Social Influence and Self-Concept: A Comprehensive Overview | Summaries Sociology

You do not need to know all the experiments presented in the lectures except the three main experiments

presented in the lecture on Social Influence:

•  The Milgram experiment on obedience,

•  The Asch experiment on conformity,

•  The Moscovici experiment on the influence of minorities

You do not need to know the names of any researchers beyond these three researchers.

The following three topics will NOT be included in the final exam: Social Cognition; Attitude Change and

Persuasion; and Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour. Therefore, we recommend focusing your revision on

the following seven topics: Identity and Socialisation; Social Influence; Group Process; Leadership;

Motivation; Prejudice and Discrimination; and Culture.

IDENTITY AND SOCIALISATION

BIRTH OF THE SELF-CONCEPT

The self is, historically, a relatively new idea (Baumeister, 1987). In medieval society, social relations were

fixed and stable and legitimised in religious terms. People’s lives and identities were mapped out according

to their position in the social order – by ascribed attributes such as family membership, social rank, birth

order and place of birth. In many ways, what you saw was what you got, so the idea of a complex individual

self lurking underneath it all was superfluous and difficult to imagine. All this started to change in the

sixteenth century, and the change has gathered momentum ever since.

The forces for change included:

● Secularisation – the idea that fulfilment occurs in the afterlife was replaced by the idea that you should

actively pursue personal fulfilment in this life.

Industrialisation – people were increasingly seen as units of production that moved from place to place to

work and thus had a portable personal identity that was not locked into static social structures such as the

extended family.

● Enlightenment – people felt that they could organise and construct different, better, identities and lives

for themselves by overthrowing orthodox value systems and oppressive regimes (e.g. the French and

American revolutions of the late eighteenth century).

● Psychoanalysis – Freud’s theory of the human mind crystallised the notion that the self was

unfathomable because it lurked in the gloomy depths of the unconscious (see the ‘Psychodynamic self’

section).

SELF_KNOWLEDGE, LOOKING-GLASS SELF

People do have a sense of ‘me’, and according to symbolic interactionism, the self arises out of human

interaction.

The looking glass self=, our self-concept derives from seeing ourselves as others see us. Is the broken mirror

a metaphor for her self-concept?, forming our concept of self comes from seeing ourselves as others see

us. Using social interaction as a type of “mirror,” people use the judgments they receive from others to

measure their own worth, values, and behavior.

SELF-SCHEMAS

A schema refers to our knowledge about a concept –, it is a set of interrelated thoughts, beliefs and

attitudes

Partial preview of the text

Download Social Influence and Self-Concept: A Comprehensive Overview and more Summaries Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!

You do not need to know all the experiments presented in the lectures except the three main experiments presented in the lecture on Social Influence:

The Milgram experiment on obedience,
The Asch experiment on conformity,
The Moscovici experiment on the influence of minorities You do not need to know the names of any researchers beyond these three researchers. The following three topics will NOT be included in the final exam: Social Cognition; Attitude Change and Persuasion; and Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour. Therefore, we recommend focusing your revision on the following seven topics: Identity and Socialisation; Social Influence; Group Process; Leadership; Motivation; Prejudice and Discrimination; and Culture. IDENTITY AND SOCIALISATION BIRTH OF THE SELF-CONCEPT The self is, historically, a relatively new idea (Baumeister, 1987). In medieval society, social relations were fixed and stable and legitimised in religious terms. People’s lives and identities were mapped out according to their position in the social order – by ascribed attributes such as family membership, social rank, birth order and place of birth. In many ways, what you saw was what you got, so the idea of a complex individual self lurking underneath it all was superfluous and difficult to imagine. All this started to change in the sixteenth century, and the change has gathered momentum ever since. The forces for change included: ● Secularisation – the idea that fulfilment occurs in the afterlife was replaced by the idea that you should actively pursue personal fulfilment in this life. Industrialisation – people were increasingly seen as units of production that moved from place to place to work and thus had a portable personal identity that was not locked into static social structures such as the extended family. ● Enlightenment – people felt that they could organise and construct different, better, identities and lives for themselves by overthrowing orthodox value systems and oppressive regimes (e.g. the French and American revolutions of the late eighteenth century). ● Psychoanalysis – Freud’s theory of the human mind crystallised the notion that the self was unfathomable because it lurked in the gloomy depths of the unconscious (see the ‘Psychodynamic self’ section). SELF_KNOWLEDGE, LOOKING-GLASS SELF People do have a sense of ‘me’, and according to symbolic interactionism, the self arises out of human interaction. The looking glass self=, our self-concept derives from seeing ourselves as others see us. Is the broken mirror a metaphor for her self-concept?, forming our concept of self comes from seeing ourselves as others see us. Using social interaction as a type of “mirror,” people use the judgments they receive from others to measure their own worth, values, and behavior. SELF-SCHEMAS A schema refers to our knowledge about a concept –, it is a set of interrelated thoughts, beliefs and attitudes

