Upload
keefe
View
63
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Modalities of Social Influence. Martin W Bauer Institute of Social Psychology (ISP). The Argument of today 1Different Modalities of Social Influence 2The Problem of Rationality and Sub-Rationality Some Reconstruction and Integration Work - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Modalities of Social Influence
Martin W Bauer
Institute of Social Psychology (ISP)
1
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
The Argument of today
1 Different Modalities of Social Influence
2 The Problem of Rationality and Sub-Rationality
3 Some Reconstruction and Integration Work
4 Moral 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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 3
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, crowdsThe many influence the many: imitation, pressureOne/few influence the many: minority, persuasion, prestigeOne influences one another: contagion, persuasion, prestigeTo influence yourself: to argue, to reason
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 4
Other takes on ‘influence’
Militaryforce: moving in tanks, fortification to keep enemies out
Politicshard power: armies, police and threat of violence soft power: cultural influence; attractive ‘way of life’; good music
Sociologya) 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 ?
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 5
crowds, contagion, persuasion normalising, compliance, obedience, conversion
Mass behaviour
Rhetoric
communityPrestigehierarchy
RepresentationsNorms, attitudes, opinions, beliefs
Behaviour & actions
Eristics, Sophistry
Public sphere
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 6
21/04/23 MBauer 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 19th 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
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
21/04/23 8MBauer LSE
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 9
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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 10
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 advertising3Liquid 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-attentionPublic opinion = floating conversations, a homogenity of outlook, not only political, also religiousPublic 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)
21/04/23 MBauer LSE21/04/23 11
100%
t
early late
Resistantlaggardsinnovators
The diffusion model (e.g. Rogers et al., 1983)
Adoption rate
density
t1 t2 t3
50%
slow accelerated decelerated Slow again
Key criterion = ‘years to 50%’
Adopters
11
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 12
‘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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 13
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 beliefTo 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.
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 14
Rational or irrational;
that is the question
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 15
Influence as (ir)rational
a) The doctrine of suggestion (a 19th century fad?)Tarde, LeBon et al.
Somnambulism as normal, everyday state of affairsRationality 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 failsTriarchical rationality in relation to ego, social and worldEither/Or dual-system ideas versus uni-modal system
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 16
Dualities of social influence (the lure of dichotomies)
Genetic determination or cultural imitationRational versus irrational/subrationalReason versus passionHard and soft Conscious versus non-conscious, automaticCentral versus peripheralelaboration likelihoodExpectancy-value versus emotional conditioning heuristic-systematicsystem 1 and system 2Hot and coldFast and slowIntuitive versus deliberative
Majority versus minority influence
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 17
Elaboration (system 2)Higher brain, slow, cold
Cue based, biased (system 1)Lower brain, fast, hot
Dual-System Ideasbehaviour
Dichotomy of systems or variable parameters ?Tools from same box, combined differently
?
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 18
Solomon Asch(1907-1996)
Stanley Milgram(1933-1984)
Serge Moscovici(*1925)
Mustafer Sherif (1906-1988)
21/04/23 MBauer 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 perceptions4. The social process as productive process: a basis for co-ordinated action
Critique: innocuous situation; an experiments with no real-life stakes
19
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 20
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 21
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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Majority influence > 1950s
Experiments on conformity and complianceUnambiguous 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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 23
The odd one out
The distress of social exclusion (ostracism)• hurts like physical pain (Panksepp, 2003; Eisenberger et.al, 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 2nd)
•Pain killers like Acetaminophen help when excluded (DeWall et al., 2010)21/04/23 24MBauer LSE
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 25
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 !!!
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 26
Milgram (1963) Exp 1 USA (New Haven) 65
Exp 2 USA 62.5
Exp 3 USA 40
Exp 5 USA 65
Exp 6 USA 50
Exp 10 USA 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
27MBauer LSE
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Conformity (e.g. Asch) Obedience (e.g. Milgram)
group of peers (us and them)imitation involved: acting as modelled implicit pressureinfluence denied by actorfear of exclusionPublic 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 toldexplicit command & requestadmitted influence of authorityrespect for authority, expectation of rewardTransfer of responsibility
Social rationality: loyalty to legitimate authority; hierarchy as division of labour, efficient co-ordinationSub-rational Identification with leader: ‘Wanna be like you’
28
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 29
After-Image stimulus
•Short presentations•Recall of colours•Recognition of colours later: priming and latency
Alone or with partner
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 30
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 31
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 32
21/04/23 MBauer 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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Majority influence Minority influence
Maintaining a consensus, common sense
assimilation of minority TO majority
Process
Avoiding a conflict and stabilising existing consensus in face of challengecoercion, group pressure, threat of exclusion; attraction, seduction
comparison process: focus on persons; affiliation and identification with majority (normative rationality)
Effect
only public compliance, no internalisationprivate 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
processCreating a conflict and shift towards new consensus due to behavioural style/grammar consistency, commitment, unanimityperceived 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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 35
So far - what the textbooks tell you
Now let us do some thinking ……
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Integration work
