PSYCHOLOGY 305 / 305G Social Psychology

Social Evolution Lecturer: James Neill

Overview • • • •

Social Evolution – Global Brain (35 mins) Social Influence Social Identity Theory Self Categorisation Theory

Social Evolution Challenges • Avian Bird Flu pandemic – est. 5 to 150 million deaths? • Terrorism & culture of fear? • Peak Oil? • Overpopulation / Overconsumption

1

Social Evolution Question • Can social psychology help humanity to understand and adjust to the current human and environmental challenges?

Social Evolution - Ideas? "All it takes is one idea to solve an impossible problem.“ - Robert H. Schuller • Global Brain – 35 mins

Social Evolution as Social Influence • We’ve talked about relationships, leadership and power as forms of social influence. • Now we are going to examine

intergroup psychology, including: – Social Influence – Social Identity – Self Categorisation

2

Social Identity Theory Basic Tenets • Group behavior and ingroup identity as category-based intergroup-oriented phenomena 1. Attention to intergroup comparison 2. Ingroup-representation as a shared social category, or a depersonalized whole 3. Self-concept depersonalized and defined in terms of how typical one is in the group

Intergroup Behavior

Social Identity Theory Basic Tenets Ingroup S

Outgroup

3

Social Influence Questions Social influence – efforts by an individual or group to change the attitudes, behaviour or beliefs of others. • How can you get others to do what you want them to do? • Would you obey an order that you disagreed with? • Why do we often go along with the majority/group?

• • • • • • • • • • •

Compliance Obedience Conformity Norms Membership group Reference group Public compliance Private conversion Prototypicality Salience Depersonalisation

4

Factors that influence conformity • • • • • •

Friendship/Liking/Ingratiation Feelings of incompetence/insecurity. Cultural bias towards conformity. Need for individuation. Group size. Unanimity (e.g., Allen & Levine, 1971)

• • • • •

Group cohesiveness Prior commitment to response Self-presentation Need for personal control Gender

5

Normative vs. Informational Influence • Deutsch & Gerard (1955) – pressures to conform come from two sources. • Depends on anonymity & ambiguity of task. • Normative social influence – social influence based on the desire to be liked & accepted by others. • occurs when under surveillance of the group. • can be considered ‘public compliance’.

• Informational social influence – social influence based on the desire to be correct. • Occurs when uncertain or when stimuli are ambiguous. • Can be considered ‘private conversion’ (true influence). • Dual process models of social influence – propose 2 separate processes of influence. • Have been criticised for under-emphasising group belongingness.

Referent informational influence (Turner, 1991) • Based upon social identity theory. • Look to in-group for relevant norms • Influenced by in-group (& not out-group) members – therefore conform with ingroup members. • One influence process rather than two.

6

Criticisms of conformity research • ‘Conformity bias’ • Explaining social change. • Asch’s studies can be interpreted as minority influence (Moscovici & Faucheux, 1972)

Minority influence • Numerical or power minority change the attitudes/behaviour of the majority. • conformity is only one of 3 possible influence processes (Moscovici) • can also have: - ‘normalisation’ – compromise leading to convergence. • ‘innovation’ – minority creates conflict in order to influence majority.

Models of minority influence Genetic model of minority influence (Moscovici) • Social conflict between minority & majority can bring changes in attitudes/behaviour of majority. • People are motivated to avoid or resolve conflict. • Amount of influence minority has depends on behavioural style.

7

Behavioral Style Factors 1. Consistency among the minority (e.g., Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969 – blue-green studies). 2. Amount of investment. 3. Autonomy. 4. Rigidity/flexibility.

Conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980) • Distinction between minority conversion & majority compliance • Majority influence -> public compliance • Majority views accepted with little cognitive processing • Minority influence -> private conversion • Minority views produce deeper cognitive processing

8

Social impact theory (Latane, 1981) • Social influence depends upon numbers, strength & immediacy (impact). • Generally majorities have more impact (influence) than minorities. • Individual impact decreases as number of influencing persons increases. • Unitary process of social influence.

