Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

20/04/2015MBauer LSE Modalities of Social Influence Martin W Bauer Institute of Social Psychology (ISP) 1.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "20/04/2015MBauer LSE Modalities of Social Influence Martin W Bauer Institute of Social Psychology (ISP) 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Modalities of Social Influence Martin W Bauer Institute of Social Psychology (ISP) 1

2 20/04/2015MBauer LSE The Argument of today 1Different Modalities of Social Influence 2The Problem of Rationality and Sub-Rationality 3Some Reconstruction and Integration Work 4Moral of the story: the moral dubiousness of influence An old concern: raising awareness of social influence to protect us against it (harnessing the enlightenment effect) Social Psychology = the study of what persuades at present ! 2

3 20/04/2015MBauer LSE3 Social Influence and Social Interaction The battle for the hearts and minds of others How do others influence me or us? How do I or we influence them? The many influence the one/few: majority, crowds The many influence the many: imitation, pressure One/few influence the many: minority, persuasion, prestige One influences one another: contagion, persuasion, prestige To influence yourself: to argue, to reason

4 20/04/2015MBauer LSE4 Other takes on ‘influence’ Military force: moving in tanks, fortification to keep enemies out Politics hard power: armies, police and threat of violence soft power: cultural influence; attractive ‘way of life’; good music Sociology a) generalised communication media (GCMs) e.g. money: a code that substitutes for ambiguous language and thus increases the probability of communication between A and B; similarly prestige, power, law (see Parsons, Luhmann etc) b) Trust: general condition that reduces transaction costs; a kind of credit that absorbs losses, disappointments Social Psychology: we will now see ?

5 20/04/2015 MBauer LSE 5 crowds, contagion, persuasion normalising, compliance, obedience, conversion Mass behaviour Rhetoric communityPrestige hierarchy Representations Norms, attitudes, opinions, beliefs Behaviour & actions Eristics, Sophistry Public sphere

6 20/04/2015MBauer LSE6

7 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Crowds and Leadership of Masses Gustave Le Bon (1895) ‘The Age of the Crowd’ In social company individuals are lulled into a state of hypnosis The power of suggestion: accepting propositions without testing reason ‘mass’ = metaphor: matter (hyle) that needs to be given form (soul) Crowds bring about a hypnotic state in individuals = crowd effect de-individuation in crowds: lowering the threshold of restraint; ’effemination’: otherwise rational individuals turn into irrational animals; animal spirits (irrational = women is a 19 th century stereotype) Personality alteration towards impulsiveness, exaggeration, intolerance, simplistic reasoning etc (everything that is despicable happens in crowds) individuals in mass can be ‘formed like clay’, there is no control left; a need and opportunity for leaders (crowds = material in need of form) 1841-1931 7

8 Critique: middle class panic over street politics (the shock of ‘Paris Commune’ of 1871); ‘fin de siecle’ pessimism on human nature; social factors pitted against rational judgement; assumes that imitation works without reasoning and judgements, the latter at most a special case; a theory of political populism; huge success as popular science; Taiwan edition 2011. Neo-stoic, modern ethos of a ‘rational individual’ (Taylor, 2007) buffered against outside: others, demons, spirits, contact buffered against inside: desire, passion An elitist last stand against uncontrollable masses 20/04/20158MBauer LSE

9 20/04/2015MBauer LSE9 t The Pendulum of Managerial Control (cycles of 35-50 years; see Barley & Kunda, 1992) ‘(Job) design’‘Devotion’ Reward Context Task design Content Leadership; ‘Charisma’ Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation Identification; Loyalty

10 20/04/2015MBauer LSE10 Contagion and Imitation Gabriel Tarde (2001) [1890] ‘The Laws of Imitation’ two sources of similarity and difference of people: by inheritance and by imitation imitation has two phases: invention and imitation (= sharing intentionality): no laws for invention, but many laws of imitation; lists of principles, for example: 1 imitation proceeds from the inner to the outer man: dress fashion [outer] is anticipated by literary fashions [inner]; ideas [inner] precede behavioural expression [outer]; ends [inner] change before the means [outer]; 2 Imitation follows the social hierarchy of prestige: The aristocrats are the cultural trend setters; see Stars, opinion leaders; List A people in advertising 3  Liquid intake is more easily imitated than food intake: Explains why alcoholism is more prevalent than obesity (probably a 19 th century observation) ? Gabriel Trade (2006) [1901] ‘Opinion and crowds’ Difference between crowd and public opinion: co-presence in street versus mediated co-attention Public opinion = floating conversations, a homogenity of outlook, not only political, also religious Public opinion is selective: focusing attention on X, thus not to Y (Affaire Dreyfus > 1895); Historical novelty: the press substitutes crowds in their function: exerting political pressure to act (1843-1904)

11 20/04/2015MBauer LSE20/04/201511 100% t early late Resistant laggards innovators The diffusion model (e.g. Rogers et al., 1983) Adoption rate density t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 50% slow accelerateddeceleratedSlow again Key criterion = ‘years to 50%’ Adopters 11

12 20/04/2015MBauer LSE12 ‘The battle for the hearts and minds’ Linear model: invention (idea) - innovation (product) - diffusion (marketing) problem attribution: ‘black box’ the product and work on the social system sigmoid diffusion: logistic adoption rate = ln(p/N-p) = a + bt profiling of population: e.g. early adopters, late adopters, laggards multivariate analysis of attitude data: clustering, typologies, regression media practices: how to reach the different groups [media mix] Guiding a strategic intervention: ‘battle for the hearts and minds of people’ mass communication for awareness Advertising campaigns; marketing; two-step flows inter-personal communication for adoption decisions

13 20/04/2015MBauer LSE13 Echoes in ‘viral theories’ of ideas, beliefs Authors like: Dawkins (1976), Sperber (1990) Atran (2002), Boyer (2001) Ideas modelled in analogy to virus and viral infection, epidemiology of belief To entertain a new idea X = being infected by X Virulence of an idea (stickiness) Host susceptibility‘tipping point’ Ecological milieu (e.g. herd immunity) How far does the ‘viral’ analogy go? (asks Kitcher, 2003) Remember Dr Pasteur: ‘the germ is nothing, the milieu is everything’ Hygiene as intervention: vigilance, contact avoidance, moral cleansing Transmission of object relations y: y(Ac) => y(Bc) Intentional entities: ideas are ‘entities that refer to something else’ Is ‘y’ before and after transmission from A to B identical object relation ? Unspecified epidemiological analogues: mutation, rate of recovery, immunity, competition, rate of re-infection after recovery, gestation time etc.

14 20/04/2015MBauer LSE14 Rational or irrational; that is the question

15 20/04/2015MBauer LSE15 Influence as (ir)rational a) The doctrine of suggestion (a 19 th century fad?) Tarde, LeBon et al. Somnambulism as normal, everyday state of affairs Rationality is exceptional, for an elite of cultivated individuals ‘Oligo poloi’ (few) against the ‘hoi poloi’ (many) The sovereign mind buffered inside and outside (Taylor) b) Rationality as universal human potential Experimental demonstrations of ‘rationality’ (new social psych) The search for exceptional circumstances where it fails Triarchical rationality in relation to ego, social and world Either/Or dual-system ideas versus uni-modal system

16 20/04/2015MBauer LSE16 Dualities of social influence (the lure of dichotomies) Genetic determination or cultural imitation Rational versus irrational/subrational Reason versus passion Hard and soft Conscious versus non-conscious, automatic Central versus peripheral elaboration likelihood Expectancy-value versus emotional conditioning heuristic-systematic system 1 and system 2 Hot and cold Fast and slow Intuitive versus deliberative Majority versus minority influence

17 20/04/2015MBauer LSE17 Elaboration (system 2) Higher brain, slow, cold Cue based, biased (system 1) Lower brain, fast, hot Dual-System Ideas behaviour Dichotomy of systems or variable parameters ? Tools from same box, combined differently ?

