner got a word wrong the participant administered a shock, increasing the voltage each time
At 180 volts the learner actor shouted that he could not stand the pain, at 300 he begged to be released, at 315 there was silence
If the participant asked the experimenter for advice, he would be given encouragement to continue with a sequence of standardised prods to continue "please continue" "the experiment requires you to continue ""you have no choice but to continue"
Findings
All participants obeyed up to 300 volts
65% of participants obeyed all the way up to 450 volts
At 300 volts the learner ceased responding but only 5 participants refused to continue
Contributions
People tend to obey authority figures even against their own morals/beliefs
Limitations
Psychological harm
Milgram should have been aware of the distress the study would cause participants/ should have stopped the experiment
Informed consent
Consent given by participants was not valid as participants were not informed of the true nature of the study before giving consent
Deception
Milgram lied about the experimental aim to participants
Right to withdrawal
Participants didn't feel free to leave as they were requested to continue
Lacked validity
Biased sample that was not representative of the population
Lacked ecological validity as it was carried out in a lab under artificial conditions
Factors influencing obedience
Proximity
The further the distance from the victim the more likely obedience is demonstrated
The closer the authority figure the more obedience is demonstrated
Locus of control
People with a high internal locus of control tend to be less obedient than those with an external locus of control as they take responsibility for the way they behave and don't like loss of control
Legitimacy
Authority figures that appear more legitimate elicit more obedience
Ally presence
Presence of just one ally that goes against the majority choice can reduce obedience
Agentic shift
Move from taking responsibility for own actions to passing responsibility to the authority figure
Buffers
Any aspect of a situation that protects people from having to confront the consequences of their actions
Gradual commitment
The individual being asked to perform trivial, seemingly harmless tasks to begin with then increases these demands incrementally
Conformity
Bringing one's behaviour into agreement with norms or with behaviours of others in a group
Public conformity
Accepting the behaviour of the group when they are present, but not accepting them as part of one's personal beliefs
Private conformity
Accepting the behaviours of the group as part of one's own personal beliefs
Factors influencing conformity
Normative influence
The impact of the standards established by the group on the individual's behaviour
Informational influence
Where the social environment or situational cues are used by individuals to help them monitor or adapt their behaviour to fit with the behaviour of those around them
Culture
Collectivist cultures emphasize group cooperation and value group needs or interests over the interests of the individual
Individualistic cultures emphasize and value individual needs or interests over the interests of the group or community
Group size
Studies have shown that the number of conforming participants increased dramatically as the size of the group grew from 2 to 4
Unanymity
Agreement among all members of a group, once everyone agrees the group becomes a powerful influence for conformity
Deindividuation
The loss of individual identity and inhibition when in a large group causing a person to lose responsibility for their own actions and causing them to ignore possible consequences
Behaviour becomes influenced by anonymity and a shift in attention away from self to the situation or the people whom we are acting
Social loafing
The tendency for individuals to reduce their effort when working in a group
People are more likely to engage in social loafing if they feel less personally accountable for a task and know their individual efforts have little impact on the overall outcome
Asch (1951 Line Judgement Task study)
Aim
TO investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority could cause a person to conform
Sample
50 male students from Swarthmore college USA
Research design
Experimental
Independent variable
Presence of social pressure
Dependent variable
Conforming behaviour
Individual control condition
Working alone the participants completed the line matching test, judge the length of line, verbally picking out the line identical to a control line
Group control condition
Participants responded after 7 confederates, posing as participants, gave the correct answer
Group critical trials
Participants responded after 7 confederates, posing as participants, gave the same wrong answer
Findings
50% of participants conformed on 6 or more trials agreeing with the clearly incorrect majority
75% conformed on at least one trial
25% never conformed
Contributions
People will ignore their own ideas and give into group influence, particularly when unanimity was present and group size exceeded 4 members
Participants reported conforming as
Some wanted to fit in with the group and went along with the consensus to avoid being different (normative influence)
Others believed the group was better informed then they were and the majority answer was truly correct (informational influence)
Latane & Darley (1968) Smoke Filled Room Group Inhibition of Bystander Effect in Emergencies study
Bystander effect
The more people who are present during an emergency, the less likely it is that each individual present will attempt to help
Aim
To see if people are less likely to act in an emergency when there are other present
Sample
24 college students
Research design
Experimental
Procedure
Participants were placed in a fake emergency where they completed a survey in a room that slowly filled with fake smoke, participants were please in a condition Alone, One participant and 2 confederates who ignored the smoke, or 3 participants
Independent variable
NUmber of people in the room
Dependent variable
TIme taken to respond to the smoke
Type of data
Objective Quantitative
Results
75% of alone participants calmly noticed the smoke and left the room to report
Only 10% of participants with the 2 confederates reported it
30& reported the smoke in the three naive participant condition
Findings
Individuals are much more likely to help when they are the only witness but much less likely to lend a hand when part of a crowd
Limitations
Deception was used
It was not like a real life situation, the combination of many confused people can prompt action, the relaxed and indifferent attitudes of the confederates could have instilled a false sense of security
There were only 24 participants, a small sample reduces the reliability of the data and is open to not being representative and biased in some way
Antisocial behaviour
Deliberate behaviour that causes harm to others and can vary from not helping to deliberately harming another person or their property
Factors influencing antisocial behaviour
Diffusion of responsibility
The failure to assist because it is assumed someone else will act, if a person is alone they will accept responsibility for acting
When there are several people present each person assumes that someone else will act and therefore it is not their individual responsibility
Audience inhibition
The reluctance to help when others are present because the individual is frightened of making a mistake and making a fool of themselves
The presence of others can make an individual feel self conscious, frightened of making a mistake or the situation worse, scared of making a social blunder so they may decline to help when someone is in need
Cost benefit analysis
Before undertaking an action people calculate what they will gain versus what they will lose if they act, if the gains outweigh the loses the individual will act
Benefits
Rewards, feeling good, increased self esteem, social approval, reciprocity points, monetary
Costs of helping
Effort, time, personal injury, fear of feeling stupid if helping is not warranted
Costs of not helping
Guilt, distress due to empathy, social ridicule as uncaring, loss of social standing, exclusion, feelings of regret
Social influence
Other people can provide role models for an individuals interactions, if no one else is helping the individual will use the behaviour as a guide for their own, the lack of action becomes a group norm, if others appear unconcerned the individual will adopt the attitude and not feel help is necessary
Group think
Occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in irrational or decision making outcomes, leads to deterioration in reality testing, mental efficacy and moral judgement because of group pressure
Bullying
Repeated aggressive (physical or psychological) behaviour by a person or group directed at a less powerful person or group that is intended to cause harm, fear or distress
Bullying requires a power imbalance possible factors include disability, poverty, lack of social skills, physical attributes, over or under advantage
Types
Verbal
Name calling, put downs, threats, teasing, intimidation
Physical
Touching, kitting, kicking, stealing, destruction of property, unwanted kissing or touching
Social
Ostracism (being deliberately left out or ignored), spreading rumors
Cyberbullying
Using technology
Prosocial behaviour
Voluntary intentional helping behaviour that is of benefit to the receiver and positively valued by society (charity, rescue)
Factors that influence prosocial behaviour
Reciprocity principle
People should give what they receive or expect to receive and help those who help them (can account for helping nonrelative)
More likely if the benefit to recipient is high and the cost to the helper is low
There must be a way for people to identify cheaters who in the end will not reciprocate
More likely in small communities where people know each other and have continued interactions
Social responsibility
People help because it is their duty to do so and should help those who need help
People are more likely to help victims of a bushfire, flood or burglary because they are not the ones bringing about their hardship
Humans are the ultimate reciprocal mammal and have many helping social norms to direct behaviour
Personal characteristics
Empathy
An individual is more likely to help if they can relate and understand the feelings and difficulties of the person requiring help
Similarity, individuals feel empathy for those they perceive to be like them as the helper easily identifies with the person in need
Guilt, prosocial behaviour alleviates guilt from not helping
Suffering, prosocial behaviour alleviates the shared feelings of suffering caused by empathy
Mood
An emotional state of mind or feeling
Good mood increases generosity
Bad mood may increase helping behaviour if the helping distracts us from the bad mood
Bad mood may cause us to not notice the suffering of others
Competency
Capability to apply or use the set of related knowledge, skills and abilities required to successfully perform
People with abilities or training relevant to a situation in which help is required are more likely to help and it be effective
Altruism
An apparently unselfish behaviour that provides benefit to others at some cost to the individual without any personal gain, reward or benefit
Covers a wide range of behaviours including volunteerism and martyrdom but the degree to which such behaviours are legitimately without egoistic motivation is subject to debate
Helping
A type of prosocial behaviour in which one or more individuals act to improve the status or wellbeing of one or more others
Typically in response to a small request that involves little individual risk
All helping behaviour incurs some cost to the individual providing it