第213行: |
第213行: |
| Social Influence is strongest when the group perpetrating it is consistent and committed. Even a single instance of dissent can greatly wane the strength of an influence. For example, in Milgram's first set of obedience experiments, 65% of participants complied with fake authority figures to administer "maximum shocks" to a confederate. In iterations of the Milgram experiment where three people administered shocks (two of whom were confederates), once one confederate disobeyed, only ten percent of subjects administered the maximum shocks. | | Social Influence is strongest when the group perpetrating it is consistent and committed. Even a single instance of dissent can greatly wane the strength of an influence. For example, in Milgram's first set of obedience experiments, 65% of participants complied with fake authority figures to administer "maximum shocks" to a confederate. In iterations of the Milgram experiment where three people administered shocks (two of whom were confederates), once one confederate disobeyed, only ten percent of subjects administered the maximum shocks. |
| | | |
− | 当行凶的群体都忠诚地保持一致时,社会影响力是最强大的,。即使是一个不同意见的例子也可能大大削弱影响力。例如,在米尔格拉姆的第一组服从实验中,65% 的参与者遵从假的权威人物对同伙实施“最大电击”。在米尔格拉姆实验的反复实验中,3个人实施电击(其中2个是同盟者) ,一旦一个同盟者不服从,只有10% 的受试者实施最大电击。
| + | 当行凶的群体都忠诚地保持一致时,社会影响力是最强大的。即使是一个不同意见的例子也可能大大削弱影响力。例如,在米尔格拉姆的第一组服从实验中,65% 的参与者遵从假的权威人物对同伙实施“最大电击”。在米尔格拉姆实验的重复实验中,3个人实施电击(其中2个是同谋) ,一旦同谋中的一个不服从,只有10% 的受试者实施最大电击。 |
| | | |
| Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure. The [[Milgram experiment]], Zimbardo's [[Stanford prison experiment]], and the [[Hofling hospital experiment]] are three particularly well-known experiments on obedience, and they all conclude that humans are surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures. | | Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure. The [[Milgram experiment]], Zimbardo's [[Stanford prison experiment]], and the [[Hofling hospital experiment]] are three particularly well-known experiments on obedience, and they all conclude that humans are surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures. |
| | | |
| + | 服从是一种源自权威人物的社会影响力形式。 米尔格伦(Milgram)实验,津巴多(Zinmbardo)的斯坦福监狱实验和赫夫林医院实验是三个特别知名的服从性实验,它们都得出结论:在有感知力的情况下,人类意外地全都服从了合法的权威人物。 |
| | | |
| + | ===Persuasion=== |
| | | |
− | ===Persuasion===
| + | 说服 |
| | | |
| {{Main article|Persuasion}} | | {{Main article|Persuasion}} |
第231行: |
第233行: |
| Those perceived as experts may exert social influence as a result of their perceived expertise. This involves credibility, a tool of social influence from which one draws upon the notion of trust. People believe an individual to be credible for a variety of reasons, such as perceived experience, attractiveness, knowledge, etc. Additionally, pressure to maintain one's reputation and not be viewed as fringe may increase the tendency to agree with the group. This phenomenon is known as groupthink. Appeals to authority may especially affect norms of obedience. The compliance of normal humans to authority in the famous Milgram experiment demonstrate the power of perceived authority. | | Those perceived as experts may exert social influence as a result of their perceived expertise. This involves credibility, a tool of social influence from which one draws upon the notion of trust. People believe an individual to be credible for a variety of reasons, such as perceived experience, attractiveness, knowledge, etc. Additionally, pressure to maintain one's reputation and not be viewed as fringe may increase the tendency to agree with the group. This phenomenon is known as groupthink. Appeals to authority may especially affect norms of obedience. The compliance of normal humans to authority in the famous Milgram experiment demonstrate the power of perceived authority. |
| | | |
− | 那些被认为是专家的人可能会因为他们专家的身份而产生社会影响。这种现象涉及到可信度,可信度作为一种社会影响的工具,人们可以从中借鉴信任的概念。人们相信一个人是可信的,原因有很多,比如经验,吸引力,知识等等。此外,维护自己的声誉而不被视为边缘人物的压力可能会增加人们赞同这个群体的倾向。这种现象被称为群体思维。对权威的诉求尤其会影响服从的准则。在著名的米尔格拉姆实验中,正常人对权威的顺从展示了感知到的权威的力量。
| + | 那些被认为是专家的人可能会因为他们专家的身份而产生社会影响。这种现象涉及到可信度,可信度作为一种社会影响的工具,人们可以从中借鉴信任的概念。人们相信一个人是可信的,原因有很多,比如经验,吸引力,知识等等。此外,维护自己的声誉而不被视为边缘人物的压力可能会增加人们赞同这个群体的倾向。这种现象被称为群体思维。对权威的诉求尤其会影响服从的准则。在著名的米尔格伦实验中,正常人对权威的顺从展示了感知到的权威的力量。 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ===Psychological manipulation=== | | ===Psychological manipulation=== |
| + | |
| + | 心理控制 |
| | | |
| Those with access to the media may use this access in an attempt to influence the public. For example, a politician may use speeches to persuade the public to support issues that he or she does not have the power to impose on the public. This is often referred to as using the "bully pulpit." Likewise, celebrities don't usually possess any political power, but they are familiar to many of the world's citizens and, therefore, possess social status. | | Those with access to the media may use this access in an attempt to influence the public. For example, a politician may use speeches to persuade the public to support issues that he or she does not have the power to impose on the public. This is often referred to as using the "bully pulpit." Likewise, celebrities don't usually possess any political power, but they are familiar to many of the world's citizens and, therefore, possess social status. |
第256行: |
第260行: |
| | | |
| ===Abusive power and control=== | | ===Abusive power and control=== |
| + | |
| + | 滥用权力和控制权 |
| | | |