18 20/04/2015MBauer LSE18 Solomon Asch (1907-1996) Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) Serge Moscovici (*1925) Mustafer Sherif (1906-1988)

19 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Normalisation and Frame of Reference > 1935 Mustafar Sherif (1935) et al.: Emerging norm of judgements; once established, they persist ‘Auto-kinetic phenomenon’ experiments: an ambiguous stimulus flickering in the dark chamber Compromising and convergence of judgements in groups 1.Establish an individual norm in repeated observations 2.Bringing individual norms into groups to agree ‘group judgments’ 3.An agreed frame of reference persists, even in individual perceptions 4.The social process as productive process: a basis for co-ordinated action Critique: innocuous situation; an experiments with no real-life stakes 19

20 20/04/2015MBauer LSE20

21 20/04/2015MBauer LSE21 Ludvik Fleck (1939 / 79) the ‘origin of scientific facts’ [demonstrated on the emergence of the modern theory of syphilis] Scientific facts are stabilised in the interplay of Thinking collective Thinking style Genres of communication: lab, journal, popular (concentric) The need of public appreciation (popularisation) certainty, simplicity, concreteness Facts are ‘the world seen as’ (in function of a frame of reference) for simplicity we say ‘x is a’, rather than ‘x is seen as a’ or x(a/F) A spade is a ‘spade’, only when seen ‘as a tool’, otherwise is just wood + metal

22 20/04/2015 MBauer LSE Majority influence > 1950s Experiments on conformity and compliance Unambiguous stimulus situation: three geometrical lines Solomon Asch et al. ( > 1951): majority influence and conformity Experiment on visual stimuli; majority is briefed for false judgements How is conformity induced; what supports resistance? Normative-motivational influence = avoidance of sanction, need for affiliation = exclusion anxiety = ‘it hurts to be alone’ (litteraly) Rational basis: in relation to others, preserving a positive self-concept Recent: wisdom of the crowd, majority as signal and information 22

23 20/04/2015MBauer LSE23 The odd one out

24 The distress of social exclusion (ostracism) hurts like physical pain (Panksepp, 2003; Eisenberger, 2004) Increased immune activity (Dickerson et al., 2009) increased hormone level: progesterone (Maner et al., 2010) It hurts, even if exclusion pays off (vanBeest et al., 2006) Slowing of heart rate (Moor et al, 2010) Higher cortisol levels in saliva (Blackhart et al., 2007) being ‘left in the cold’, feels cold (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008) Craving for warm food (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008) Make us more sensitive to cues that signal deception (Bernstein et al., 2008) So what: we learn from this that we are social animals (individuals 2 nd ) Pain killers like Acetaminophen help when excluded (DeWall et al., 2010) 20/04/201524MBauer LSE

25 20/04/2015MBauer LSE25 Obedience to Authority Stanley Milgram et al ( > 1963) : Pretext experiment: ‘Learning by pain’ [disguised purposes: how far do we go?] People are naturally hesitant, but this is turned-off by authority The ‘actant state’ = actant abdicates responsibility; ‘I am only a part of the machine’ = the banality of evil (Hannah Arendt) Compliance rates as cultural indictor: a national ‘litmus test’ [a model for genocide studies] A model case of AbuGraib, holocaust? but note the pictures !!!

