Graphic by Eilidh McNaughton BY ISabel MogridgeIn daily life, humans are subconsciously subject to coercion and influence. This has been apparent through studies of social situations where experts have proven ways that we change our opinions based on influence from others. Choosing which door of the train will open based on where other people are standing or obeying any instructions given to you by someone in a uniform are examples of how we are socially influenced on a daily basis. This begs the question; can we ever truly act from our own judgement or are we always influenced by people around us and our environment? Influence does not always require conscious intent unlike other forms of control and power. A lot of the time influence occurs without the influencer even being aware of their influence. However, in some cases, intended influence can occur in the form of persuasion or coercion such as in Milgram’s famous obedience experiment where a respected figure instructs a participant to administer ‘deadly electric shocks’ to another person, who was not actually being shocked but instead acting, unbeknownst to the participant (Hopper, 2019). This study could be argued to have ignited a wave of future studies all proving the power of influence on humans. It demonstrates the dangers of how influence can be used against someone in a way which encourages them to act negatively, for example, administering shocks to another person because they were prompted by an authority figure. However, the findings from Milgram’s studies have been debated, with people arguing that the ethical implications of the experiment would never be cleared by an ethics review board if it was done today. An example of influence in a non-deliberate and passive form would be the ‘halo effect’ which is the concept of group perceptions of a person merging into opinions about their other characteristics (Cherry, 2020). For example, someone who is perceived as attractive may also be viewed as intelligent, friendly and optimistic. These extra characteristics are part of a positive schema, or framework, that we develop about the person with no evidence for thinking these things. The halo effect has been said to be powerful in politics and consumer marketing but the primary examples are celebrities who we assume are generous, kind and intelligent because we perceive them as attractive or talented. This is a form of characteristic assumption influence and can explain why humans obsess over celebrities whom they have never even met. One study into celebrity influencers’ effect on the appeal of product endorsement showed physical attractiveness of an influencer can increase potential sales of an item (Kahle & Homer, 1985). This fits the concepts discussed in the halo effect as in Kahle & Homer’s research, people viewed attractive celebrities as more intelligent and genuine which has a greater influence on the public due to their belief and trust in a total stranger’s preference in shaving razor (in this case). This is a small-scale example of how influence occurs so often that we don’t even notice that we are being persuaded to buy a certain razor. We do not critically analyse the product, instead, we just associate the positive schema surrounding the celebrity with the razor, making us more likely to purchase it. Other research found that people are so prone to social influence that they would be more likely to rate a product positively online if the surrounding reviews that other people have left were also positive (Sridhar & Srinivasan, 2012). In the political world, the media has played a huge role in influencing people to support a particular cause or vote in a particular way. Influencers and celebrities use their notoriety to promote awareness of issues and encourage fans or followers to support causes they care about. This can be positive but can also lead to a lack of understanding whereby people may support a cause that they do not fully understand or only support because they idolise the influencer. For example, in 2019, rapper Stormzy’s pro-labour tweets in support of Jeremy Corbyn caused a voting registration spike amongst young people by 236 percent (Harrison, 2019). This surge in interest in politics is emblematic of the impressionable mindset people can have. Young people relate to, identify with, and respect Stormzy; therefore, internalise with his views. Internalisation is when a person will both publicly and privately change their views to fit a group and are fully committed to the beliefs (Cialdini & Goldstein 2004). Influence can re-shape society; if enough people were encouraged to act a certain way or adhere to a certain rule then, through natural conformity, a mass snowball effect could be produced (perhaps politically). People would not necessarily adhere because they agree with the belief, but because it is simply what everyone else follows and therefore as social beings, we act in conformity. This could be taken to extreme levels where groups such as democrats, scientologists, conspiracists or flat-earthers influence huge numbers of people to join their following and influence their friends and family to do the same. For me, this collapses the idea of free will. People who are influenced are no longer acting on their own beliefs and so are unable to make an unbiased decision on matters without external stimuli. References
Hopper, Elizabeth. (2019, Dec 17). The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order? ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/milgram-experiment-4176401 Cherry, K. (2020, July 19). How the Halo Effect Influences the Way We Perceive Attractive People. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-halo-effect-2795906 Kahle, L., & Homer, P. (1985). Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 954-961. Sridhar, S., & Srinivasan, R. (2012). Social Influence Effects in Online Product Ratings. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 70-88. Cialdini, R.,& Goldstein, N.(2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Psychology 2004, 11(3), 592-621.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |