Greg Detre
Friday, 26 May, 2000
Prof. Emler
attitude � as it affects behaviour
something about river ecologies supports highly centralised power
Amish community in �Witness� � similarity of roles, everybody pitches in in the same way
now, differences that are complementary are emphasised � foundation of modern societies
societies consist of a set of structures/institution, which together �/span> functional whole
|
Cultural + social anthropology E E Evans-Prichard A R Radcliffe-Brown |
Functionalist sociology Talcott Parsons Robert Merton |
|
Cultures discrete, distinct, identifiable structured stable |
Societies harmonious consensual shared values |
|
���������������������������������������������������� � American social psychology Solomon Asch, Mustafa Sherif, Stanley Schachter |
|
dots (Sherif) & delinquents
how far a dot of light moved in a dark room � no frame of reference
under conditions of uncertainty, refer to other people � group of people�s varying estimates converge
lines + liver
isn�t purely a matter of understanding and uncertainty
when asked to match lines of same length, many people will go along with the majority and give the wrong answer (37% errors � only 25% were completely uninfluenced by the majority)
seems to be a huge inclination to be influenced by others (1950s McCarthy witch hunts) � found that sadly, people find it very difficult to go against the majority
Asch: what do you do when you find yourself to be the odd one out
more interested in the majority�s reaction to the deviance of others
the majority of his study were genuine subjects, with 3 paid people/group following a script
discussions: e.g. what to do with this young offender � range of 7 options
mode, deviate + slider
as the argument progresses, bombard the deviate with arguments
also interested in how they view the deviate:
mean desirability rank
deviate 6.1 (least liked, viewed worst)
slider��� 4.8
mode�� 4.5
demonstrated the pressure/animosity put on the deviate
one student alone: couldn�t hold out dissenting position for long in the face of all that pressure
communities based on consensus are more likely to survive � wide areas of agreement are desirable
e.g. that everyone drives on the same side of the road
but at the same time, conformity isn�t all that desirable � can lead to a repressive, constraining society when people are not allowed an independent sense of truth in the face of a majority
1. social construction of reality
Leon Festinger, 1950
2. collective goals
Festinger, 1950
3. social acceptance
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
Deutsch & Gerard: normative vs informational influence
how do these explain change?
seem to suggest that a dissenting position will never gain acceptance
Semmelweis (18th C, Vienna)
why wash hands? germs � have you ever seen one?
worried about so many women were dying of childbirth of purporal fever in a single ward, then a doctor there died � realised that it was because the maternity doctor worked in a morgue
persuaded colleagues to wash their hands
how do you persuade people to change?
1. Conformity to group (majority) norms
if you conform, you tend to rise in status � dissent, fall
= ideosyncrasy credit
2. if you get high enough, you get influence
but how do you persuade people to do things differently, because then you�re becoming a dissenter and attacking norms
3. ideosynrasy credit
accumulated over time
4. leadership position
5. power/influence
6. capacity to propose/produce changes to innovate
but that�s not what usually happens
examples: Darwin, Freud, Lenin
didn�t rise to the top of their establishment
((difference between paradigm shift vs gradual incremental change???))
Moscovici, 1976
looked at America:
shared culture, emerging from hotchpotch of people � how does that happen
consensus seems to emerge from such diverse inputs
must be an incredibly powerful pressure towards uniformity
((vs pressure of xenophobia???)
like Oxford (inertia of custom + bureaucracy)
Europe = the same, yet there�s still been so much progress
|
|
Functionalist model |
Genetic model |
|
Relations between
source & target |
Assymetry |
Symmetry |
|
Goals of interaction |
Control |
Change |
|
Interaction process |
Uncertainty reduction |
Conflict negotiation |
|
Independent variable |
Dependency |
Behavioural style |
|
Norm determining interaction |
Objectivity |
Objectivity preference originality |
|
Modes of influence |
Conformity |
Conformity normalisation innovation |
behavioural style
influences people
even though: they weren�t seen as intellectual authorities, had no authority or power, weren�t attractive
it all started from an argument with Festinger
dependency isn�t the basis of influence
if I�ve got a blue carpet, and you tell me it�s green enough, I�ll believe you?
Muscovici � yes
Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux
�/span> green/blue experiment in Paris
minority of 2: those slides are green
if one says green sometimes, and the other says green other times (inconsistent): 0.25%
if they�re both consistent with each other: 10% (40% were influenced at least once)
inconsistent majority: 12%
consistent (unanimous) majority: 40%
Mass
colour isn�t a very big issue � what about public controversy, e.g. abortion, capital punishment?
it isn�t just being consistent, but what if you�re a minority in another sense, e.g. women arguing for abortion � little sway
but men arguing for abortion do have weight
why haven�t we heard of Semelweiss?
highly consistent, very distinctive position, stuck to it over time, and he was right
called germs �miasmus�, but we�ve heard of Pasteur�s germ theory of disease (40 years after)
Semelweiss died of a mental asylum from a blood infection, because nobody believed him in the long run
why is it that we�ve heard of Pasteur � audience wasn�t ready for it initially, things had changed and it made more sense to them by then
|
McGuire (1969, 1985) |
Rogers |
|
|
|
crucial phase where we decide whether we really believe something = the phase of influence (crucial: what our friends think, whereas most of the studies focus on the effect of strangers)
innovators - tend to be younger than the majority, informed about scientific developments
adopters � high status, decide whether it�s going to go ahead (equivalent of idiosyncrasy credit)
early majority � follow the adopters, but not the innovators
late majority � influenced by the (early) majority
laggards � old, tend to die anyway
they were all right � but about different parts of the process