| Culture appears to play a role in the willingness of an individual to conform to the standards of a group. Stanley Milgram found that conformity was higher in Norway than in France. This has been attributed to Norway's longstanding tradition of social responsibility, compared to France's cultural focus on individualism. Japan likewise has a collectivist culture and thus a higher propensity to conformity. However, a 1970 Asch-style study found that when alienated, Japanese students were more susceptible to anticonformity (giving answers that were incorrect even when the group had collaborated on correct answers) one third of the time, significantly higher than has been seen in Asch studies in the past. | | Culture appears to play a role in the willingness of an individual to conform to the standards of a group. Stanley Milgram found that conformity was higher in Norway than in France. This has been attributed to Norway's longstanding tradition of social responsibility, compared to France's cultural focus on individualism. Japan likewise has a collectivist culture and thus a higher propensity to conformity. However, a 1970 Asch-style study found that when alienated, Japanese students were more susceptible to anticonformity (giving answers that were incorrect even when the group had collaborated on correct answers) one third of the time, significantly higher than has been seen in Asch studies in the past. |
第268行: |
第274行: |
| | | |
| ===Propaganda=== | | ===Propaganda=== |
| + | |
| + | 宣传 |
| | | |
| Emotion and disposition may affect an individual's likelihood of conformity or anticonformity. | | Emotion and disposition may affect an individual's likelihood of conformity or anticonformity. |
第280行: |
第288行: |
| | | |
| ===Hard power=== | | ===Hard power=== |
| + | |
| + | 硬实力 |
| | | |
| {{Main article|Hard power}} | | {{Main article|Hard power}} |
第292行: |
第302行: |
| | | |
| == Antecedents == | | == Antecedents == |
| + | |
| + | 前身 |
| | | |
| Identifying the extent of social influence, based on large-scale observational data with a latent social network structure, is pertinent to a variety of collective social phenomena including crime, civil unrest, and voting behavior in elections. For example, methodologies for disentangling social influence by peers from external influences—with latent social network structures and large-scale observational data—were applied to US presidential elections, stock markets, and civil unrest. | | Identifying the extent of social influence, based on large-scale observational data with a latent social network structure, is pertinent to a variety of collective social phenomena including crime, civil unrest, and voting behavior in elections. For example, methodologies for disentangling social influence by peers from external influences—with latent social network structures and large-scale observational data—were applied to US presidential elections, stock markets, and civil unrest. |
第306行: |
第318行: |
| | | |
| ===Social impact theory=== | | ===Social impact theory=== |
| + | |
| + | 社会冲击理论 |
| | | |
| {{Main article|Social impact theory}} | | {{Main article|Social impact theory}} |
第326行: |
第340行: |
| | | |
| ===Cialdini's "weapons of influence"=== | | ===Cialdini's "weapons of influence"=== |
| + | |
| + | 西奥•迪尼的“影响力武器” |
| | | |
| {{Columns-list|colwidth=22em| | | {{Columns-list|colwidth=22em| |
第352行: |
第368行: |
| | | |
| ===Unanimity=== | | ===Unanimity=== |
| + | |
| + | 一致性 |
| | | |
| Social Influence is strongest when the group perpetrating it is consistent and committed. Even a single instance of dissent can greatly wane the strength of an influence. For example, in Milgram's first set of [[Milgram experiment|obedience experiments]], 65% of participants complied with fake authority figures to administer "maximum shocks" to a confederate. In iterations of the Milgram experiment where three people administered shocks (two of whom were confederates), once one confederate disobeyed, only ten percent of subjects administered the maximum shocks.<ref name=ObedStudy>{{cite journal|last=Milgram |first=Stanley |year=1963 |title=Behavioral Study of Obedience |journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=67 |issue=4 |pages=371–378 |pmid=14049516 |url=http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371 |archive-url=https://archive.is/20120717013242/http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-07-17 |doi=10.1037/h0040525 |citeseerx=10.1.1.599.92 }} [http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf Full-text PDF.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611105753/http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf |date=June 11, 2011 }}</ref> | | Social Influence is strongest when the group perpetrating it is consistent and committed. Even a single instance of dissent can greatly wane the strength of an influence. For example, in Milgram's first set of [[Milgram experiment|obedience experiments]], 65% of participants complied with fake authority figures to administer "maximum shocks" to a confederate. In iterations of the Milgram experiment where three people administered shocks (two of whom were confederates), once one confederate disobeyed, only ten percent of subjects administered the maximum shocks.<ref name=ObedStudy>{{cite journal|last=Milgram |first=Stanley |year=1963 |title=Behavioral Study of Obedience |journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=67 |issue=4 |pages=371–378 |pmid=14049516 |url=http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371 |archive-url=https://archive.is/20120717013242/http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-07-17 |doi=10.1037/h0040525 |citeseerx=10.1.1.599.92 }} [http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf Full-text PDF.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611105753/http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf |date=June 11, 2011 }}</ref> |
第358行: |
第376行: |
| | | |
| === Status === | | === Status === |
| + | |
| + | 地位 |
| | | |
| {{Main article|Appeal to authority}} | | {{Main article|Appeal to authority}} |
第372行: |
第392行: |
| | | |
| [[Category:待整理页面]] | | [[Category:待整理页面]] |
| + | |
| + | ==编者推荐== |