Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - It makes participants realise
        
        there are no adverse consequences
        
        to not conforming
  - - - demonstrating
        
        non-conformity/disobeying is possible
  - - - caused the obedience rate to drop from
        
        65% to 10%
  - - - caused conformity levels to
        
        drop below 10%
        
        This occurred even if
        
        non-conforming confederate
        
        didn't agree w/ ppts
        
        Asch referred to this as
        
        1 more item...
  - - - to conform to a majority
        
        OR
        
        obey an authority
  - - - OF
        
        person giving instructions
        
        THIS IS BECAUSE
        
        implied threat of disobedience isn't real
        
        existence of a disobeyer
        
        makes the person realise
        
        the authority can be questioned
  - - - AND
        
        consider the consequences of their actions
        
        systematic processing
        
        making them more likely to disobey
- - - - Moscovicis work is composed of artifical tasks
        
        In real life people
        
        don't tend to debate wether
        
        colours are blue or green often
        
        Using such tasks don't reflect
        
        the complexity of consistency regarding minority influence
        
        1 more item...
    - - Maas & Clark 1984
        
        If the minority is seen as too dissimilar
        
        by the majority
        
        they may not have much of an effect at all
        
        arranged a group of heterosexual ppts to hear a debate on gay rights
        
        Found:
        
        1 more item...
        
        Contradicts Moscovici's view that deviant minorities
        
        are essential for minority influence to occur
        
        Out-group minorities
        
        more likely to be discriminated against
        
        since
        
        1 more item...
        
        In-group minorities
        
        more likely to be successful
        
        since
        
        1 more item...
      - Clark 1994
        
        Procedure
        
        Findings
        
        Minority jurors only change that other's minds when
        
        Has counter evidence to back up arguments
        
        consistent arguments were produced
        
        learned of defectors
        
        Conclusion
        
        Consistent supported arguments from the minority have
        
        greatest influence on the majority
        
        Limit exists to how many defectors are needed to influence
        
        4
        
        Used a jury setting
        
        Single juror believes defendant is innocent
        
        tries to convince the others
        
        270 college students played the role of the jury
        
        1 more item...
        
        From the film 12 Angry Men
    - - Moscovici et al. (1969)
        
        Procedure
        
        Findings
        
        control
        
        0.25% answered green
        
        inconsistent condition
        
        1.25% ppts answered green
        
        consisten condition
        
        8.42% ppts answered green
        
        SO
        
        1 more item...
        
        In a condition where ppts write down responses privately
        
        agreement w/ minority was greater compared to public responses
        
        = NSl role
        
        4 participants, 2 confederates
        
        ppts asked to name the colour of 36 slides
        
        all of which were blue BUT
        
        varied in brightness
        
        Inconsistent condition
        
        confederates named
        
        24 green
        
        12 blue
        
        Consistent condition:
        
        all 36 as green
      - Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) - flexibility
        
        Procedure
        
        Fidnings
        
        If the confederate was willing to compromise early on
        
        they did not exert much of an effect
        
        since
        
        1 more item...
        
        Confederate w/ alt view
        
        refused to change position
        
        had little influence on other group members
        
        Confederate w/ alt view
        
        who compromised
        
        showing willingness to shift to the majority view
        
        1 more item...
        
        Group discussion on
        
        how much compensation for someone in a ski-lift accident
  - - - view must be worth taking seriously
        
        IF
        
        ppl r willing to suffer
        
        OPPOSED TO
        
        giving up
        
        suffering due to their views
        
        1 more item...
    - - minority position being held
        
        DESPITE
        
        difficult circumstances
        
        E.G
        
        suffering from majority
  - - - Intra-individual consistency
        
        diachronic consistency
        
        individual members of the minority
        
        maintain a consistent
        position over time
      - Inter-individual consistency
        
        synchronic consistency
        
        there is agreement among
        
        members of the minority
    - - for minority to consistently hold their view over time
        
        they must really believe in it
        
        increases the majority interest in the view
        
        makes the majoritys view of minority more serious
  - - - Being consistent make minority seem
        
        Dogmatic
        
        This is seen negative by majoirty
        
        SO
        
        their view is rejected
        
        Flexibility is vital
        
        1 more item...
        
        Rigid
    - - Being able to compromise and adapir their POV
        
        SO
        
        they can appear reasonable
        
        AND
        
        to take account of reasonable valid counter arguments
  - - - minority influences a majority
        
        convincing the majority that minority's views are correct
        
        BUT
        
        converted may only
        
        privately agree with the minority's view
        
        publicly comply with the majority's.
    - - majority influences a minority
        
        results in public agreement
        
        BUT NOT
        
        private agreement
  - - - where majority members reject the
        
        established group norm
        
        AND
        
        move gradually to position being held by minority
  - - - BY creating
        
        uncertainity
        
        Only way to reduce this conflict is
        
        Majoirty moving to minorities POV
        
        doubts
  - - - Majoirty need to move beyond
        
        dismmising the minorities view
        
        AND
        
        actually proccessing it systmatically
        
        Deeper processing
        
        leads to
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Findings
        
        found that
        
        high degree of self-assertion was
        
        MORE IMPORTANT
        
        than an internal LOC
        
        in determining
        
        1 more item...
      - Conclusion
        
        Internal LOC
        
        WON'T
        
        make you more able to resist the pressure to conform
        
        Self-assertion is
        
        MORE IMPOERTANT
        
        1 more item...
      - Procedure
        
        studied 30 university students
        
        given a range of Asch-type conformity tasks
        
        also assessed for
        
        degree of self-assertion
        
        LOC
    - - Findings
        
        found that JP conform more readily than Americans
        
        JP also had greater amount of external LOC
      - Conclusion
        
        indicates that differences in resistance to social influence
        
        between cultures
        
        may be from
        
        differences in LOC
  - - - interviewed 2 groups of non-Jewish people
        
        who lived thru holocaust
        
        COMPARED
        
        406 people who had protected jews from nazis
        
        TO
        
        126 who hadn't
      - Findings
        
        Disobedient rescuers has high
        
        internal LOC
        
        social responsibility
      - Conclusion
        
        internal LOC makes you able to resist
        
        pressure to obey
        
        a degree of social responsiblity is need
        
        so there may be a variety of factors
      - comparison group used
        
        unlike elms & milgram
        
        used a real life example
        
        high external validity
        
        where someones internal or external LOC would be tested in a true enviroment
    - - Compared obedience lvls w internal + external LOC
        
        FOUND
        
        ppts w/ internal LOC were more resistant to pressures to obey
        
        esp when they thought they were being
        
        manipulated
        
        by experimenter
        
        coerced
      - Conclusion
        
        internal LOC makes you more able to resist pressure to obey
    - - Compared obedience lvls w internal + external LOC
        
        FOUND
        
        no sig. correlation between LOC & obedience lvls
      - Conclusion
        
        Internal LOC doesn't make you able to
        
        resist pressure to disobey
  - - - More likely to obey
        
        Don't feel in control of what happens
        
        SO
        
        approach events with
        
        fatalistic
        
        attitude
        
        passive
      - Don't feel in control of their actions
        
        SO
        
        feel less responsible
        
        SO
        
        more likely to shift into agentic state
    - - Less likely to obey
        
        Believe they have control over their
        
        failures
        
        SO
        
        won't look to others to tell them what to do
        
        successes
        
        feel in control of their own actions
        
        SO
        
        feel more responsible
        
        SO
        
        less likely to shift into agentic state
  - - - Less likely to conform
        
        resist NSI
        
        NSI would allow their behaviour to be
        
        controlled by others
        
        resist ISI
        
        Actively seek information that's useful to them
        
        so are less likely to rely on info given by others
    - - More likely to conform
        
        affected by ISI
        
        not confident in their own ability to decide
        
        look to others for info
        
        affected by NSI
        
        don't believe they have control over their life events
        
        are more likely to seek approval from others
  - - - external
        circumstances
      - fate
      - luck
  - - - their own personal decisions and efforts
    - - SINCE
        
        they follow their own beliefs and do not consider others choices
  - - - beliefs and expectations about
        
        what controls events in their lives.
- - - - Laboratory experiment
    - - Opportunity sampling
    - - experimenter
      - 47-year-old accountant (learner)
        
        Mr Wallace
    - - 40 men aged 20-50
    - - 2
        
        3
        
        4
        
        5
        
        If the teacher said he wished to stop
        
        the experimenter used a sequence of 4 standard 'prods'
        
        4 more items...
        
