social impact theory

• made by?

  Latane (1981). suggested alternate explanation for why people obey
• what factors increase a response to social influence?

  • strength= determined by status, authority, age. eg police officer/teacher.
  • immediacy= distance between source and target at time of influence attempt. eg over the phone vs in a classroom
  • number=how many sources vs targets in a group. eg 1 teacher 29 kids.
• multiplication of impact?

  all factors have a multiplicative effect on social impact up to a point.

  • increasing authority figure from 2-3 has large effect, 5-6 won't have as much of an impact.
• division of impact?

  social influence becomes weaker.

  • authority power would be diminished if targets had an ally. EG Milgram variation, 2 peers rebelled against instructions, meaning presence of peers lowers obedience
• mathematical model?

  i=f(SIN)

  • i= magnitude of impact
  • f= function
  • s, i, n= strength, immediacy, number
• evidence?

  • studies from Milgram and Latane provide evidence.
  • Milgrams variation where 2 peers rebelled against instructions of authority figure asking to adminster shocks, presence of peer lowered obedience to 10%. division of impact demonstrated.
  • variation 7= proximity is important factor, also supports SIT.
  • Sedikides and Jackson (90) people obey zookeeper when not to lean on railings in uniform compared to casually dressed zookeeper.
  • ignores individual differences, why are some more resistant to social impact?
  • doesn't explain why people are influenced by others.
• methodology?

  • lab and field experiments used to develop theory(Milgrams variation or Latane), which increases scientific credibility as controls put in place
  • analysing obedience behaviour using mathematical formula can be considered reductionist. Formula attempts to explain complex social behaviour using maths.
• applications?

  • using a formula means it can predict how people will behave under certain conditions
  • theory will be reliable if same measurements are put into formula, same predictions will emerge.
  • can be criticised for being static and not dynamic, doesn't take into account how target and source interact with each other or what target brings to situation.
  • theory is limited in type of social situation it is able to explain, cannot predict what might happen when two equal groups impact on one another
• alternate theory?

  agency theory