Social Psychology: Obedience & Social Impact Theory

Social Impact Theory (Latane, 1981)

Core Concepts

Social Impact Theory, developed by Latané in 1981, explains the extent to which individuals are influenced in social situations. Key components include:

• Source: The individual(s) exerting influence.
• Target: The individual(s) being influenced.
• Impact (i): The result of social forces acting upon the target.

The theory is expressed by the equation: i = f(SIN), where:

• S = Strength of sources
• I = Immediacy of sources
• N = Number of sources

Factors Influencing Social Impact

• Strength (S): The power or influence of the source, including trans-situational (e.g., age, uniform) and situation-specific factors.
• Immediacy (I): The closeness of the source to the target, which can be physical, temporal, or social.
• Number (N): The quantity of sources present. The psychosocial law suggests that the impact of each additional source diminishes after a certain point.

Multiplicative and Divisional Effects

• Multiplicative Effect: Increasing strength, immediacy, or number of sources amplifies social impact.
• Divisional Effect: Impact is reduced when there are more targets than sources; i = f (1/SIN).

Strengths

• Supported by research such as Sedikides & Jackson (1990), which demonstrated the effects of uniform (strength) and physical proximity (immediacy) on obedience.
• Milgram, Bickman, and Berkowitz (1969) showed that as the number of confederates looking up increased, so did the number of passersby who looked up as well.
• Applicable in real-world scenarios, such as understanding and preventing organized crime (e.g., football hooliganism) and helping political leaders increase their influence.

Weaknesses

• Other theories offer alternative explanations for obedience, such as Milgram's agentic state.
• The theory raises ethical concerns about social control, particularly if used to justify predictive policing that disproportionately affects certain populations.
• Fails to explain why people obey, focusing instead on describing how they obey.

Comparison with Agency Theory

• Similarities: Both identify authoritative figures and respondents and describe obedience in social situations, but neither explains why people obey.
• Differences: Social Impact Theory offers a mathematical model, while Agency Theory does not. Social Impact Theory explains social influence in crowds, while Agency Theory explains individual behavior.