26 20/04/2015MBauer LSE26

27 Milgram (1963) Exp 1USA (New Haven) 65 Exp 2USA 62.5 Exp 3USA 40 Exp 5USA 65 Exp 6USA 50 Exp 10USA 47.5 Holland (1967)USA 75 Ancona & Pareyson (1968)Italy 85 Rosenhan (1969)USA 85 Podd (1969)USA 31 Edwards et al, (1969)South Africa 87.5 Ring et al. (1970)USA 91 Mantell (1971)West Germany 85 Bock (1972)USA 40 Powers & Geen (1972)USA 83 Rogers (1973)USA 37 Kilhan & Mann (1974)Australia 28 Shalala (1974)USA 30 Constanza (1976)USA 81 Shanab & Yahya (1977)Jordan 73 Shanab & Yahya (1978)Jordan 62.5 Miranda et al. (1981)Spain 50 Schurz (1985)Austria 80 Burger (2006)USA (California) <70 Obedience rates as cultural indicator ? % of participants who continued to max 450 Volts with electro shocks Mean (US) = 61% Mean (elsewhere) = 66% Bio-Ethical ban on replications (>1975) issues: consent and harm to subjects Source: Blass (2004, p302f); Burger (2009): only ratio of participants intending to continue beyond 150 Vs 27 MBauer LSE

28 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Conformity (e.g. Asch)Obedience (e.g. Milgram)  group of peers (us and them)  imitation involved: acting as modelled  implicit pressure  influence denied by actor  fear of exclusion  Public compliance, private dissent a) social rationality: respect of others, it is costly to check everything oneself; moral community, ‘crowd sourcing’ b) Ego-rationality: need for affiliation; ostracism is distressing and avoided  social status hierarchy  no imitation, doing as verbally told  explicit command & request  admitted influence of authority  respect for authority, expectation of reward  Transfer of responsibility Social rationality: loyalty to legitimate authority; hierarchy as division of labour, efficient co-ordination Sub-rational Identification with leader: ‘Wanna be like you’ 28

29 20/04/2015MBauer LSE29 After-Imagestimulus Short presentations Recall of colours Recognition of colours later: priming and latency Alone or with partner

30 20/04/2015MBauer LSE30

31 20/04/2015MBauer LSE31

32 20/04/2015MBauer LSE32

33 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Minority influence > 1967 [Moscovici et al.] Experiments on influence of minority and conversion Reversal of Asch’s paradigm: the deviant minority is briefed to stay firm Back to ambiguous stimulus as used by Sherif: colour after-images Behavioural grammar: rigidity, consistency, autonomy/independence Symbolic-informational change: majority reassesses its own assumptions / beliefs [not avoiding stress nor satisfying a need, but world-oriented rationality] Sleeper effect: private change precedes public change (Tarde); source of information is forgotten: the tragedy of succesful minorities Nomic and anomic minorities: organised versus disorganised deviance; influence is only possible for nomic-organised minority Paradox of minority influence: behavioural grammar requires conformity within the minority [an organised-nomic minority: see Leninism, terror cells] 33

34 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Majority influenceMinority influence Maintaining a consensus, common sense assimilation of minority TO majority Process Avoiding a conflict and stabilising existing consensus in face of challenge  coercion, group pressure, threat of exclusion;  attraction, seduction comparison process: focus on persons; affiliation and identification with majority (normative rationality) Effect  only public compliance, no internalisation  private dissent [inner exil]  temporary shifts in opinions; peripheral change  easily reversible  Normative, social-oriented rationality  Ego rationality, self-esteem challenging an existing consensus, common sense accommodation of minority IN majority process Creating a conflict and shift towards new consensus due to behavioural style/grammar  consistency, commitment, unanimity  perceived autonomy, independence  (flexible) rigidity validation process: focus on topic; more careful assessment of information (objective rationality) Effect  public rejection and latent process: conversion, internalisation  ‘sleeper effect’: changing attitudes and forgetting the source of the influence, concluding ‘it is obvious, it is not’.  persistence: more durable shifts, change at the attitudinal core, irreversible  more elaboration leads to stronger new attitude-new behaviour relationship  World-oriented rationality, objectivity 34

35 20/04/2015MBauer LSE35 So far - what the textbooks tell you Now let us do some thinking ……

36 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Integration work Bringing things together 36

