Social Influence

1. Foundations in Psychology Social Influence Dr. Fenja Ziegler

2. Social Influence • Behaviour/ attitudes influenced by presence of others? • When? Why? How? Conformity Obedience Implied Explicit Change in Behaviour/ Attitude

3. Norm DevelopmentSherif, 1935 • 100 judgements in private: how far in inches? • Autokinetic effect (appears to oscillate) • Judgements with 2/ 3 others present • Converge away from individual to common standard= Social Norm • Pps deny being influenced by others

5. Norm DevelopmentSherif, 1935 • 100 judgements in private: how far in inches? • Autokinetic effect (appears to oscillate) • Judgements with 2/ 3 others present • Converge away from individual to common standard= Social Norm • Pps deny being influenced by others

6. Uncertainty and little information in tasks Use a heuristic Look for new source of information in difficult task → other people Majority rule (democracy!) Applies to attitudes or judgements in social context (real/ imaginary) Influenced by those around us Sherif: how group attitudes are formed Uncertainty and Social Norms

7. Asch, 1951 No Uncertainty – Group Norm?

8. Informational: Converge to group norm to gain information Useful heuristic Conversionpublic & private Normative: Gain acceptance and praise Avoid punishment and exclusion Compliancepublic Informational and NormativeDeutsch & Gerard, 1955 • Explicit aim for group to be accurate (increase group pressure) • & ½ trials: lines disappear before judgement (increase uncertainty) • Increase in conformity

9. Compliance and Conversion

10. Group cohesiveness More cohesive, more conformity Group size 2 is not a group, from 3, no change Social Support Correct or incorrect breaking of social consensus Not if incompetent (e.g. thick glasses) Moderators of Normative Social Influence

11. Moderators of Informational Influence • Perceived self-confidence • Task difficulty • Cultural norms (individualistic and collectivist) Pendry & Carrick, 2001 Henry who is an Accountant Henry who is a punk rocker

13. Moderators of Informational Influence • Perceived self-confidence • Task difficulty • Cultural norms (individualistic and collectivist) Pendry & Carrick, 2001 Decreased conformityfor Punk prime, thenno prime, then Accountant Henry who is an Accountant Henry who is a punk rocker

14. Group Polarization • Pressure to conform at group level • Can change social norm • Initial attitude becomes exaggerated • Normative influence: • Fit in with group → move towards group norm • Informational Influence: • Group as source of information • Encounter many arguments in favour of position → become more convinced

15. Extreme GP: Group Think • Excessive desire to achieve consensus: • Deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing, moral judgement • Symptoms: • Increased conformity, overestimation of group competence, close-mindedness

16. 28 Jan 1986Launch of Challenger cohesiveness (important/ high-profile project ) & Stress conform to group norm:Launch overconfident close-minded

17. Minority Influence on Majority?

18. Yes, if Minority is consistent in behaviour Not rigid and dogmatic Committed ( can lead to conversion, i.e. private change) Relevance to social trends Do they know something we don’t know? Majorities: Social comparison → Compliance Minorities: Private conformity Leads to better judgements Avoid groupthink Minority Influence on Majority?Moscovici (1980)

19. Just following orders? • Why follow orders you know are wrong? • Theory: • Germans are different. • They are obedient.

20. Obedience to Authority

21. Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts Please continue, The experiment requires you to continue, please go on. It is essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must continue. • Starts banging on the wall • Complains of heart condition • No further response

22. Obedience to Authority Learner complains of pain Pleads to be let out Screams and refuses to answer

23. Explaining It all • Cultural norm: obey authority • Gradual: from small shocks to lethal shocks over long period of time • Agency: no longer feel personally responsible

24. ♂ Students: 50% ♂Gen Pop: 85% Students: 62% Students: 85% ♂ Gen Pop: 65% ♀Gen Pop: 65% Students: 85% ♂ Students: 40% ♀Students: 16% Gen Pop: 92% Students: over 90% Gen Pop: 80%

25. Influences on Obedience

26. Milgram’s (1963) findings • Unethical (study or findings?) • All capable of following orders which we know are not the right thing to do • But, all participants were distraught whilst doing it • Educate on blind obedience • Take responsibility for own actions • Role models who refuse to obey • Question motives of authority issuing unreasonable orders

27. Occurs within a hierarchy Feeling that the person above has the right to prescribe behaviour Links one status to another Emphasis is on power Behaviour adopted differs from behaviour of authority figure Prescription for action is explicit Participants embrace obedience as explanation for behaviour Regulates the behaviour among those of equal status Emphasis is on acceptance Behaviour adopted is similar to that of peers Requirement of going along with group implicit Participants deny conformity as an explanation for behaviour Obedience vs. Conformity

28. references reading watching • AS level, Chapter 2