Social Impact Theory

Target

9

The social identity perspective “An individual’s knowledge that he or she belongs to certain groups together with some emotional and value significance to him or her of the group membership” (Tajfel, 1972, p. 31)

The social identity perspective Fundamental distinction between people behaving as individuals, and people behaving as members of groups. Self-definition Social comparison Motivation

I Other individuals What’ What’s good for me

We Other groups What’ What’s good for us

Social identity theory Categorization “The process of perceiving two or more things as similar to or different from each other as a function of properties they are perceived to share or not share in a particular context” (Haslam, 2001, p. 384)

10

Social identity theory Identification “A relatively enduring state that reflects an individual’s readiness to define himor herself as a member of a particular social group” (Haslam, 2001, p. 383)

Social identity theory Comparison “The process of comparing oneself (or one’s group) with others that are perceived to be similar in relevant respects in order to gain information about one’s opinions and abilities” (Haslam, 2001, p. 386)

Social identity theory Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) – Positive self-concept is a part of normal psychological functioning – Negative self-concept is an aversive motivational state

To evaluate ourselves we compare ourselves with similar others in ways that reflect positively on the self

11

Social identity theory Motivation to maintain positive distinctiveness – “A condition in which an ingroup is defined more positively than a comparison outgroup on some selfvalued dimension” (Haslam, 2001, p. 382)

Contributes to (collective) self-esteem – Different strategies used to maintain positive distinctiveness

Minimal Group Studies • Minimal group studies (Tajfel, Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971) – trivial or random basis for group assignment – no prior history – no self-interest – anonymity

Minimal Group Studies • Results – Allocate more rewards to ingroup members relative to outgroup members • Possible explanation – Self-categorize in terms minimal categorization – Identify with category – Compare with outgroup (in terms of rewards) – Positive distinctiveness created through giving relatively more rewards to ingroup members

12

Self-categorization theory An explanatory framework developed by Turner and colleagues (Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987) that focuses on the role of social categorization processes in group formation and behaviour. Human Social (Group) Personal

Self-categorization theory – Borrows from cognitive psychology the idea that categories have an internally graded structure, such that some features of a category define that category better than others (e.g., Medin, 1989; Rosch, 1978) – Rejects ‘attribute matching’ or ‘averaging’ model of prototypicality: emphasizes context-

dependence of prototypicality

Self-categorization theory Prototypicality –Based on comparisons of differences within and between categories – The principle of meta-contrast –the more an individual differs from outgroup members and the less he or she differs from ingroup members, the more she will be seen as representative of the ingroup category

13

Self-categorization theory – It follows that the prototypical group member in one context need not necessarily be prototypical in another context: – An emergent property of intergroup relations rather than a stable or enduring characteristic of a given category or social group

Self-categorization theory:

Depersonalization – People perceived less as unique individuals and more as interchangeable representatives of their category – Social categorization of self, or selfcategorization, likewise depersonalizes selfperception to the extent that the self is seen as interchangeable with other ingroup members – Mutual expectation of agreement: mutual influence pressures toward a distinct ingroup position

Self-categorization theory:

Social attraction – Categorization and depersonalization produce a mutual attraction between group members called social attraction – Group members evaluate one another not as unique individuals but as embodiments of the group prototype – Distinct from attraction based on idiosyncratic preferences and interpersonal relationships

14

Self-categorization theory Evaluation of other ingroup members*: “… in any specific setting where some evaluation of self and others is taking place one’s ideal self is the most prototypical instance of the positive self-category in terms of which people are being compared, and that attraction to others is a direct function of their perceived similarity to one’s ideal self in that specific situation” (Turner, 1987, p. 58) * Assuming that the ingroup category is positively valued

Self-categorization theory Evaluation of outgroup members*: “To the degree that he or she is perceived as prototypical of the negatively valued outgroup … then he or she will be disliked … In any specific instance what matters is the value of the prototype that is being used as the standard: one likes people that represent positive categories or that are less representative of negative categories” (ibid) * Assuming that the outgroup category is negatively valued

Self categorisation theory • Minorities exert more influence when perceived as in-group versus out-group members • e.g., David & Turner (1996) - P’s identified themselves as either pro- or antilogging - completed questionnaire on attitudes to logging - exposed to pro- or anti-logging message from either in-group or out-group majority or minority - completed questionnaire again immediately & 3 weeks later

15

Results showed that: • in-group majority exerted short-term influence. • in-group minority exerted long-term influence • neither out-group minority or majority exerted influence

Cultural Variation? Two Types of Individual-Group Relations West = Categorybased intergroup orientation

East Asia = Networkbased intragroup orientation S

S •Ingroup as a depersonalized entity, defined in comparison with outgroups •Collective self

• Ingroup as a personal network among members • Relational self

Conclusions • Various tactics are used to gain compliance • ‘Ordinary’ people obey given the right circumstances • Conformity - dual-process or single process?

16