cous 11

• Social Influence


  Change in attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values, or behaviors as a result of being confronted with the attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values, or behaviors of other people
• Types of social influence

  • Incidental social influence
  • Deliberate social influence
• Incidental social influence

  Social facilitation or social inhibition
• Explanations for incidental social influence

  1. Drive theory

  2. Evaluation apprehension

  3. Attentional conflict
• Drive theory explanation

  • The mere presence of others leads to better performance in well-learned or easy tasks (social facilitation), but to poorer performance in tasks that are not (yet) well-learned and therefore perceived as difficult or complex (social inhibition)
  • The mere presence of other people tends to trigger the responses that have priority in an individual's behavioral repertoire (dominant responses) and inhibits responses that it has never or rarely performed
  • The presence of other members of the same species leads to an innate increase in physiological arousal or the readiness to react to unexpected actions of the other

  
• Social facilitation in cockroaches (Zajonc, 1965)


  • A light source was placed at the end of a running track. Cockroaches managed the simple maze faster when others were watching, the more complex maze they managed faster when they were alone

  
• Evaluation apprehension explanation

  • The increased arousal in the presence of others is a learned response, not an innate response
  • The effects of social facilitation / inhibition should be absent when the influence of evaluation anxiety is reduced

  
• Attentional conflict explanation


  • The presence of others leads to an internal reaction conflict between attention for the task on the one hand and attention for the other people on the other hand
  • This conflict can only be overcome with greater effort, which increases arousal

  
• Deliberate social influence - Conformity


  Conformity to the majority in the assessment of lines (Asch, 1956)

  
• Conformity to the majority in the assessment of lines (Asch, 1956)

  • Participants were shown a standard line and three comparison lines of different lengths. The task was to indicate which of the three comparison lines was the same length as the standard line. All other people were confederates of the experimenter and gave a wrong answer in 12 out of 18 trial runs
• Comparison condition: When the participants made the assessments alone, the error rate was < 2%
• Participants in an Asch line study


  • The real participant is seated in the middle. He is surrounded by the experimenter's accomplices, who have just given the wrong answer on the line task

  
• Post-experiment interview of the participants of the Asch experiment


  • Initially uncertainty and self-doubt, then increasing embarrassment, fear of disapproval, finally even fear and loneliness
  • The majority perceived the lines differently than the other participants, but could imagine that their perception was somehow faulty
  • Others were sure that the majority was wrong, but adapted to avoid standing out negatively
  • A small minority reported that they actually perceived the lines as the majority claimed
  • The "independents" (who never conformed) either said that they were simply completely sure of their judgments, or that the situation bothered them, but they wanted to follow a higher principle (individualism, correct task completion)

  
• Factors Influencing the Degree of Conformity

  • (Un-)Clarity of the Task
  • Size of Majority
  • Privacy
  • Lack of Group Agreement
  • Attractiveness of the Group
• Deliberate Social Influence - Conformity


  • Conformity as a function of presence or absence of support and competence of supporter (Allen & Levine, 1971)
• Additional Factors Influencing the Degree of Conformity

  • Culture
  • Time Point
  • Gender
  • Personality
• Reasons for the Effectiveness of Social Influence

  • Information Gain (satisfying the need for an accurate perception of reality)
  • Building and maintaining relationships
  • Support of effective group action
• Conformity in Societally Important Decisions (Granberg & Bartels, 2005)
• Minority Influence


  Group Reactions to Deviants
• Group Reactions to Deviants

  • Single deviants: The group usually first attempts to include them, especially when the group is small or the retention of members is important
  • Deviants who oppose group norms lead to questions about what the group actually stands for → Threat to group identity → Characterization of the deviant as a "black sheep", rejection of the member as a last resort
  • Rejection is particularly strong when the deviant clearly belongs to the group
• Influence possibilities of the minority? (Moscovici et al., 1969)


  • Six participants were to view a series of slides and rate them, which were all clearly blue and only differed in their light intensity. Two of the six people were confederates of the experimenter. They called the blue slides green, either every trial round, or only part of the trial rounds
• Most effective behavior style of a minority to influence the majority

  • Consistency (synchronous and diachronic)
  • Minority members show strong personal commitment to the position represented
  • Gives the impression that conviction is behind the behavior, without hidden motives
  • Negotiation style with the majority should appear principled, but not inflexibly dogmatic
• Moscovici's "genetic model" of minority influence


  Reasons for possible minority influence<|>Specific effects of a consistent minority that repeatedly represents the same message
• Minority Influence - Conversion Theory (Moscovici,1980)


  Differences between majority influence and minority influence
• Specific effects of a consistent minority that repeatedly represents the same message

  • Disturbs the general norm and thereby sows uncertainty and doubt
  • Draws attention to its own existence
  • Conveys that there is an alternative, coherent standpoint on the topic
  • Demonstrates confidence and strong commitment to their own point of view
  • Shows that the only possible solution to the conflict lies in taking a stand for the minority position
• Majority influence


  Comparative process ("What do others say and how well do I fit in?")

  
• Minority influence


  Validation process ("What is the real behavior?")
• Only weak effects of the minority are found in public direct masses and private direct measures
• Minorities have a comparatively strong effect on private indirect measures of attitude
• Minority influence effect on resistant attitudes

  1. Measurement of attitude towards euthanasia

  2. Inform participants of majority/minority view on euthanasia

  3. Measurement of attitude

  4. Confrontation with arguments against euthanasia

  5. Measurement of attitude
• Obedience to Authority


  Compliance with the commands of a person of higher social status in a defined hierarchy or a command hierarchy
• Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiment


  1. Alleged topic: "Effects of punishment on human learning"

  2. Participant randomly assigned "teacher" role

  3. Administer electric shocks to "student" (actor) for mistakes

  4. Shocks allegedly extremely painful but not permanently damaging

  5. Experimenter gives instructions, student's reactions predetermined

  
• Average maximum shock intensity: 360 volts
• Percentage of maximum obedience (450 volts): 65%
• Subjects showed clear signs of discomfort during the experiment
• Obedience range in replications: 16% - 90%
• Moderator variables investigated in Milgram's experiment

  • Proximity to the victim
  • Authority of the experimenter
  • Pressure from peers
• Theoretical explanation by Milgram: "Agentic state" - participants become passive and uncritical execution automats of authority
• Alternative interpretation: "Engaged followership" - participants actively decided to continue to support the authority and institution
• Social Influence


  Change in attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values, or behaviors as a result of being confronted with the attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values, or behaviors of other people