1 / 43

Social Influence (Chapter 8)

Social Influence (Chapter 8). The lighter side of conformity. And the darker side…. David Koresh. Reverend James Jones. Fundamental attribution error, redux. Critical issue: internalized vs. non-internalized influence. Three historic distinctions. Conformity Compliance Obedience.

Ava
Télécharger la présentation

Social Influence (Chapter 8)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Influence (Chapter 8)

  2. The lighter side of conformity

  3. And the darker side…. David Koresh Reverend James Jones

  4. Fundamental attribution error, redux.

  5. Critical issue: internalized vs. non-internalized influence

  6. Three historic distinctions • Conformity • Compliance • Obedience

  7. Classic studies • Sherif (1935) • Autokinetic effect • Saccadic eye movements • Method: • Phase I (private) • Phase II (public)

  8. Private trials Public trials Trial 1 Trial 110

  9. Important aspects of Sherif (1935) • Highly ambiguous • Guessing • Compromise • Re-test FULL YEAR later (in private) • Suggests internalization

  10. Asch (1951) • Original goal: to critique Sherif (1935)

  11. A B C TEST

  12. Details of resultsfor 12 “critical” trials 33% 24% Percentage of total sample 17% 15% 11% 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 Number of times (out of 12) Ss conformed

  13. Implications/summary • conformity surprisingly high given • Unambiguous • Strangers • Low stakes for being wrong • Asch’s original hunch WRONG

  14. What about individual differences? • 24% participants in Asch (1951) NEVER conformed—why? • social vs. personality psychology

  15. Informational vs. normative social influence • Informational social influence— • Need to know “what’s right” • Arises when correct answer ambiguous (e.g. Sherif, 1935) • Crisis situation (e.g. War of the Worlds) • Importance of task should generally increase conformity • Normative social influence • Need to be accepted • Correct answer relatively unambiguous (e.g. Asch, 1951) • Importance of task should generally decrease conformity

  16. Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman (1996) Person A Person A* Person B Person C Person D Actual perpetrator “line-up” presented on computer • Task difficulty: 5 seconds (EASY) vs. 500 milliseconds (HARD) • Task Importance (high vs. low) PA PB PC PD PA PB PC PD .

  17. Number of conforming trials Results Hard task (fast exposure) 5 Easy task (slow exposure) 0 LOW HIGH IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT IDENTIFICATION

  18. Summary of Baron et al. • When correct answer unclear (ambiguous) • Informational social influence • Conformity higher when important • When correct answer clear (unambiguous) • Normative social influence Conformity lower when task is important

  19. Milgram (1965) Slight (0-240) Intense (255-300 volts) Extreme intensity (315-360 volts) Danger: severe shock (375-420 volts) XXX (435-450 volts) • Initial “prediction” study • Psychiatrists: predict that 1 out of 1,000 would go to highest level • Results of main study: In actuality, 65% go to highest level

  20. Psychological, moral, and legal implication of Milgram study: abuses at Abu Ghraib Why did American soldiers commit abuses at Abu Ghraib and record their crimes on film? For "psy-op reasons," according to Private Lynndie England (above), who insists that she was following orders from "persons in my higher chain of command."

  21. Social influence and body image • Two issues • #1 Variance in societal standards for beauty • 1a. Variation across cultures • 1b. Variation over time, within culture

  22. Variation across 54 cultures (Anderson, 1994) high Preference for heavy body Preference for thin body low Low (unreliable) High (reliable) Food supply in that culture

  23. Variation over time, within culture: United States

  24. Mean bust-to-waist ratio (high #s = heavier, more “voluptuous” body type) 1980 1900 1920 1940 1960

  25. Issue #2:Do idealized images of feminine beauty have a causal (negative) impact on your body satisfaction?

  26. Allison Hinkamper’s dissertation “thin ideal” images “priming” manipulation control images (1) control images (2)

  27. Self-reported mood after exposure to images

  28. r = .00 .28* Dejection /negative mood -.21* Self-rated satisfaction with body Priming manipulation A classic mediated effect: (a) presentation of “thin ideal” leads to increase in dejection, (b) higher levels of dejection associated with lower levels of body image

  29. Research on culture ideals for male body type

  30. Research on men • Much less attention • More heterogeneous “ideal” compared to women, but.. • Evidence for increased emphasis on musculature • Clever study by Pope et al. (2000)-”The Adonis Complex” • computer-generated image of self • Actual • Self-ideal • Image that they guessed women would find attractive +28 lbs muscle In actuality, women tended to prefer actual/typical physique Other studies show parallel effects for women, in terms of thinness.

  31. Power of propaganda

  32. propaganda vs. “ordinary” advertising

  33. Some techniques of propaganda generation • Appeal to fear • Conditioning (association) • Stereotyping/scapegoating • Direct order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

  34. When will people show normative social influence? • Social impact theory • Strength, immediacy, number • Collectivist vs. individualist cultures • Self esteem • Gender

  35. Resisting normative social influence

  36. Minority influence • Tyranny of the Asch position among American psychologists? • Serge Moscovici • Mechanisms

  37. A closer look at norms • Injunctive vs. descriptive norms • Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren (1993)

  38. Parking Garage initial state: already littered vs. clean Participant’s car (with handbill attached to windshield) confederate One of three types of behavior (nothing, drops fast food bag, picksup fast food bag) participant

  39. Summary of design • Two independent variables 1. Behavior of confederate • Control • Descriptive norm activated (drop bag) • Injunctive norm activated (pick up bag) • 2. General Cleanliness of setting • Littered vs. clean • Dependent variable • what do Ss do with handbill attached to windshield?

  40. Probability of littering (handbill) Prior condition of environment clean littered Control Descriptive (litters) Injunctive (picks up) Norm made salient by confederate

  41. More complex issue • National park anecdote • Non-linear relation between amount of pre-existing litter and probability that you will litter • Suggests that strong injunctive norms can, ironically, be triggered by small amounts of litter • But as litter increases, this trend is reversed

  42. Probability that participant will litter high low One piece of litter in otherwise pristine setting control Lots of litter

More Related