37 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Social interations create structures of ‘common sense’ (CS) CS = social representations such as attitudes, beliefs, ideas, notions Collective intentionality: common outlook and collective action The problem: establishing, maintaining, and re-designing CS in the context of intra- and inter-group conflicts (between groups A, B, C) Multiple common senses not one ‘sensus communis’ Conflict resolution over communalities: processes of structuration by violence and force: by military warfare [hard power] by adjudication of institutional authorities [court, church, science] by social influence in imperfect public sphere [soft power] by deliberation in ‘functioning civil society’ [power-free discourse] ‘Civilisation’ 37

38 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Social influence = negotiations between group A and B Symmetrical [ A ~ B ] Normalisation by Compromising a frame of reference coming to common terms; without a strong project, ‘no axes to grind’; equality of resources; Habermas’ ideal speech situation applies Asymmetrical [ A > B ] strong projects involved, basic value commitments are at stake Assimilation [bring minority into-the-fold] ‘majority influence’: strategy of the strong, power in number: public agreement / private disagreement [normative] Accommodation [make inroads with majority] ‘minority influence’: strategy of the weak; power of dissent public disagreement / private endorsement [informational] Paradox of minority influence: in order to exert influence, the minority needs to have discipline [= successful minorities require professionalism] 38

39 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Normalisation [Sherif type] Assimilation [Asch, Milgram type Tarde type] Accommodation [Moscovici type] Social co-ordination of activity: Establishing, Maintaining and Altering Moral Communality (a spiral of communication) N The newcomer Representations = normative constraint = artefacts deviance 39

40 20/04/2015MBauer LSE40 FunctionModalities of Rational Influence NormalisationFrame of reference – compromise AssimilationMajority influence – conformity Authority, Prestige – obedience Social, legal norm - compliance AccommodationMinority Influence – conversion

41 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Extension I Mass Mediation print, broadcasting, internet 41

42 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Limitation of experimental paradigms Social influence experiments are ‘laboratory dramas’: face-to-face situations arranged by an experimenter; limited ecological validity, because modern social influence is heavily based on mass mediated communication Irony: experiments are banned under ‘ethics code’ but TV makes use of their dramatic qualities (dramatic effect, not causal claim is at stake) Duality of face-to-face and formal communication? Small groups experiments = face-to-face; co-presence of others What happens if mass mediation comes into play? Two different processes; different degrees of freedom; Can we analogize? Do we have to consider emergent properties? Social influence is exerted via informal but also via formalized mass media (i.e. professional preparation of meanings) 42

43 20/04/2015LSE MBauer PS42943 Informal and Formalised Communication

44 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Source: C Tennant, LSE06 44

45 20/04/2015MBauer LSE45

46 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Mass media on topic/actor X: Attention, positioning and framing Conversations on X: salience and meaning Exploring the ‘resonance’ between two spheres Media effects Audience research intensity - Match + 46 Emerging norms of meaning

47 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Mediation models: formal communication C, M S R S R1R1 R2R2 R3R3 RnRn Audience autonomy research Shannon-Weaver HIFI engineering model ‘different worlds’ Differentiation of contents and receptions Media Systems S1S1 S1S1 S1S1 M’ S2S2 M’’’ S2S2 M’’ S2S2 C C C Two-step flows Social Representations noise 47

48 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Weak effectStrong effect The historical pendulum of ‘belief’ in power of mass media 1930s, 1970s1950s, 1990s ? 48

49 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Mass media effect hypotheses Ways of operationalising ideas of ‘resonance’ alternatives to ‘magic bullet’ ‘epidermic needle’ ‘hifi models’ Agenda setting (weak): (McCoombs, Rogers et al.) Agenda setting (strong): (Mazur et al. ) quantity of coverage of fluoridation, vaccination stories Framing of issues ‘as X’ (Gamson et al.): images, definition, culprits, solutions Cultivation under high exposure (Gerbner et al.) ‘mean world’; coding of Red and Green biotechnology Consistency-or-experts hypotheses (Rothman et al.) source credibility requires expert agreement: see ‘global warming’ Gap hypotheses for knowledge, motivation etc (Tichenor et al.) new technology faster prevalent among the educated Spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann) dissent shuts up: Anti-GM crop voices in the US; anti-war voices 49

50 20/04/2015MBauer LSE50 ?