People have self-schemas – Representations of themselves about characteristics that matter for them – E.g., sports and cooking
Self-schemas influence how people feel about themselves and behave People tend to have clear conceptions of themselves (i.e. self-schemas) on some dimensions but not others
i.e. they are schematic on some but aschematic on others. People are self-schematic on dimensions that are important to them, on which they think they are extreme and on which they are certain the opposite does not hold. For example, if you think you are sophisticated, and being sophisticated is important to you, then you are self-schematic on that dimension – it is part of your self-concept. If you do not think you are sophisticated, and if this does not bother you, then being sophisticated is not one of your self-schemas. we have three types of self-schema: 1 actual self – how we currently are; 2 ideal self – how we would like to be; 3 ‘ought’ self – how we think we should be. The ideal self and the ought self are ‘self-guides’. The same goal – for example, prosperity – can be constructed as an ideal (we strive to be prosperous) or an ‘ought’ (we strive to avoid not being prosperous). Discrepancies between selves produce negative feelings. Furthermore, these self-discrepancies make us emotionally vulnerable. When we fail to resolve an actual–ideal discrepancy, we feel dejected (e.g. disappointed, dissatisfied, sad); when we fail to resolve an actual–ought discrepancy, we feel agitated (e.g. anxiety, threat, fear). People seek to reduce these feelings by pursuing 2 goals
Promotion system
- Reaching one’s ideal • Achieving positive outcomes • E.g., running a marathon
- Prevention system • Reaching one’s “oughts” • Avoiding negative outcomes • E.g., avoiding failing the module SOCIAL COMPARISON Although we can learn about ourselves through introspection and self-perception, we can also learn about ourselves by comparing ourselves with other people. When it comes to performance, we try to compare ourselves with people who are slightly Self-evaluation maintenance model People who are constrained to make esteem-damaging upward comparisons can underplay or deny similarity to the target, or they can withdraw from their relationship with the target. worse than us – we make downward social comparisons which deliver an evaluatively positive self-concept (Wills, 1981). Often, however, our choices are limited: for example, younger siblings in families often have no option but to compare themselves with their more competent older brothers and sisters. Indeed, upward comparison may sometimes have a harmful effect on self-esteem (Wood). To protect our perception of self, we mainly use downwards comparison and avoid upwards comparison. They coded the facial expressions of medal winners at the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona and found that the bronze medallists expressed noticeably more satisfaction than the silver medallists! Medvec and colleagues argued that silver medallists were constrained to make unfavourable upward comparisons with gold medallists, whereas bronze medallists could make self-enhancing downward comparisons with the rest of the field, who received no medal at all. SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

eople who seek to ingratiate and self-promote are more successful in interviews • The effect of impression management tactics depends on the culture – In some cultures, self-promotion is more accepted and valued than in others – However, there is no evidence of a negative effect of selfpromotion in interviews. Summary ● The modern Western idea of the self has gradually crystallised over the past two hundred years as a consequence of a number of social and ideological forces, including secularisation, industrialisation, enlightenment and psychoanalysis. As a recent science, social psychology has tended to view the self as the essence of individuality. ● In reality, there are many different forms of self and identity. The three most important are the collective self (defi ned in terms of attributes shared with ingroup members and distinct from outgroup members), the individual self (defi ned in terms of attributes that make one unique relative to other people) and the relational self (defi ned in terms of relationships that one has with specifi c other people). ● Self-knowledge is stored as schemas. We have many self-schemas, and they vary in clarity. In particular, we have schemas about our actual self, our ideal self and our ‘ought’ self. We often compare our actual self with our ideal and ‘ought’ selves – an actual–ideal self-discrepancy makes us feel dejected, whereas an actual–ought self-discrepancy makes us feel anxious. The way in which we construct and regulate our sense of self is infl uenced by the extent to which we are preventionor promotion-focused. ● People construct a concept of self in a number of ways in addition to introspection. They can observe what they say and what they do, and if there are no external reasons for behaving in that way, they assume that the behaviour refl ects their true self. People can compare themselves with others to get a sense of who they are – they ground their attitudes in comparisons with similar others but their behaviour in comparison with slightly less well-off others. The collective self is also based on downward comparisons, but with outgroup others. ● The collective self is associated with group memberships, intergroup relations and the range of specifi c and general behaviour that we associate with people in groups. We use a variety of tricks to boost our self-esteem • We use several strategies to be seen positively by others

SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Social influence refers to the process whereby attitudes and behaviours are influenced by the real or implied presence of others • Social life involves a great deal of conflict where individuals or groups try to change the thoughts, feelings or behaviours of others – E.g., Black Lives Matter movement Social life involves a great deal of argument, conflict and controversy, where individuals or Norms Attitudinal and behavioural uniformities that define group membership and differentiate between groups. groups try to change the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of others by persuasion, argument, example, command, propaganda or force. People can be quite aware of influence attempts and can form impressions of how affected they and other people are by different types of influence You are sitting around with your friends discussing where to go to eat. You have your heart set on Lebanese, but they are all into Indian. A spirited debate ensues, and in the end, you find yourself agreeing that Indian is the way to go. What has happened here? Did you simply cave in to pressure – you were coerced, and still much prefer Lebanese but complied to keep the peace? or did you feel persuaded in such a way that Indian seemed exactly what you’d like, and on reflection, this group that you belong to more often than not goes out for Indian food? Would the outcome or associated feelings about the decision have been different if the group was not one that you felt deeply grounded in? This chapter discusses the difference between behavioural compliance and more deep-seated persuasion that produces attitude change. Reference groups – Groups to which we feel closely related, behaviour, either in the positive sense that we seek to behave in accordance with their norms, or in the negative sense that we seek to behave in opposition to their norms. – Have a great influence on our attitudes and behaviours • Membership groups – Groups to which we belong without feeling a sense of belonging – Do not have much influence on our attitudes and behaviours OOBEDIENCE One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII. the 40 male participants were told that the experiment focused on the relationship between punishment, learning, and memory. The experimenter then introduced each participant to a second individual, explaining that this second individual was participating in the study as well. Participants were told that they would be randomly assigned to roles of "teacher" and "learner." However, the "second individual" was an actor hired by the research team, and the study was set up so that the true participant would always be assigned to the "teacher" role. During the study, the learner was located in a separate room from the teacher (the real participant), but the teacher could hear the learner through the wall. The experimenter told the teacher that the learner would memorize word pairs and instructed the teacher to ask the learner questions. If the learner responded incorrectly to a question, the teacher would be asked to administer an electric shock. The shocks started at a relatively mild level (15 volts) but increased in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts. (In actuality, the shocks were fake, but the participant was led to believe they were real.)

In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer.p When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar. A few of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were correct. Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group (normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are (informational influence). Conformity is strengthened when – People have low self-esteem or feel incompetent or insecure – People are from an interdependent culture – Others in the group observe your behaviour – Answers are public – The group is unanimous – The group has 3+ people (more people does not yield greater conformity) – People admire the group’s status and attractiveness – People made no prior commitment to any response INFLUENCE OF MINORITY f the only form of social influence was majority influence then social homogeneity would have been reached a long time ago – Without minority influence, people will always be persuaded by the opinion of the majority • Minorities, especially those that are active and organised, introduce innovation that can lead to social change – E.g., demonstrations in East Germany in 1989 – E.g., Greenpeace : Investigate the influence of a minority • Procedure – Take part in an experiment on colour perception – Give their answers out loud in groups – IV: Group composition • 6 participants • 4 real participants & 2 confederates answering green all the time • 4 real participants & 2 confederates answering green 2/3 of the time • Measure – Number of errors – when people answered green instead of blue Although not as effective as a consistent majority, a consistent two-person minority in a six-person group was more influential than an inconsistent minority; that four people were influenced by two is quite remarkable. Factors which influence minority influence

Investment – A minority making significant personal and material sacrifices – E.g., Colin Kaepernick • Autonomy
- A minority acting out of principal rather than personal motives – E.g., Daniel Radcliffe
Consistency – A minority which doesn’t change its opinion Majority influence produces direct public compliance for reasons of normative or informational dependence. People engage in a comparison process where they focus on what others say to know how to fit in with them. Majority views are accepted passively without much thought. The outcome is public compliance with majority views with little or no private attitude change. . 2 Minority influence produces indirect, often latent, private change in opinion due to the cognitive conflict and restructuring that deviant ideas produce. People engage in a validation process where they carefully examine and cogitate over the validity of their beliefs. The outcome is little or no overt public agreement with the minority, for fear of being viewed as a member of the minority, but a degree of private internal attitude change that may only surface later. Minorities produce a conversion effect as a consequence of active consideration of the minority point of view.

Social Influence and Self-Concept: A Comprehensive Overview, Summaries of Sociology

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Social Influence and Self-Concept: A Comprehensive Overview and more Summaries Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!

SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Aim : To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority.

Moscovici (1969) conducted a re-run of Asch’s experiment, but in

reverse.

Instead of one subject amongst a majority of confederates, he placed

two confederates together with four genuine participants. The

participants were first given eye tests to ensure they were not color-

blind.

Procedure : They were then placed in a group consisting of four

participants and two confederates. They were shown 36 slides which

were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the color of each

slide out loud.

In the first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green

for each of the 36 slides. They were totally consistent in their responses.

In the second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and

blue 12 times.

In this case they were inconsistent in their answers. Would the

responses of the two confederates influence those of the four

participants? In other words, would there be minority influence?

Results : In condition one it was found that the consistent minority had

an affect on the majority (8.42%) compared to an inconsistent minority

(only 1.25% said green).

A third (32%) of all participants judged the slide to be green at least

once.

Conclusion : Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time

and only when they behave in certain ways (e.g. consistent behavior

style).

GROUP PROCESS