Social Influence Flashcards
(26 cards)
conformity
adjusting your behaviour to social norms
adjustments of behaviours, attitudes, beliefs to a group standard
compliance
when we do something at a REQUEST
obedience
when we do something cause we get told to, DIRECT ORDER
things to think about
- as you go through your day, how do your behaviours change? why?
- expectations regarding appropriate behaviour in different circumstances
- we change our behaviour to meet the expectations of various social roles
Stanford prison study
- some students pretended to be prisoners, while others were guards
- guards behaviour became extreme
- study had to be stopped
- what do the results tell us about social roles?
criticisms of the Stanford prison study
- guards were instructed to play “tough: which biased their behaviour and distorted findings
- one guard was intentionally playing his role up
- a prisoner who had an emotional breakdown was faking so he could leave
- they haven’t been able to replicate it
social norms
patterns of behaviour accepted as normal
- individuals are expected to conform to norms
- “rules” that govern behaviour
- can be explicit or implicit
- without them we would commit more social “faux-pas”
descriptive norms
- looking at behaviour of others to figure out how to act
- perception of how people actually behave in a group or situation
- ex. individuals believe 3/4 of college students binge drink at lest once per month
injunctive norms
- told what we should do
- perceptions of what behaviours are approved of or disapproved of by others
- ex. believing that college students don’t see anything wrong with binge drinking
Goldstein et al (2008)
- injunctive vs. descriptive norms
- signs in a hotel bathroom
1) injunctive norm: “please reuse towels to help save environment”
2) descriptive norm: “join your fellow guests in helping to save the environment” - sign with descriptive norm significantly more guests reused towels
- descriptive norms work better to influence behaviours
(relays what people actually do)
pluralistic ignorance
- belief that ones attitudes are different from other ingroup members, even though public behaviour may be identical
- individual misperceives that other people accept the norms of the ingroup, even though they privately reject these norms
ex: (Prentice and Miller, 1993)
alcohol consumption among college students:
- when heavy drinking is perceived norm (descriptive norm), students also think that others are okay )injunctive norm) with amount of alcohol consumed on campus
- but personally concerned with own consumption
why is it hard to get students to ask questions
- everyone else might be confused too
- silence if other students makes individuals believe they all understand material
- each student stays silent for fear of looking stupid in front of their class peers
symbolic social influence
- other people influence our thoughts and actions even when they are not directly trying to change our behaviour
- influence resulting from our evaluation of how important others in our life would interpret our behaviour even though they are not even present
ASCH paradigm (Sherif study?)
- used confederates to create social pressure
- observed conformity in judging line heights
results:
- control condition: no pressure to conform - 1% gave wring answer
- experimental condition: confederates gave clear wrong answer - 1/3 (32%) conformed (gave wrong answer) on majority of trials
- overall 75% gave at least 1 incorrect answer (25% never conformed)
factors that affect conformity in Sherif study
unanimity: increases conformity
- presence of dissenter, at least one reduces conformity
- even if different from your answer
group size: conformity increases with group size (max conformity 3 or higher)
gender: no difference in conformity
age: conformity decreased with age
informational social proof (AKA social proof)
- we turn to members of a group to obtain accurate data
- ambiguous situations, need info fast
- eg. following others to go to right place
- leads to private conformity - we go with the norm because we feel it is right
normative social influence
- we go along with a group for acceptance
- meeting new people
- eg, adopting cultural customs
- leads to public conformity - we go with the norm even when we may disagree with it
factors affecting conformity
- how do we resist conforming?
- culture (eg collectivist cultures more influenced by outgroup pressure)
- the presence of a dissenter/ social support (finding and ally)
- minority influence: a small number of people can change a groups attitudes or behaviours
- self awareness, desire for control, motivation
deep belief that large scale societal change is necessary - eg women’s vote in Canada
how do other intentionally influence our behaviour
- compliance
getting someone to do what you want via direct request
how do we get people to comply with requests
the 6 weapons of influence (Cialdini)
1) friendship/liking
2) commitment/consistency
3) scarcity
4) reciprocity
5) social validation
6) authority
using 6 principles of influence (Cialdini)
how could we use each principle to develop strategy to increase carpooling on campus
1) friendship/liking: emphasize as an environmentally friendly initiative
2) commitment/consistency: foot in the door - first ask to carpool once per month then increase request
3) scarcity: provide special parking spaces for those who carpool
4) reciprocity: advertise that parking passes are kept low each year and will stay low if people carpool
5) social validation: give sticker to pit on car to indicate they are carpoolers
6) have the president tell everyone to carpool
obedience
Stanley Milgram
- obedience studies 1960s
- began in 1961 at Yale University
- 3 months after start of trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, wanted to answer questions:
“ =could it bee that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the holocaust were just following orders? could we call them all accomplices?
obedience to authority
obedience: following orders (compliance) from an authority figure
Milgram paradigm:
- authority figure (experimenter)
- teacher (participant)
- learner (confederate)
- deliver a shock when mistakes were made
- mistakes deliberately made - no shocks actually delivered but participants didn’t know this
- 65% obeyed to the highest shock
ethics of Milgram’s study
- was it ethical?
- do you think this research was valuable enough to justify the participants stress?
- Burger’s replication:
- only 150 volt
- other safeguards
