1. Theories of obedience (2) Social impact theory
Lesson 6
Theories of obedience (2)
Social impact theory

2. Recap on Agency Theory Define Autonomous Agentic Moral strain
Explain how the agentic shift works
Provide one weakness of the theory
Provide one strength of the theory

3. Social Impact Theory (Latane, 1981)
This theory can be applied to obedience but it is not strictly a theory of obedience.
Social Impact theory looks at the functioning of individuals in the presence of others
How we are affected by our social environment ad the variety of opinions we encounter as social beings
Latané argues that every person is potentially a “source” or a “target” of social influence – sometimes both at once
Latane proposed a theory to explain why people are obedient

4. Social Impact Theory - Latané
The Social Impact Theory has three sets of rules:
1. Social Force
2. Psychosocial Law
3. Divisional effect

5. 1. Social Force
This relates to a process that influences people in social settings.
Social force is made of
Strength
Immediacy
Number
The likelihood someone will respond to social influence will increase with these three elements. If these three elements are in place Latané suggests that the source will influence the target.
In pairs discuss possible definitions for S I N and source and target

6. EXPLAINING OBEDIENCE
Strength?
Source?
Immediacy?
Target?
Number?
The greater the strength, immediacy and number of the source, the greater the impact on the target.

7. Explaining Social Force
strength
Authority figures
SOURCE
immediacy
TARGET
number
The greater the strength, immediacy and number of the source, the greater the impact on the target.

8. Social Force - The likelihood that a person will respond to social influence will increase with:
Strength
how much power you believe the person influencing you has.
E.g. (Status, authority, age)
Immediacy
how close the group are to you at the time of the influence attempt. Physically or psychologically (proximity, or close friend vs stranger)
Number
How many people there are in the group
Impact= f(SIN)

9. 2. The Psychosocial law – multiplicative effect
increasing the number
of confederates craning their neck increases the number of passers-by imitating their actions
Between one and 15 confederates congregated on the street and craned their necks to look up at the sixth floor of the university building
The effect eventually levels off as the number of passers-by grew smaller relative to the size of the confederate group.
Passers-by who also stopped and craned their necks to look up were recorded by Milgram
The greater the numbers get, the less impact on the participant
Berkowitz, Bickman and Milgram (1969)

10. 2. The Psychosocial law – multiplicative effect)
The greater the numbers get, the less impact on the participant
Latané and Harkins (1976) Study on stage fright. The larger the audience the more anxiety reported.
The largest difference was from 0 members to 1 member.
Everyday example: 1 lightbulb in a pitch black room will have a dramatic effect on lighting conditions
A second lightbulb will improve lighting but with a third and fourth (etc.) the effect will become less pronounced

11. 3. The divisional effect
The ability of the speaker (source) to persuade the audience (target) is divided among the members of the audience
Latane and Darley (1968) A lone person is more likely to help someone in need
compared to a group of people as there is a diffusion of responsibility.
Two conditions: Of the participants in the alone condition, 85% went out and reported the seizure. Only 31% reported the seizure when they believed that there were four bystanders.
Therefore an authority figure would have a diminished capacity to influence someone if that someone had an ally or group of allies.

12. Diffusion of responsibility: A person is less likely to take responsibility for an action in the presence of a group
Bystander effect – where individuals do not offer help to a victim when other people are present

13. Application practice – use key words!
1. Jane was asked to go to the principal’s office. When she arrived, the principal was there with the assistant principal and Jane was asked to go home immediately to change her clothes. Using the social impact theory explain why Jane decided to obey the principal.
2. A teacher had a one to one session with a pupil. The teacher noticed that the pupil was very attentive and took on the teacher’s advice regarding her work. Explain why the teacher’s advice may not have had such an impact in a classroom with 24 girls.
3. A Facebook group has been created to advertise a protest in Central London. So far 2000 people have confirmed their attendance. There had to be a police presence at the protest. Explain how the police could use the social impact theory to decide how to plan their response to their protest.

14. Weaknesses
Strengths
Social Impact theory

15. Evaluation – Supporting studies
These studies support the theory. This makes the theory more valid.
How does this apply to Milgram’s variations?
Milgram Variation – telephonic instructions
Participants were less likely to obey if the authority figure was absent
Milgram variation – ordinary man
Participants were less likely to obey if the experiments was perceived to have less ‘strength/power’.
Multiplicative effect: Berkowitz, Bickman and Milgram (1969) – Craning necks
Divisional effect: Latane and Darley (1968) – diffusion of responsibility
Notes: Explain how these two studies support multiplicative effect and the divisional effect

16. Opposing theory
Social impact theory is a static theory as it doesn’t explain how the source and target interact with one another (it only explains the impact the source has on the target)
What if the source can impact the target?
What if the source and the target are of equal strength, immediacy and number?
Influence is reciprocal (you influence me as I influence you) however this is not explained
Latané (1996) Developed Dynamic Social Impact theory
Dynamic social impact theory considers this reciprocal relationship. Day-to-day interaction with others leads to attitude change in the individual, which then helps contribute to the pattern of beliefs at the group level.
He developed the theory to explain the complexity of groups and cultures and how they are constantly changing (dynamic not static)

17. Impact= f(SIN) Application Useful predictive power
Quantifiable (measurable) – principles can be observed
Using mathematical formulas predictions can be made to help society in the control of its members
If same measurements about groups and individuals are put into the formula same predictions will emerge
The likely influence on individuals can be estimated
Explains what conditions people are more likely to be influenced
Could be used to decide who to appoint as a leader – Strength
Can be used to support the idea that managers should work from their office as the further away they are the less likely they are to have an impact on their workers.
Crowding/protests/rioting
Social Control

18. Application SOURCE TARGET Authority figures strength immediacy number
The greater the strength, immediacy and number of the source, the greater the impact on the target.

19. Latane’s dynamic social impact theory provides evidence that the original social impact theory is oversimplified
Reductionism
Views individuals as passive receivers of others’ behaviour
Disregards active nature of social interaction
Static theory – rather than dynamic
Ignores interaction between source and target
Oversimplifies the nature of social interaction – ignores individual differences
Some people may be more resistant to social impact others may be more passive
The impact of others involves many factors such as power of persuasion, immediacy, size of group etc. Can all of these factors be reduced to a mathematical formula?
The dynamic social impact theory is less reductionist and more holistic – why?
Wide issue debate? Psyc as science falsfiablle

20. Similarities and differences
Comparison
Similarities and differences
Agency theory
Term
Social impact theory
However
Similarly
On the other hand