Bringing things together
36
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Social interations create structures of ‘common sense’ (CS)
CS = social representations such as attitudes, beliefs, ideas, notionsCollective intentionality: common outlook and collective actionThe 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]
37
21/04/23 MBauer 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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Normalisation[Sherif type]
Assimilation[Asch, Milgram typeTarde 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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 40
Function Modalities of Rational Influence
Normalisation Frame of reference – compromise
Assimilation Majority influence – conformity Authority, Prestige – obedienceSocial, legal norm - compliance
Accommodation Minority Influence – conversion
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Extension I
Mass Mediationprint, broadcasting, internet
41
21/04/23 MBauer 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 communicationIrony: 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 othersWhat 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
21/04/23 LSE MBauer PS429 43
Face-to-face Mediated, formalized
chat, conversation, dialogue co-presence unity of time and space, everyday activity spontaneous immediate response concrete others speaker / audience defined communality of code equal rights of participants
public speech, newspaper, television, radio, internet, pamphlets, book absence disjunction of time and space special occasion, professional planned, purposive, constructed delayed response stereotypical others speaker / audience vague multiple codes asymmetry of rights third party technical
arrangements
Informal and Formalised Communication
21/04/23 MBauer LSESource: C Tennant, LSE06
Environmental issues in 'The London Times'
1
10
100
1000
19
50
19
52
19
54
19
56
19
58
19
60
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
*
Global warming, climate change
Ozone layer, ozone hole
Population explosion
44
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Media Saliance, Evaluation and Public Optimism on Biotechnology
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 1
inde
x 19
99=
100
/ %
opt
imis
m
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
eval
uatio
n st
d
Optimism
Salience
UKeval-std
45
21/04/23 MBauer 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
Audienceresearch
intensity
- Match +
46
Emerging norms of meaning
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Mediation models: formal communication
C, MS R
C, MS
R1R2R3
Rn
Audienceautonomy research
Shannon-WeaverHIFI engineeringmodel
‘different worlds’Differentiation ofcontents and receptionsMedia Systems
S1
S1
S1
M’
S2
M’’’
S2
M’’
S2
C
C
C
Two-step flows
Social Representations
noise
47
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Weak effect Strong effect
The historical pendulum of ‘belief’ in power of mass media
1930s, 1970s1950s, 1990s ?48
21/04/23 MBauer 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 storiesFraming of issues ‘as X’ (Gamson et al.): images, definition, culprits, solutionsCultivation under high exposure (Gerbner et al.)
‘mean world’; coding of Red and Green biotechnologyConsistency-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 voices49
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Outcome Informal, face-to-face ‘experimental’ paradigms
Formal communication mass mediation effects
Normalisation small stakes Establishing a norm
Compromise as average (Sherif, Lewin) Pluralism among equals; No a-priori, no project; [Storning, forming, norming, performing]
liberal ideal of free speech; ‘power free discourse arrangements’ reaching a common understanding
Assimilation Settled towards majority avoiding, ending conflict Sustaining a norm
Normative pressure (Asch) Conformity Fear of exclusion; affiliation need ‘Private exil’ Obedience to authority (Milgram) Turning off hesitations Action without responsibility
Spiral of silence [Cultivation analysis] Consistency-of-experts gate keeper / two step flow Inf = f (message, source, aud)
Accommodation Settled towards minority creating conflict Changing a norm
Minority influence (Moscovici) Behaviour style Influence is informational Private precedes public change Sleeper effect of change: delayed
[Agenda setting] [Cultivation analysis] [Framing analysis]
50
?
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Extension III
Influence by Artefacts
51
21/04/23 MBauer 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
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 53
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 ?
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 54
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-accomplifacts on the ground; leaving no choice; reduction of dissonance after the fact
9. Things as root metaphor for thinking about self, psyche, human identitye.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).
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 55
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 56
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 placeA 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 impossibleautomatic access check, e.g. via finger print or iris: no entry for outsidersBuild a wall that is difficult to climb: Do not trespass, enter
‘Boundary objects’: objects are seen as different things by different peoplee.g. ‘Nanotechnology’: many do it, but understand it differently.
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
Objects X
Everyday use of object X
Exploring the ‘fitting’ between two spheres
diffusion
User research
57
Afford uses
DesignInstallation
21/04/23 MBauer LSE21/04/23 58
100%
t
early late
Resistantlaggardsinnovators
The diffusion model: creates expectations !!
Adoption rate
density
t1 t2 t3
50%
slow accelerated decelerated Slow again
Adopters
58
Obedience, Conversion Conformity
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
bomb indexpower units index
Nuclear bombs and nuclear power stations worldwide
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 60
The differential uptake of GM soya in the world
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 61
Making beliefs
Designing things
Normalising symmetrical
Compromise (Sherif); Equilibration (Lewin)
Deliberation (Habermas)
Association by
translation (drifting) (AN-Theory) User-centred installations
assymmetical
Assimilating
compliance to majority
(Asch) obedience to experts
(Milgram)
Diffusion research
(fait accompli) System building
(Hughes) Accommodating
conversion of majority
by minority (Moscovici)
?
[Theory of resistance]
constraint bias
‘less norms the better’ enabling bias
‘progress ideology’
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 63
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, accommodation4. 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?
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 64
imitation, crowds, framing, peer pressure, authority, dissent, artefacts
Mass behaviour
Rhetoric
communityPrestigehierarchy
Social representationsNorms, attitudes, beliefs, opinion
Individual behaviour & collective action
Eristics, Sophistry
Public Sphere
Circumstances of Persuasion
21/04/23 MBauer LSE
persuasionDeliberation
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
Reason Violence
21/04/23 MBauer LSE 66
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.