51 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Extension II I Influence by Artefacts 51

52 20/04/2015MBauer LSE A puzzle: the missing ‘thing’ of SocPsych !! Solomon Asch’s in ‘Social Psychology’ (1952) ‘there remains to be mentioned one great consequence of social interaction – the creation of a realm of social facts’. Interaction produces a host of objects, roles and relations of great permanence …….’ [p178] ‘Interactions between men generate a host of phenomena …., which form the fabric of social existence: material equipment, beliefs and ideas, language and the human character themselves are its massive products’ [p181] But where are the ‘things’ in social psychology? 52

53 20/04/2015MBauer LSE53 Object relations (mainly ex-post factum) Attitude ‘object’ ex-post-facto: the object already exists: e.g. cognitive dissonance after fait accompli, forced situations affective (like/dislike) reactions based on group specific norms or values Identity: possessions as self-expressive, fashion items, favourite things, souvenirs, status symbols, memorabilia (symbolic re-appropriation of existing things; our autonomy vis-à-vis things); Developmental: ‘thing constitution’ as assimilation and accommodation of the child’s mentality growing towards the adult object, overcoming ego-centrism and socialisation [e.g. Piaget] Others ?

54 20/04/2015MBauer LSE54 The Scandal of Artefacts: ‘the hidden actions of things’ 1. Body building and mind training: ‘configuring the user’ training for force or skill to handle it [e.g. a heavy machine, a fine tool] 2. Things have action in-scripted [inscriptions; user’s guide; how to do it] required action schemata, routines of usage with some degree of freedom 3. Avoids violence: framing interaction without body contact e.g. create distance between actors; with e.g. a counter or a fortification 4. Affordance; demand characteristics (visual cueing of actions, without previous experience) surfaces to step on, buttons to press, levers to push or pull (= designer rules) 5. Goal shifting [Wundt’s heteronomy of purposes = in-built purposes are never final] buying a car for work, then thinking about a car holiday, internet for nuclear warfare, then becoming a general communication network 6. Dependency: taken-for-granted, cannot life/work without it skill lost, no time to do it the old way; depending on supply chain for parts 7. Delegation of a legal norm; instead of a legal norm. a fence or speed bumps instead of police or friendly signs [no trespassing!] cigarette machines that require id card; mobile phone: if stolen, receive messages 8. Negotiation by fait-accompli facts on the ground; leaving no choice; reduction of dissonance after the fact 9. Things as root metaphor for thinking about self, psyche, human identity e.g. Self = a programmed computer in need of debunking and reprogramming 10. The normative power of the factual: What is, ought to be (naturalistic fallacy).

55 20/04/2015MBauer LSE55

56 20/04/2015MBauer LSE56 Affordances and Moral Imperatives Direct, unmediated perception inviting action tendencies (Gibson, 1986) : a ‘thing to grasp’, a ‘walkable surface’, a ‘picture to look at’, a ‘wall to stay out‘ Lock-in: ‘emotional design’ (captology), in-scripted objects: a heavy Hotel key annoys and tells you: ‘leave me at home’ Inter-locking: an particular action is required before another can take place A bank till requires you to pull your card before the money is dispensed: ‘you shall not leave your credit card’ Testing your breath before the car can ignite: ‘you shall not drink and drive’ Lock-out: makes a particular action impossible automatic access check, e.g. via finger print or iris: no entry for outsiders Build a wall that is difficult to climb: Do not trespass, enter ‘Boundary objects’: objects are seen as different things by different people e.g. ‘Nanotechnology’: many do it, but understand it differently.