        After the 315-volt shock
        
        learner pounded on the wall again
        
        made no other response to further questions
        
        shocks reached 300 volts
        
        learner pounded on the wall
        
        then gave no response to the next question
        
        teacher was given a slight shock of 45 volts
        
        demonstration that the machine was working
      - naïve ppts + confederate drew lots to choose who would be the:
        learner
        teacher
        
        learner = confederate
        
        Listen to a list of word pairs
        
        then be given one word and a choice of 4 possible answers
        
        having to say which answer was correct
        
        Would pretend to receive an electric shock every time they answered incorrectly
        
        teacher = ppt
        
        Administer shocks of increasing voltage every time
        
        the learner answered incorrectly
  - - - 22.5%
    - - sweat
      - tremble
      - stutter
      - bite their lips
      - groaning
      - dig their finger-nails into their flesh'
      - nervous laughing from tension
    - - 65%
  - - - AND
        
        what conditions foster obedient and independent behaviour
  - - - even if it means harming others
  - - - holding
        
        OR
        
        believed to be holding
        
        a position of authority
  - - - Hofling (1966)
        
        Procedure
        
        Findings
        
        Conclusions
        
        In real life
        
        Docs cary
        
        3 more items...
        
        21/22 obeyed
        
        They said that they often were given instructions by telephone
        
        AND
        
        1 more item...
        
        22 nurses in hospital ring by unknown doc
        
        told them they’d sign paperowkr later
        
        asked them to administed drugs to patient
        
        breaking hospitals rules of
        
        2 more items...
    - - Orne and Holland (1968)
        
        Lacked mundane realism
        
        observed obedience was due to the nature of the experiment
        
        in which participants naturally go along w/ an experiment
        
        Participants also got paid
        
        more likely to obey when they wouldn't irl
        
        1 more item...
    - - Didn't lack experimental realism
        
        ppts show signs of extreme tension
        
        groaning
        
        unlikley to occur if they hadn’t honestly believed in this sutuation
        
        supported by the idea that ppts must have believed the task
        
        SINCE
        
        1 more item...
        
        trembling
        
        sweating
- - - - 37
    - - 75
    - - 0.7
    - - 5
  - - - findings may not be a fundamental part of human behaviour
        
        perrin and spencer 1980
        
        recreated the experiment 30 years later
        
        BUT
        
        In the UK w/ engineering students
        
        1/396 ppts conformed
        
        1 more item...
    - - Asch could control variables in the experiment
        
        e.g
        
        he could manipulate the group size
        and
        where the participant sat
        
        able to establish cause and effect
        
        how that the size of the group affected
        
        how likely it was that the ppts
        
        to conform to the majority
        
        BUT
        
        laboratory experiments can be criticised for not reflecting real life
        
        e.g
        
        Asch's research was conducted in
        
        1 more item...
        
        Participants knew they were in a research study
        
        &
        
        1 more item...
        
        Asch asked his participants to judge the length of lines
        
        2 more items...
    - - Sample used comprised of 123 ppts which were all:
        
        No females present.
        
        Collectivist cultures Have higher conformity rates
        
        SO
        
        Asch 1950 has issue with imposed etic
        
        AS
        
        1 more item...
        
        AS
        
        Social group is seen as higher in priority
        
        compared to the individual
        
        Females have been found to conform more often than men
        
        SINCE
        
        They’re more concerned about
        
        the expectation to
        
        their social relationships
        
        White
        
        Males
        
        Undergraduates
        
        American (Individualistic Culture)
  - - - Repeated measures
    - - White Americal Males
    - - Laboratory experiment
    - - stimulus line was given
        
