Hilmar Thór Hilmarsson, MMC 2008-08-25 Inflytande och Makt Hilmar Thór Hilmarsson, MMC 2008-08-25

Inflytande Hur många av dina val gör du av egen vilja och hur ofta anpassar du dig? Does a cooperative, civil society require its members conform? Do we each have the right to refuse to conform, to engage in civil disobedience if need be? Do you personally accept and admire those who don’t conform? Is it better to conform or to dissent?

Inlärningmål A a

Inflytande kommer från ordet “ “influentia”: en eterisk vätska som strålade från planeterna och stjärnorna och som påverkande mänskligt beteende. Man trodde att “influentia” påverkade människor i den ena eller andra riktningen utan att helt kontrollera dem. .

När kommer människor att anpassa sig till kraven från gruppen?

Press från många mot en: Majoritets inflytande. Inflytande kommer inte från planeter utan från människor Minoritets inflytande: Press från en mot många.

Asch’s studier om konformitet När kommer du att böja dig från pressen från gruppen? Konformitet Asch’s studier om konformitet

Vad är konformitet – anpassning? Ändra sina tankar, känslor, och beteenden så att det matchar tankar, känslor, beteenden hos andra människor.

Exampel på “jämförelse linjer” 1 2 3 Standard linje Jämförelse linje Trial 1

1 2 3 Standard Line Jämförelse linjer Trial 2

Dr. Fenja Ziegler Foundations in Psychology (C80FIP) Social Influence Dr. Fenja Ziegler Foundations in Psychology (C80FIP)

Social influence The exercise of social power by a person or group to change the attitudes or behaviour of others in a particular direction Majority influence Minority influence Obedience

Yielding to group pressure Desirable? Undesirable? Majority influence Yielding to group pressure Desirable? Undesirable? Informational social influence Perceived superior knowledge of others Influences estimate in ambiguous situation, e.g. bean count, autokinetic effect Group norm → personal norm

The situation is NOT ambiguous On critical trials confedarates give unanimous wrong answer Real pps last or last but one Majority influences the minority, even when the answer is obviously wrong Study in 1951

Normative Social Influence The situation is NOT ambiguous On critical trials confedarates give unanimous wrong answer Real pps last or last but one Majority influences the minority, even when the answer is obviously wrong Study in 1951

Informational Influence Why conform? Informational and Normative social influence (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955) Informational Influence Why conform? Believe in the superior knowledge or judgement of others This leads to a change in private opinion Normative Influence Why conform? Want to be liked or respected by other members of the group This does NOT lead to a change in private opinion

Majority influence and Conformity Compliance (group acceptance) Stops when there is no group influence Identification (group membership) Identify with role and conform to perceived norm Internalisation (acceptance of group norms) In agreement with majority Does change personal, not just public opinion

Minority Influence on Majority? Yes, if Minority is consistent in behaviour Not rigid and dogmatic Committed ( can lead to conversion, i.e. private change) Relevance to social trends Does a majority influence a minority? Or does a minority influence a majority?

Social Impact theory (Latané and Wolf, 1981) Strength: number of people, strength of message Status and knowledge: one expert or many amateurs Immediacy: physical or psychological closeness Combination of all 3, plus degree of each factor

Cross-cultural differences in Asch’s study Different performance, due to dispositional or situational factors

Obedience to Authority

Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts Please continue, The experiment requires you to continue, please go on. It is essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must continue. Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts Starts banging on the wall Complains of heart condition No further response The participant chosen as the teacher is given a sample 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator, as a "sample" of the shock the "learner" will supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" is then given a list of word pairs which he is to teach the learner. The teacher begins by reading off a list of word pairs to the learner. After reading through the word pairs, the teacher will then only read the first half of the word pairs, and read 4 possible answers. The learner will indicate which second word he believes to be correct by pressing a button (1 through 4) corresponding to the teacher's choices. If incorrect, the learner will receive a shock, increasing by 15 volts with each wrong answer. If correct, the next word pair is read. The teacher believes that he is actually giving shocks to the learner participant. In reality, there are no shocks being given to the learner. Once the learner was separated, the learner set up a tape recorder, integrated with the electro-shock generator, which would play pre-recorded tracks at certain shock levels. After a certain number of level increases, the actor starts to bang on the wall that separates him from the teacher (subject). After banging on the wall and complaining of his heart condition (which he talked about at the beginning of the experiment), the learner gives no further response to the questions and no further complaints. It is at this point that many people begin to indicate their desire to stop the experiment and check on the subject. Many test subjects stop at 135 volts and begin to question the purpose of the experiment. Some continue after being assured that they will not be held responsible. Some participants even begin to laugh nervously once they hear the screams of pain coming from the learner. If, at any time, the subject indicates his desire to halt the experiment he is given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, such as: Please continue, The experiment requires you to continue, please go on. It is essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must continue. If the subject still wishes to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment is halted. In the original experiment, though some went to the end of the shocks (450 volts), everyone stopped at some point and questioned the experiment. Others even said they would return the check for the money they were paid. Later results and multiple test set-ups showed that the closer the teacher was to the learner the sooner he stopped

Obedience to Authority Learner complains of pain Pleads to be let out Screams and refuses to answer

Milgram’s obedience experiment – Proximity Learner complains of pain Pleads to be let out Screams and refuses to answer

♂ Gen Pop: 85% ♂ Students: 50% Students: 62% Students: 85% ♂ Gen Pop: 65% ♀ Gen Pop: 65% Students: 85% Gen Pop: 92% Gen Pop: 80% Students: over 90% ♂ Students: 40% ♀ Students: 16%

Reducing Obedience - Authority

Reducing Obedience - Proximity

Influences on Obedience

Milgram’s findings Ethics? In lecture 4 All capable of following orders which we know are not the right thing to do But, all participants were distraught whilst doing it Educate on blind obedience Take responsibility for own actions Role models who refuse to obey Question motives of authority issuing unreasonable orders

Obedience vs. Conformity Occurs within a hierarchy Feeling that the person above has the right to prescribe behaviour Links one status to another Emphasis is on power Behaviour adopted differs from behaviour of authority figure Prescription for action is explicit Participants embrace obedience as explanation for behaviour Regulates the behaviour among those of equal status Emphasis is on acceptance Behaviour adopted is similar to that of peers Requirement of going along with group implicit Participants deny conformity as an explanation for behaviour

Reading AS level, Chapter 2

Twenge et al. (2001) exclusion task Need to Belong Twenge et al. (2001) exclusion task When our need to belong is not met (e.g., when we are ostracized or excluded from bonding with others), research has shown that our mood becomes depressed we feel anxious we feel emotional pain (similar to physical pain in fMRI data) we can become aggressive we can underperform we may even engage in self-defeating behaviour conform more (e.g., Asch line task estimation task)

Resultat: människor anpassar sig även vid enkla uppgifter 76.4 36.8% 5%

Twenge et al. (2001) exclusion task Need to Belong Twenge et al. (2001) exclusion task When our need to belong is not met (e.g., when we are ostracized or excluded from bonding with others), research has shown that our mood becomes depressed we feel anxious we feel emotional pain (similar to physical pain in fMRI data) we can become aggressive we can underperform we may even engage in self-defeating behaviour conform more (e.g., Asch line task estimation task)

Anpassning kan ta tre vägar Socialt inflytande Anpassning Omvandling (privat acceptans) Individen Självständighet Motanpassning Motanpassning Oberoende Vad är det då som gör att det blir en anpassning?

Antal medverkande som påverkar Enhällighet var kritisk: mindre om en “förening” bildades där två stod emot Konformitet nådde en topp vid en grupp storlek av 4 (3 medverkande + 1 försöksperson) Antal medverkande som påverkar Öka till fler än tre källor ökar inte konformitet Ökad konformitet med tre källor Konformitet låg med bara en eller två källor Procent som anpassar sig

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-356. Inflytande är en funktion av styrkan källan/källorna, deras aktualitet och antal.

What is the shape of influence?

Other studies find variations in rates across people Conformists, Counter-conformists, independents Cultural effects Cohorts Sex differences

När motstår människor gruppens inflytande och påverkar gruppen? Moscovici’s studier av minoritets inflytande: Press från en mot många

En minoritet ändrar en majoritet genom: Moscovici’s resultat: När en minoritet visar samma beteende uthålligt över tid. När en minoritet har hög status så kan de ändra gruppen beteende eftersom deras status gör att de inte kan nås av sanktioner. Minoritetsinflytande sker mer indirekt jämfört med majoritetsinflytande och förknippas ofta med förvandling och innovation.

Varför anpassar sig människor? Informations inflytande: Människor söker information hos andra Normativ inflytande: Människor tänker, känner, beteer sig i enlighet med social standard Interpersonellt inflytande: Verbal och icke verbalt inflytande

Informationsinflytande Informations inflytande: Människor söker information hos andra Social jämförande teori: andra människor påverkar oss genom information, fastän vi ofta missuppfattar hur ofta andra håller med dem. (Den falska konsensus effekten)

Informations inflytande Central Väg Perifer väg Bra argument: Jag är övertygad. Han låter smart. Jag är övertygad. ”Dual Process theory: Tillgänglig information: direkt process Icke rationell information: indirekt process

Informations inflytande: Människor söker information hos andra Normativt inflytande Informations inflytande: Människor söker information hos andra Milgrams studier på tunnebanan: När någon bryter normer associeras det med negativa emotioner Normativt inflytande är starkare och mer bestående jämfört med informationsinflytande

Interpersonellt inflytande Interpersonellt inflytande: Verbal och icke verbalt inflytande Scachter´s analys visar att någon som bryter mot normer är mindre omtyckt Kommunikation med någon som är ogillad minskar Medlemmar i en grupp som är ogillande hamnar i ”Svarta får” syndromet. De blir starkt ogillande för mindre felsteg.

Lägre eller högre än 25 meter

Ursäkta, jag har 5 kopior, kan jag gå före? Ursäkta, jag har 5 kopior, kan jag gå före, därför att jag har ett möte om 3 minuter? Ursäkta, jag har 5 kopior, kan jag gå före, därför att jag har 5 kopior.? 60% 94% 93%

Påverkan Robert Cialdini Genvägar: Heuristics, Tumregler som hjälper oss att bete oss rätt utan att närmare granska saker. Nödvändigt i komplex värld. Oftast fungerar de bra.

Sex tendenser att säga ja Reciprocitet (reciprocation) Förpliktelse Och konsekvens Commitment and consistency Sociala Bevis (Social validation) Sympati (liking) Auktoritet (authority) Knapphet (scarcity)

Du är snäll mot mig, så jag är snäll mot dig 1. Reciprocitet Du är snäll mot mig, så jag är snäll mot dig The code of reciprocity. Gåvor: På fest: Tar med vin och/eller blommor. Väldigt lite kan ge mycket: Exempel: ge coke. Sen be att köpa lotter. Många gånger om.

1. Reciprocitet: Exempel Gratis smakprov Pennor (med logo) Gratis ‘trial period’ Gratis telefon Ideer för miljö Gratis sorterings bins Gratis planering Free XXX – then, buy!

Reciprocitet: Backa efter avslag (Door in the Face) Skulle du kunna tänka dig att donera 3 kvällar i veckan till att städa upp i kommunen Inte? Kanske du kan sortera ditt avfall OK, så jag har inte sett detta, men ett möjligt. DOor in the face: Man begär först något rätt stort (som man väntar sig ett nej på). Sen backar man ner till något mindre. Min son är bra på det. Ber om choclad (nej) – ett kex då. Oftast är folk mycket nöjda med detta. Ser ut som om man är tillmötesgående. (Tänker inte på att man kanske annars skulle säga nej)

2. Förpliktelse och konsekvens Vi beter oss konsekvent. Även små förpliktelser styr framtida aktioner Håll vad man lovar, och var konsekvent: Båda är önskvärda i människor.

2. Förpliktelse och konsekvens Exempel (med adderat lockbete) Spara så mycket energi – kom med I tidningen (förpliktelse) Ta bort kom med I tidningen Sparade mer energi efteråt Another example of University in Israel  doubled monetary contributions for the handicapped in certain neighborhoods. KEY FACTOR: 2 weeks before asking for contributions, they got residents to sign a petition supporting the handicapped  MAKING A PUBLIC COMMITMENT TO THAT SAME CASE  CONSISTENCY. Not on slide: Joseph Schwarzwald (Bar Ilan Univ.) Sign a petition supporting handicapped (public commitment)  2 weeks before the fundraising Monetary contributions for the handicapped  doubled the result Notorisk ‘Cognitive Dissonance’. Små förpliktelser kan leda till att man ‘ser sig som person som…’ och man ändrar attityd och beeende

Vi gör som de som liknar oss. 3. Sociala Bevis Vi gör som de som liknar oss. I want to be one of them. Taking advantage of social validation, requesters can stimulate our compliance by demonstrating that others just like us have already complied. Vilken strand är man mindre benägen att slänga skräp på.

3. Sociala Bevis Beverly Hills effect Uncool att inte källsortera och återvinna Kanske har något att göra med de gula kontainrarna som står vid trotoaren…

Kompisar är något man gör något för (kanske köper av) 4. Sympati - Liking Kompisar är något man gör något för (kanske köper av) Tupperware Friends & Family marketing (Dina polare ringer du gratis om de är med i samma nätverk)

Förutom de som redan är ens vänner Vem tycker man om Förutom de som redan är ens vänner Attraktiva personer Personer som är lik en själv Liknande kläder Liknande åsikter och smak Liknande namn Personer som är trevliga mot en Personer som kommer med positiva budskap

Expertis och auktoritet används som genväg (av goda själ, oftast) Jag är här, för jag bör ju veta något om psykologi.

5. Auktoritet

6. Knapphet Det som är sällsynt, eller håller på att bli blir mycket mer attraktiva Ex: Feltryck. Kläder påväg att säljas ut. Ex boken: Förbud mot fosfattvättmedel: Hamstra

Människor avskyr att få sin frihet inskränkt 6. Knapphet - Reaktans Människor avskyr att få sin frihet inskränkt Reaktans: Tendens att reagera i direkt opposition när friheten hotas Treåringar och förbjudna beteenden Tonåringar och förbjudna beteenden Vuxna som inte gillar att få friheten inskränkt.

Ingen köper konserverad gröt Åtminstone inte mer än en gång Såvida det inte visade sig vara riktigt gott Anekdot om kattmat Kan aldrig övertyga alla Pick your battles Marketers letar efter en marknad (ett behov, något som kan fylla behovet).

What’s in it for me Första regeln för påverkan – säljande av saker, eller attityder, eller beteende Så centralt, att Cialdini lägger det som en fotnot i son bok där ha påpekar att han inte tar med egennyttan, eftersom den helt enkelt är självklar. Människor vill maximera nytta, och minimera kostnader (och nytta kan vara allt från pengar, användbarhet, tid, status, självkänsla och kostnader kan vara pengar, tid, bekvämlighet, status, etc). Först: Tänk alltid på ’what’s in it for me’ från er MÅLGRUPP!

Varför skall jag sopsortera? Varför skall jag ta bussen? Varför skall jag lägga om produktionen?

Information Influence Normative Influence How Does Influence Work? Information Influence Normative Influence Interpersonal Influence The individual Compliance Conversion (private acceptance) Independence Counterconformity Social Influence

Informational influence: group members look to others for information Three basic forms of influence: informational, normative, and interpersonal Informational influence: group members look to others for information Social comparison processes Dual process theories of influence Thoughtful analysis Mindlessness

If 20 copies little compliance. Langer's study of mindlessness If 20 copies little compliance.

Normative influence: acting, feeling, and thinking in ways that are consistent with group standards Remember Sherif? Norms are not just obeyed, but internalized Examples of normative influence Milgram’s study of norm violations on a subway

Interpersonal influence: verbal and nonverbal tactics designed to induce change Schachter’s study of reactions to group deviance Methods: deviant, mode, slider Communication with a disliked deviant diminishes in some cases

* very rare: cohesive, task relevant groups only that disliked deviant To the slider To the mode To most deviates To excluded deviants* Time Communication rate * very rare: cohesive, task relevant groups only that disliked deviant

YES: Behold the The Power of Groups Why do we do what we do? Because others influence us. Is influence in groups really so powerful, so inexorable, so ubiquitous?

Do Social Influence Processes Shape Juries' Verdicts? Social influence occurs as jurors deliberate and make a decision Verdict-driven or evidence-driven deliberation strategies Jury usually picks the verdict favored by the majority of the members prior to deliberation Higher status jurors are more influential

Evaluations and innovations Juries tend to make their decisions carefully Size and decision rules (anonymity requirement) influence jury dynamics Note taking during trials Voir dire procedures and systematic jury selection

Social Impact theory (Latané and Wolf, 1981)

Social Impact theory (Latané and Wolf, 1981)

Dr. Fenja Ziegler Foundations in Psychology (C80FIP) Social Influence Dr. Fenja Ziegler Foundations in Psychology (C80FIP)

Social influence The exercise of social power by a person or group to change the attitudes or behaviour of others in a particular direction Majority influence Minority influence Obedience

Yielding to group pressure Desirable? Undesirable? Majority influence Yielding to group pressure Desirable? Undesirable? Informational social influence Perceived superior knowledge of others Influences estimate in ambiguous situation, e.g. bean count, autokinetic effect Group norm → personal norm