57 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Objects X Everyday use of object X Exploring the ‘fitting’ between two spheres diffusion User research 57 Afford uses Design Installation

58 20/04/2015MBauer LSE20/04/201558 100% t early late Resistant laggards innovators The diffusion model: creates expectations !! Adoption rate density t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 50% slow accelerateddeceleratedSlow again Adopters 58 Obedience, Conversion Conformity

59 20/04/2015MBauer LSE59 Nuclear bombs and nuclear power stations worldwide

60 20/04/2015MBauer LSE60 The differential uptake of GM soya in the world

61 20/04/2015MBauer LSE61

62 20/04/2015MBauer LSE Normalisation Prototyping [Sherif type] Diffusion [Asch, Milgram type] Redesign by Resistance [Moscovici type] Social Co-ordination of Activity: Establishing, Maintaining and Altering Communality with Artefact-Fetish (a spiral) N newcomers Representations = constraints of norms and artefacts 62 Deviant use Refusal to use

63 20/04/2015MBauer LSE63 And the moral of the story is …… 1.Many modalities of social influence, not only two systems 2.Sub-rational and rational modalities: what is ‘rationality’? 3.Three functions in relation to co-ordination of activity: normalisation, assimilation, accommodation 4.Two necessary extensions of models: mass mediation, artefacts Social influence = manipulating the context of persuasion ‘under the circumstances, I am persuaded’ When is a situation ‘persuasive’, or ‘violating’ presumed autonomy? We all have intuitions that circumstances can be morally dubious ‘under the influence of x’ disqualifies as reasoned persuasion Dubious are: guns, drugs, alcohol, food, make up, nice words?

64 20/04/2015 MBauer LSE 64 imitation, crowds, framing, peer pressure, authority, dissent, artefacts Mass behaviour Rhetoric communityPrestige hierarchy Social representations Norms, attitudes, beliefs, opinion Individual behaviour & collective action Eristics, Sophistry Public Sphere Circumstances of Persuasion

65 20/04/2015MBauer LSE persuasion Deliberation social influence Communication action: common understanding Strategic communication: efficiency and success Ideal Public sphere Corrupt public sphere The public sphere as circumstances of persuasion 65 ReasonViolence

66 20/04/2015MBauer LSE66 Additional references regarding ideas towards integration of modalities Sammut G and MW Bauer (2011) Social influence: modes and modalities, in: DW Hook, B Franks & MW Bauer (eds) The Social Psychology of Communicaition, London, Palgrave Bauer MW (2008) The ‘fait accompli’ and its social influence, DIOGENE, 217, 68-83. Bauer MW (2006) The paradoxes of resistance in Brazil, in: Gaskell G & M Bauer (eds) Genomic & Society: legal, ethical and social dimension, London, Earthscan, p228-249 Bauer MW (2005) The mass media and the biotechnology controversy, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (1), 5-22 Bauer MW &G Gaskell (eds) (2002) Biotechnology – the making of a global controversy, Cambridge, CUP. Bauer MW (2002) Arenas, platforms and the biotechnology movement, Science Communication, 24, 144-161. Burger J (2009) Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11 Keren G & Y Schul (2009) two is not always better than one: a critical evaluation of two systems theories, Perspectives on Psychologica Science, 4, 6, 533-51. Kruglanski AW, HP Erb, A Pierro, L Mannetti, WY Chun (2006) On parametric continuities in the world of binary either ors, Psychological Enquiry, 17, 153-165. Packer DJ (2008) Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 4, 301- 4. Paicheler G (1988) The psychology of social influence, Cambridge, CUP. Petty RE & B Brinol (2008) Persuasion: from single to multiple to metacognitive processes, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 2, 137- 47. Russsel NJC (2011) Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: origins and early evoluation, British J of Social Psychology, 50, 140-162.

Download ppt "20/04/2015MBauer LSE Modalities of Social Influence Martin W Bauer Institute of Social Psychology (ISP) 1."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google