General information What is the difference between social influence and persuasion Conformity vs compliance vs obedience Sherif Asch and Milgram classic studies What made for more conformityobedience in these ID: 538252
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Social influence and cultural emergence" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Social InfluenceSlide2
General information
What is the difference between social influence and persuasion?
Conformity vs. compliance vs. obedience
Informational vs. normative influence
Descriptive vs. injunctive normsSlide3
Sherif, 1935 autokinetic
effectSlide4
Asch, 1956 line study
How does it build on
Sherif
?
What were the findings of the original version?
Does this study show normative or informational influence?
Which versions led to more or less conformity?
https://
youtu.be/NyDDyT1lDhA
Slide5
Milgram, 1963
How does this study build on Asch?
What were the findings of the original version?
Which versions led to more or less conformity/obedience? Slide6
Milgram critiques
What are some critiques of Milgram?
Replications
Burger
,
2009
Haslam,
Reicher
, & Millard, 2015
What does Milgram’s research tell us? Slide7
Zimbardo, 1971 SP Study
How does this study build on Milgram?
What were the findings of the original study?
https://www.prisonexp.org/
Replications
Lovibond
,
Mithiran
, & Adams, 1979
Haslam &
Reicher
, 2002
http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/Slide8
Critiques of Zimbardo, 1971 (Le Texier, 2019 and others)
Didn’t cite student’s work accurately
Guards knew what was wanted (demand characteristics)
Participants self-selected
Personality not accurately tested
Guards didn’t know they were participants
Prisoners couldn’t leave
Wasn’t immersive (was a game)
Didn’t do enough prison research/comparison
Incomplete data reporting
Researcher biasSlide9
What does the study tell us?
What would women have done?
Does this study enlighten us on Abu Ghraib?
Why do we talk about this study so much? Slide10
Recap
Look back at the factors that relate to influence– can these be explained by any other theory we’ve talked about? Slide11
Cialdini’s techniques
Influence
and
Pre-suasion
What needs do social influence meet?
Reciprocity
Social
proof
(social comparison theory)
Consistency (cognitive dissonance theory)
Liking
Scarcity (reactance theory)
Authority
UnitySlide12
Social norms and influence
Focus theory of normative conduct (
Cialdini
,
Kallgren
, & Reno, 1991)
Injunctive vs. descriptive norms
Attention
How do injunctive vs. descriptive norms differ?
Social marketing campaignsSlide13
Evolution of norms
Where do social norms come from?
DSIT
Evolutionary theories
TL theorySlide14
Gelfand, Harrington, & Jackson, 2017
Example of
Program of research
Dynamical systems approach
Cultural approach
What does TL theory predict? (Fig. 1)
Any critiques or alternative explanations for their findings? Slide15Slide16Slide17
Gelfand et al., 2011
Ukraine 1.6
1.6
Australia 4.4
2.6
Estonia 2.6
2.6
Hungary 2.9
2.9
Israel 3.1
3.1
Netherlands 3.3
3.3
Brazil 3.5
3.5
Venezuela 3.7
3.7
Greece 3.9
3.9
New Zealand 3.9
3.9
United States 5.1
5.1
Spain 5.4
5.4
Belgium 5.6
5.6
Poland 6.0
6
France 6.3
6.3
Hong Kong 6.3
6.3
Iceland 6.4
6.4
Germany 6.5
6.5
Austria 6.8
6.8
Italy 6.8
6.8
United Kingdom 6.9
6.9
Mexico 7.2
7.2
Germany 7.5
7.5
Portugal 7.8
7.8
People’s Republic of China 7.9
7.9
Japan 8.6
8.6
Turkey 9.2
9.2
Norway 9.5
9.5
South Korea 10.0
10
Singapore 10.4
10.4
India 11.0
11
Malaysia 11.8
11.8
Pakistan 12.3
12.3Slide18Slide19
Fig. 6. Map of state-level Openness.
Peter J. Rentfrow et al. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2008;3:339-369
Copyright © by Association for Psychological ScienceSlide20
Fig. 2. Map of state-level Extraversion.
Peter J. Rentfrow et al. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2008;3:339-369
Copyright © by Association for Psychological ScienceSlide21
Fig. 3. Map of state-level Agreeableness.
Peter J. Rentfrow et al. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2008;3:339-369
Copyright © by Association for Psychological ScienceSlide22
Fig. 4. Map of state-level Conscientiousness.
Peter J. Rentfrow et al. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2008;3:339-369
Copyright © by Association for Psychological ScienceSlide23
Fig. 5. Map of state-level Neuroticism.
Peter J. Rentfrow et al. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2008;3:339-369
Copyright © by Association for Psychological ScienceSlide24
Other
Design
Tests
Paper ideas!