Social Influence

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Social Influence by Mind Map: Social Influence

1. Types of Conformity

1.1. Compliance

1.1.1. Occurs when and individual accepts influence because they hope to achieve a favourable reaction from those around them

1.2. Internalisation

1.2.1. Occurs when an individual accepts influence because of the content of the attitude or behaviour proposed is consistent with their own value system

1.3. Identification

1.3.1. A form of influence where an individual adopts an attitude or behaviour because they want to be associated with a particular person or group

2. Explanations for Conformity

2.1. Normative Social Influence

2.1.1. An individual conforms with the expectations of the majority in order to gain approval or to avoid social disapproval

2.2. Informational Social Influence

2.2.1. An individual conforms as a result of the desire to be right - looking to others as a way of gaining evidence about reality

3. Variables Effecting Conformity

3.1. Group Size

3.1.1. Under the pressure of 3 confederates conformity increases to 30%. However, any more increases to the number of confederates doesn't affect conformity.

3.2. The Unanimity of the Majority

3.2.1. If unanimity is disturbed conformity levels drop from 33% to just 5.5%

3.3. The Difficulty of the Task

3.3.1. The harder the task the more people conform this is moderated by the self-efficacy of the individual

4. Situational Factors in Obedience

4.1. Proximity

4.1.1. If the participant can experience anguish more directly then obedience levels fall to 40%. If the Pps had to physically harm someone obedience levels fall to 30%.

4.2. Location

4.2.1. The more reputable the location is makes obedience rates drop only slightly

4.3. Power of Uniform

4.3.1. Bushman (1988) found that if people are in uniform obedience increases as they convey power and authority

5. Key Studies

5.1. Asch (1956)

5.1.1. Procedure

5.1.1.1. Participants viewed lines of different lengths and compared them to a standard line. Groups contained the majority of confederates with only one participant who answered second to last. Confederates gave the same wrong answer on 12 out of the 18 trials

5.1.2. Findings

5.1.2.1. The conformity rate was approx. 33%. Without confederates participants made mistakes 1% of the time. Participants conformed to avoid disapproval.

5.2. Zimbardo (1973)

5.2.1. Procedure

5.2.1.1. 24 male students were randomly assigned the role of either prisoner of guard. Prisoners were then referred to by numbers only, guards were given uniforms and power to make rules.

5.2.2. Findings

5.2.2.1. The guards became abusive and tyrannical with the prisoners. Prisoners conformed to their role with some showing extreme reactions or rage and crying

5.3. Milgram (1963)

5.3.1. Procedure

5.3.1.1. 40 Volunteer participants were in each condition. The real participant acted as the 'teacher' the confederate was the 'learner'. The 'teacher' administered increasing shocks up to 450v when the learner got something wrong.

5.3.2. Findings

5.3.2.1. In the voice feedback condition, 65% went to the maximum 450V. But all participants went to 300V.

5.4. Elms and Milgram (1966)

5.4.1. Procedure

5.4.1.1. There were 20 'obedient' participants and 20 'defiant' participants. They all completed the MMPI and the F-Scale, and they were asked open-ended questions.

5.4.2. Findings

5.4.2.1. There was little difference between the 'obedient' and 'defiant' participants on MMPI. There were higher levels of authoritarianism in obedient participants and they reported being less close to their fathers.

5.5. Moscovici et al. (1969)

5.5.1. Procedure

5.5.1.1. Groups of 4 naive participants and 2 confederate. They were shown blue slides of varying intensity but confederates called them green. In Group 1 confederates answered consistently, in Group 2 confederates answered inconsistently.

5.5.2. Findings

5.5.2.1. Consistent minority influenced naive participants to say green on 8% of the trials. Inconsistent minority exerted very little influence

6. The Agentic State

6.1. A person sees themselves as an agent for carrying out another person's wishes. Therefore they don't see themselves as responsible for their actions instead they pass responsibility onto the figure of authority

7. Legitimacy of Authority

7.1. The Legitimate Authority is the person who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation, the legitimate authority requires an institution (e.g. a university, the military).

8. The Authoritarian Personality

8.1. A distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority. Robert Altemeyer (1981) identified three personality variables consistent with this personality type.

8.2. Altemeyers 3 variables

8.2.1. Conventionalism

8.2.1.1. an adherence to conventional norms and values

8.2.2. Authoritarian Aggression

8.2.2.1. aggressive feelings towards people who violate the norms

8.2.3. Authoritarian Submission

8.2.3.1. uncritical submission to legitimate authorities

9. Resistance to Social Influence

9.1. Social Support

9.1.1. The perception that an individual has assistance available from other people, and that they are part of a supportive network

9.2. Locus of Control

9.2.1. People differ in their beliefs about whether the outcomes of their actions are dependent on what they do (external locus of control) or on events outside their personal control (internal locus of control)

10. Minority Influence

10.1. Consistency

10.1.1. Minority influence if effective provided there stability in the expressed position over time and agreement among different members of the minority

10.2. Commitment

10.2.1. The degree to which members of the minority are dedicated to a particular cause or activity. The greater the perceived commitment, the greater the influence

10.3. Flexibility

10.3.1. A willingness to be flexible and to compromise when expressing a position

11. Social influence Processes in Social Change

11.1. Social Change through Minority Influence

11.1.1. 1. Drawing Attention to an Issue

11.1.1.1. By drawing attention to an issue, a conflict between the majorities view and the minority is created which motivates the majority to reduce it. (e.g Suffragettes)

11.1.2. 2. Cognitive Conflict

11.1.2.1. The conflict created forces the majority to think more deeply about the minorities opinions and the issues being challenged.

11.1.3. 3. Consistency of position

11.1.3.1. If the minority expresses their opinions consistently over time makes them more influential in bringing about social change.

11.1.4. 4. The Augmentation Principle

11.1.4.1. If the minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and so they are taken more seriously by others.

11.1.5. 5. The Snowball Effect

11.1.5.1. Initially minority influence has a relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely as more people consider the issues being promoted, until it reaches a 'tipping-point', a which it leads to wide scale social change.

11.2. Social Change through Majority Influence (Conformity)

11.2.1. Social Norms Interventions

11.2.1.1. an attempt to correct misconceptions of the normative behaviour of peers in an attempt to change the risky behaviour of a target population (e.g. 'Most of Us don't Drink and Drive')

12. Conformity to Social Roles