        ppts say aloud which line matches stimulus line
        
        ppts answers last
        
        &
        
        group of confederates before ppts
        
        helping experimenter who were primed to give a wrong conclusive answer
        
        1 more item...
  - - - naïve ppts agreed with the opinion of the majority
        
        BECAUSE
        
        they didn't want to be rejected by them
        
        = compliance
    - - they werent aware they has given wrong response
        
        suggests
        
        suffering from eye strain so assumed that they could be mistaken
        
        didnt want to appear different or foolish
        
        hey didnt want to upset experimeneter
  - - - social pressure from a majority group
        
        affects a person to conform
- - - - Adorno suggested that some people have an authoritarian personality
        
        making them more likely to be obedient
        
        concluded that obedience was a consequence of
        
        early childhood experiences
        
        and resulting personality
    - - Intolerance of ambiguity
      - Submissive attitudes towards authority figures
        
        WITH
        
        Resentment to them
      - General hostility towards other groups
        
        ESPEICALLY
        
        if they sit below them hierarchially
        
        Resentment of authority placed onto them
      - Rigid beliefs in conventional values
    - - personality is a result of early childhood experiences
        
        experiences may lead to unresolved conflicts
        
        end up pushed into the unconscious but still cause anxiety
        
        Defence mechanisms are used to deal with this anxiety
      - harsh, strict, disciplinarian parents would result in a child having an authoritarian personality
        
        child feels hostility to parents
        
        BUT
        
        cannot express this because it provokes too much anxiety
        
        child behaves submissively to parents as a consequence
        
        person will be submissive to authority figures later in life
        
        1 more item...
        
        Expect highly of their child
        
        Overbearing dictatorial parents
        
        discourage
        
        expression
        
        free will
        
        free choice
        
        Exert strong discipline at home
      - Love by these disciplinarian parents tends to be conditional
    - - Formed a questionnaire
        
        F-scale
        
        measures degree of authoritarian personality
        
        Fixed responses on scale w/ range:
        
        Disagree strongly
        
        TO
        
        Agree Strongle
      - 2000+ middle class white americans complete it
        
        Analysis of results completed
        
        Characteristics
        
        Process
  - - - not all of Milgram's participants went up to the highest voltage (35% didn't)
  - - - scales Adorno used were constructed so
        
        agreement indicated authoritarianism
        
        lead to an acquiescent response set
        
        tendency to agree with the remainder of the items
        
        REGARDLESS
        
        of their content
        
        1 more item...
      - biased original sample
        
        white, middle-class, non-Jewish Americans
        
        What about the
        
        black low class African Americans?
      - was the use of retrospective questions about childhood
        
        OPPOSED TO
        
        actual observations
        
        how accurate are such memories?
        
        ALSO
        
        social desirability bias
      - Overall lowered external validity
    - - link between the personality type and obedience is only correlational and not causational
        
        means there could be other factors causing the obedience
        
        Research suggests that
        
        less educated people are more likely to have an authoritarian personality
        
        than well educated ppl
        
        implies that the authoritarian personality is not the only factor which can explain obedience
        
        HOWEVER
        
        when education levels are the same amongst ppts there still remains a proportion which is still obedient
    - - Milgram and Elms selected the 20 most obedient and defiant ppts from a repeat of Milgram
        
        interviewed them afterwards
        
        they used the F-scale
        
        found that ppts who went to 450V had
        
        higher F-scale scores than those who didn't
        
        showing that these types of people are more prone to obey.
        
        1 more item...
- - - - ISI
        
        Festinger (1954)
        
        Social Comparison Theory
        
        people are in an unfamiliar situation
        
        observe and evaluate the behaviours of others
        
        figure out the correct way to act and think
        
        1 more item...
      - NSI
        
        Linkenbach and Perkins (2003)
        
        found adolescents who were exposed to the simple message that
        
        most ppl their age didn't smoke
        
        subsequently
        
        were less likely to start smoking
        
        1 more item...
    - - found
        
        when ppts did a line comparison task w/ confederates giving wrong ans
        
        on 12/18 critical trials
        
        some conformed
        
        AFTERWARDS INTERVIEWED
        
        said
        
        1 more item...
    - - oversimplifies how social influence impacts people
        
        These 2 expnations are seemingly indepnendent from one another
        
        AS
        
        conformity stems from either NSI or ISI
        
        HOWEVER
        
        suggestion they work together in influencing levels of confmity
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Publically ONLY
        
        no change to their private beliefs
        
        Behavioural changes are only in public
    - - individual feels similar to the majority
        
