Presentation on theme: "Example of Stimuli Used in Asch's Study Participants agreed with the majority approximately 37% of the time."— Presentation transcript:
Example of Stimuli Used in Asch's Study Participants agreed with the majority approximately 37% of the time
“That we have found the tendency to conform in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.” --- Asch, 1955
Types of Social Influence INFORMATIVE (Ambiguous stimuli or task. Other’s input is a source of potentially valuable information. Internalization is possible e.g., Sherif’s Research) NORMATIVE (Clear, straightforward task, correct answer is apparent. Conform to majority to fit in or not stand out, influenced by peer pressure. Public acceptance, not internalization of beliefs e.g., Asch’s Research)
Autokinetic Effect: A perceptual phenomenon where a rather small and stationary dot of light in a dark environment (or one that lacks distinctive feature) appears to move. It is believed to happen because the perception of movement is made relative to a point of reference. In the dark, no point of reference is present. Consequently, the motion of a small point of light is not definable.
Sherif’s Conformity Studies Using the Autokinetic Effect ALONE 1 2 3 Movement in inches 76543217654321 SUBJECT 1 SUBJECT 2 SUBJECT 3
Minority Influence on the Majority Influence of a deviate --- Key is consistency of opinion & avoidance of being viewed as rigid) Reactions to minority views: Surprise, anger, contempt, irritation, hostility, criticism Research by Wilder (197)1: 4 People 2 People
~ Chameleon Effect ~ What is it?To mimic the behavior of others Why does it occur? Perception – Behavior Link William James (thinking and likelihood of behavior) Aggression research of Berkowitz: “Ideomotor” action (viewing violent stimuli automatically activates memory representations of the perceived violent act that lead to aggressive thoughts/ideas, leads viewer to behaving violently)
Study Hypotheses Perception of other’s behavior increases the tendency for perceivers to act in a similar way This mimicry is non-conscious The initiation is not goal directed (and not dependent on the nature of the interpersonal relationship) A causal relationship exist between the behavior of others and the behavior of perceivers
No baseline or control group No tests of the minimal conditions under which the matching of behaviors occur (e.g., strangers vs. friends) Past work was correlational in nature No assessment of variability of behavior within participants (e.g., does participant’s behavior change as a function of the different other’s behavior) Shortcomings of Past Research
Main Findings Study 1: Chameleon effect does occur --- Participants mimicked the behavior of others (i.e., smiling, rubbing face, shaking foot) The findings are not due to “liking” as a potential mediator (no difference in mimicry between smiling and non-smiling confederates Participants not aware of behavior of others Issues/Questions: Adequacy of the 1 minute baseline assessment Conceptualizing the smiling and non-smiling confederates as a likability manipulation
Main Findings (cont.) Assumptions : Mimicry reflects the basic need to belong, to be accepted, to not appear different, it offers validation (reflecting a common viewpoint) Social glue principle Study 2 Findings: Mimicry has an adaptive function. It leads to greater interpersonal liking and makes the interaction go more smoothly Confederates did not behave friendlier (e.g., smiling, eye contact between conditions) Implications ? Cross-cultural interactions
Main Findings (cont.) Study 3: Individual differences exist in the usage of mimicry. Specifically, perspective taking and the degree to which people attend to the behavior of others should lead to greater mimicking Findings : Individuals with high scores on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index mimicked more than those low in this measure No differences in the degree of mimicry existed based on scores on the Empathy Concern Scale (as expected; it is an measure of the emotional aspect of empathy ) Issues/Questions: 1) Items on the IRI seem to be cognitively-based questions NOT a measure of attention or perspective taking (“I often have tender, concerned feeling for people less fortunate than me,” I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.” 2) Empathetic Concern Items? 3) Sample size and use of median split ( N = 28 and 22), 4) Reliability of IRI (low end)
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.