The situation is NOT ambiguous On critical trials confedarates give unanimous wrong answer Real pps last or last but one Majority influences the minority, even when the answer is obviously wrong Study in 1951

Normative Social Influence The situation is NOT ambiguous On critical trials confedarates give unanimous wrong answer Real pps last or last but one Majority influences the minority, even when the answer is obviously wrong Study in 1951

Informational Influence Why conform? Informational and Normative social influence (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955) Informational Influence Why conform? Believe in the superior knowledge or judgement of others This leads to a change in private opinion Normative Influence Why conform? Want to be liked or respected by other members of the group This does NOT lead to a change in private opinion

Majority influence and Conformity Compliance (group acceptance) Stops when there is no group influence Identification (group membership) Identify with role and conform to perceived norm Internalisation (acceptance of group norms) In agreement with majority Does change personal, not just public opinion

Minority Influence on Majority? Yes, if Minority is consistent in behaviour Not rigid and dogmatic Committed ( can lead to conversion, i.e. private change) Relevance to social trends Does a majority influence a minority? Or does a minority influence a majority?

Social Impact theory (Latané and Wolf, 1981) Strength: number of people, strength of message Status and knowledge: one expert or many amateurs Immediacy: physical or psychological closeness Combination of all 3, plus degree of each factor

Cross-cultural differences in Asch’s study Different performance, due to dispositional or situational factors

Obedience to Authority

Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts Please continue, The experiment requires you to continue, please go on. It is essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must continue. Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts Starts banging on the wall Complains of heart condition No further response The participant chosen as the teacher is given a sample 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator, as a "sample" of the shock the "learner" will supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" is then given a list of word pairs which he is to teach the learner. The teacher begins by reading off a list of word pairs to the learner. After reading through the word pairs, the teacher will then only read the first half of the word pairs, and read 4 possible answers. The learner will indicate which second word he believes to be correct by pressing a button (1 through 4) corresponding to the teacher's choices. If incorrect, the learner will receive a shock, increasing by 15 volts with each wrong answer. If correct, the next word pair is read. The teacher believes that he is actually giving shocks to the learner participant. In reality, there are no shocks being given to the learner. Once the learner was separated, the learner set up a tape recorder, integrated with the electro-shock generator, which would play pre-recorded tracks at certain shock levels. After a certain number of level increases, the actor starts to bang on the wall that separates him from the teacher (subject). After banging on the wall and complaining of his heart condition (which he talked about at the beginning of the experiment), the learner gives no further response to the questions and no further complaints. It is at this point that many people begin to indicate their desire to stop the experiment and check on the subject. Many test subjects stop at 135 volts and begin to question the purpose of the experiment. Some continue after being assured that they will not be held responsible. Some participants even begin to laugh nervously once they hear the screams of pain coming from the learner. If, at any time, the subject indicates his desire to halt the experiment he is given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, such as: Please continue, The experiment requires you to continue, please go on. It is essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must continue. If the subject still wishes to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment is halted. In the original experiment, though some went to the end of the shocks (450 volts), everyone stopped at some point and questioned the experiment. Others even said they would return the check for the money they were paid. Later results and multiple test set-ups showed that the closer the teacher was to the learner the sooner he stopped

Obedience to Authority Learner complains of pain Pleads to be let out Screams and refuses to answer

Milgram’s obedience experiment – Proximity Learner complains of pain Pleads to be let out Screams and refuses to answer

♂ Gen Pop: 85% ♂ Students: 50% Students: 62% Students: 85% ♂ Gen Pop: 65% ♀ Gen Pop: 65% Students: 85% Gen Pop: 92% Gen Pop: 80% Students: over 90% ♂ Students: 40% ♀ Students: 16%

Reducing Obedience - Authority

Reducing Obedience - Proximity

Influences on Obedience

Milgram’s findings Ethics? In lecture 4 All capable of following orders which we know are not the right thing to do But, all participants were distraught whilst doing it Educate on blind obedience Take responsibility for own actions Role models who refuse to obey Question motives of authority issuing unreasonable orders

Obedience vs. Conformity Occurs within a hierarchy Feeling that the person above has the right to prescribe behaviour Links one status to another Emphasis is on power Behaviour adopted differs from behaviour of authority figure Prescription for action is explicit Participants embrace obedience as explanation for behaviour Regulates the behaviour among those of equal status Emphasis is on acceptance Behaviour adopted is similar to that of peers Requirement of going along with group implicit Participants deny conformity as an explanation for behaviour

Reading AS level, Chapter 2