        OR
        
        majority is a group that they want to belong to
        
        SO
        
        will occur w/ strangers where you may feel concern about rejection
        
        More pronounced in stressful situations
        
        1 more item...
    - - No
        
        Temporary change
        
        change will be temporary
        
        ndividual will go back to their original behaviour
    - - Compliance
    - - Norms
        
        conforming to majority behaviour
        
        SO
        
        fit in with the group
        
        they avoid group rejection
  - - - question asked has no obviously correct answer
        
        OR
        
        person being asked doesn't know what the ans is
        
        SO
        
        they look to others for this information
    - - Privatley
        
        Behavioural changes will be seen in both settings
      - Publially
    - - Yes
        
        ISI is Permanent change
        
        as individual continues to show this changed behaviour
        
        EVEN AFTER
        
        the social influence is removed
    - - Humans' basic need to feel
        
        confident that their ideas and beliefs are correct
    - - Internalisation
- - - - Asch wants to know if puncturing unanimity of a group would impact conformity
        
        2 variations
        
        non-conforming confederate who
        
        gave a different incorrect answer to the majority
        
        non-conforming confederate who
        
        gave the correct answer on critical trials
        
        differing from the incorrect majority
    - - Single
        Non Conforming
        Supporter
        
        Obedience was at 37%
        
        Fell to
        
        5%
    - - puncturing of unanimity reduced conformity
        
        SUGGESTING
        
        Social support made through disagreement with the majority
        
        COULD
        
        reduce the need for approval from the majority
        
        removing the need to conform and being able to support the right answer
  - - - making the stimulus and comparison lines
        
        more similar in length
        
        Conformity rose
        
        SUGGESTING
        
        ISI plays a larger role as a task becomes more difficult
  - - - 2
        
        14%
      - 3
        
        32%
      - 1
        
        3%
    - - 3
      - In some conditions
        
        large group of confederates
        
        reduces conformity
        
        SINCE
        
        ppts became sus when in such a large group
- - - - new behaviours to fit in a group
    - - People tend to conform to larger groups
  - - - Involves surface level superficial changes
      - Ceases to exist when not with the group
    - - BUT
        
        Disagreeing in private & having own opinions privately
  - - - Internalising the groups norms
    - - Involves long term changes to ones life
      - Remains once group is gone
- - - - Cultural differences
        
        Legitimacy of authority can explain cultural differences in obedience
        
        Some countries are less hierarchical than others
        
        SO
        
        some countries are less likely to regularly accept authorities as:
        
        legitimate
        
        1 more item...
        
        entitled to obedience
        
        1 more item...
      - serves as a basis to justify destructive or immoral behaviours and actions
        
        history shows us examples
        
        Jonestown in 1976
        
        918 people committed mass suicide
        
        AS
        
        willingly following cult leader, Jim Jones
        
        1 more item...
        
        INCLUDING UNWILLING NON CONSENTING CHILDREN
        
        SHOWING
        
        how when there is a legitimate authority
        
        people will remove their self from their own morals
        
        1 more item...
      - Real World Application
        
        plane accidents
        
        Tarnow (2000)
        
        studied aviation accidents
        
        used black box recordings of accidents
        
        where crew actions were a contributing factor
        
        1 more item...
    - - perception of legitimate authority
    - - by those we perceive as trustworthy authority figures
        
        Teachers
        
        Parents
      - Being socialised into obedience from a young age creates
        
        ingrained habit of obedience
        
        ESPECIALLY
        
        when the authority figure(s) are seen as legitimate
    - - physical environment
        
        They CONFER AUTHORITY
      - Uniforms
    - - Their perceived position in the social hierarchy
        
        therefore social hierachies MUST be present for this explanation to occur
      - acceptance of authority can be good
        
        It enables societies to function smoothly
    - - says it's acceptable or right
        
        THEN
        
        they will go along with what's happening
      - much more likely that potentially harmful commands will be obeyed if
        
        they're said to be
        
        acceptable
        
        By the authorities
        
        correct
      - It is easier to just obey
        
        OPPOSE TO
        
        questioning authorities motivations behind an action/order
        
        Lacking Obedience risks
        
        Punishment
        
        These are BINDING FACTORS to obedience
        
        withdrawal of social approval
      - If someone in authority tells you to do something it is safer to do it
        
        THEN
        
        risk the consequences
  - - - Application
        
        Knowing the effect that authority figures can have has useful applications.
        
        explains day-to-day actions
        
        such as why ppl at work might believe that
        
        needs of their companies is above their own needs
        
        which can account for people insisting on going to work when they are unwell
        
        helps understand how normal ppl can be involved in atrocities
        
        many cases of obedience with terrible outcomes
        
        My Lai massacre 1968
        
        US soldiers obeyed the orders of their commander
        
        At trail soldiers
        
        1 more item...
        
        Agency theory can help us to understand these cases
        
        AND
        
        how to avoid such events
        
        US army
        
        has courses on Milgram and obedience
        
        1 more item...
      - Blass & Schmitt (2001)
        
        showed a film of Milgram's study to students
        
        asked them to ID who they thought was responsible
        
        for the harm inflicted on Mr Wallace.
        
        students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the ppts
        
        students indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority
        
        'experimenter' was top of the hierarchy,
        
        =
        
        1 more item...
        
        AND
        
        2 more items...
      - Mandel (1998)
        
        cases of obedience that agency theory cannot explain
        
        Mandel (1998)
        
        incident w/ German Reserve Police Battalion 101
        
        during WW2
        
        Members of battalion given orders to shoot civilians in a small Polish town
        
        1 more item...
    - - social rules are needed to maintain a stable society
        
        we sacrifice some of our free will to follow them
        
        we're socialised to develop the capacity to enter an agentic state
        
        to act in the best interests of society by obeying authority.
    - - agentic:
        
        give up our free will and act on behalf of the wider group
      - autonomous state
        
        act as we wish to, according to our own free will or conscience
    - - acting as an agent for someone else's will
        
        NOT
        
        according to your own conscience
    - - dont feel responsible for what they do
        
        SINCE
        
        they don't feel as if their acts are their own
        
        SO
        
        they stop acting according to their consciences
    - - is not an unfeeling puppet
        
        they experience moral strain
        
        once they realise that what they're doing is wrong
        
        Seen in Milgram
        
        To reduce this moral strain the agentic state person will
        
        deny damage they inflicted upon the victim
        
        shifting responsibility to the victim
    - - someone else is seen as a legitimate authority figure
        
        SO
        
        they defer to them
    - - guilt OR remorse
        
        due to contravening our self-set standards
    - - Binding factors
        
        to disobey
        
        ppts must break the social commitment made to the authority
        
        presenting risks and concequences
        
        withdrawl of social approval
        
        punishment
- - - - Study done in a run down building
        
        In
        
        Bridgeport Connecticut
      - new location & new participants
        
        were not told
        
        anything about Yale Uni
      - Told the study was run by
        
        Research Association of Bridgeport
      - Obedient ppts going to 450V
        
        47.5%
      - Concluded
        
        Location affects obedience
        
        less credible, low status areas
        
        =
        
        lower obedience levels
    - - Someone can look more like an authority figure
        
        likelier to have orders obeyed from by others
      - Experimenter wore grey lab coat
        
        Pretended to leave
        
        Experimenter replaced with
        
        man in plain clothes
      - Obedient ppts going to 450V
        
        20%
      - Concluded
        
        Uniform confers authority on wearer
        
        results in
        
        higher/lower lvls of obedience
    - - How close/far away someone/something is
      - Teacher + Learner in same room
        
        =
        
        40% Obedient ppts going to 450V
      - Teacher forces learner hand onto
        electromagnetic shock plate
        
        =
        
        30% Obedient ppts going to 450V
      - Teacher left room after setting up experiment
        
        AND
        
        issued procedure via phone
        
        =
        
        20.5% Obedient ppts going to 450V
      - Conclusion
        
        Proximity is vital variable
        
        the more remote a victim is
        
        the easier it is to harm them