They predict a riot: models of influence and the maintenance of power

1
They predict a riot models of influence and the
maintenance of power
2
A contagion model of social influence take out
the message take out the problem?

• Boy, 12, had terrorist murder videos on mobile
• Vikram Dodd
• Crime Correspondent
• West Yorkshire's chief constable, Sir Norman
  Bettison, said terrorist propaganda was spreading
  like a virus, and warned that every Muslim child
  in Britain could be at risk. He raised the
  example of the 12-year-old during a speech at the
  Association of Chief Police Officers annual
  conference in Liverpool Bettison said "He is
  not a Muslim. He is not driven by ideology - he
  is too young to spell the word. But he is being
  influenced and intoxicated by the imagery and
  appeal of jihadist ... violence." .. He told his
  fellow chief officers "The AQ al-Qaida brand
  of violent extremism continues to spread like a
  virus infecting young minds."

3
Agency v Structure

• SIT, illegitimacy and instability lead to
  collective action
• Steve Wright et als analysis of tokenism.
• Reynolds et als social structure and
  stereotyping.
• Stott Drury differences between impact of
  group and structure
• The mobilisation for collective conflict.
• What is the role of agency?
• Reading of structure in deterministic ways
• What role do high status groups play in the
  maintenance of power?
• What role Psychologys arguments about social
  influence in the maintenance of power?
• Can we design a paradigm to examine intergroup
  dynamics?

4
Method

• New Enhanced Learning Environment (ELE) as high
  status Group
• being piloted in the School of Psychology.
• pre-test for favoured dimensions and described as
  guaranteeing higher grade degree .
• Broken into single gender groups of between three
  and six
• then told that Lecturing Committee (High Power
  Group) had denied or allowed access but varied
  basis for that decision.
• Structural legitimacy
• Random allocation or poor performance of gender
  in previous cohorts.
• Message content
• Groups then told taking part in focus group
  evaluating ELE and shown a video of individual
  interview of student who has been refused.

5
Mimicking illegitimacy in intergroup relationships
6
Message content a question of peace or conflict.
7
Key Dependent Variables

• Preferences for
• Acceptance of committee decision.
• Individual reconsideration of those denied access
• Rejection and collective protest
• HSG support for committee
• Legitimacy , proto-typicality, empowerment,
  stereotype valance and consensus.

8
Accept Preferences

• High Status Groups (HSG)
• Main effect of Phase
• Main effect of Legitimacy
• PhaseLegitimacyContent interaction
• Low Status Groups (LSG)
• Main effect of Phase
• Main effect of Legitimacy
• PhaseLegitimacy interaction
• Key issues
• Different patterns of interaction between HSGs
  and LSGs
• No main effect for message content.

9
Main effect of Phase

• HSG Preferences for Acceptance of committee
  decision decrease across phase (5.2 4.9)
• LSG - Preferences for Acceptance of committee
  decision decrease across phase (3.9 3.5)
• Key issues
• HSGs show higher levels of acceptance.
• Group interaction leads away from acceptance for
  both HSG LSG.

10
Main effect of Structural Legitimacy

• HSG Preferences for acceptance of committee
  decision are higher in conditions of structural
  legitimacy (4.9 5.3).
• LSG Preferences for acceptance of committee
  decision are higher in conditions of structural
  legitimacy (3.2 4.3)
• Key issues
• HSG display higher levels of acceptance than
  LSGs.
• Impact of structural legitimacy greater among LSGs

11
HSG Acceptance PhaseLegitimacyContent
interaction

• In conditions of structural illegitimacy
  acceptance decreases among HSGs across phase
  where LSG communicates peace.
• In conditions of structural legitimacy acceptance
  among HSGs decreases across phase where LSGs
  communicate conflict.

12
LSG Acceptance PhaseLegitimacy interaction -

• Accept preferences decrease after group
  interaction in both illegitimate and legitimate
  social structures but this decline is greater in
  illegitimate conditions.

13
Protest Across Phase

• LSG Preferences for Protest against committee
  decision significant increase across phase (3.4
  3.9)
• HSG Slight decline but already high against
  LSG.
• Key issues
• No main effect for message content.
• Group interaction leads towards protest for LSGs?
• HSGs show higher levels of protest than LSG

14
HSGs Preferences but not action!

• After group discussion only 12 HSGs select
  protest strategies significantly less than the
  25 of individuals within LSGs
• Despite HSGs showing higher levels of support for
  protest as a strategy.

15
HSGLegitimacyContent interaction preferences
for protest.

• In conditions of structural illegitimacy
• protest is higher among HSGs where LSG
  communicates acceptance.
• In conditions of structural legitimacy
• protest is higher among HSGs where LSGs
  communicate conflict.
• where LSG communicates acceptance preferences for
  protest are at the lowest level.

16
HSGLegitimacyContent interaction Legitimacy of
treatment of HSG

• Structural legitimacy interacts with message
  content where
• peace message corresponds with lower levels of
  perceived legitimacy of committees treatment of
  HSG in conditions of structural illegitimacy
• but higher levels of perceived legitimacy of
  committee treatment of HSGs in conditions of
  structural legitimacy

17
HSGLegitimacyContent interaction for
perceptions of legitimacy of Committees
treatment of LSG.

• Structural legitimacy interacts with peace
  message regarding the perceived legitimacy of the
  committees action toward LSG
• And is highest where LSGs communicate peace under
  conditions of legitimacy.

18
Committee Stereotype Main effect of Legitimacy

• HSG LSG committee stereotype evaluation is
  higher in conditions of structural legitimacy
  (3.1 4.5 / 2.7-4.1)

19
HSG Committee StereotypeLegitimacyContent
interaction -

• In conditions of structural illegitimacy
  committee stereotype evaluation is more negative
  among HSGs where LSG communicates acceptance.
• In conditions of structural legitimacy committee
  stereotype evaluation is more negative among HSGs
  where LSGs communicate conflict.

20
Path Analysis

• Accept committee stereotype evaluation mediates
  the relationship between structural legitimacy
  and accept preferences
• Protest committee stereotype evaluation
  mediates the relationship between structural
  legitimacy and protest preferences

b -.677 plt.001
Protest b .531 plt.001
Accept b -.485 plt.001
Committee Stereotype Evaluation
Accept b .409 plt.001
Protest b -.415 plt.001
Protest Accept Preferences
Structural Legitimacy
Protest Legit b -.482 plt.001 Com b
.088 pgt.05
Accept Legit b -.382 plt.001 Com b .150
pgt.05
Path Analysis Diagram of the Predictors of
Collective Protest and Accept preferences
21
Main effect of Message Content - LSG

• LSG committee stereotype evaluation is more
  positive in conditions with message s of peace
  (3.1 3.7)
• Key issues
• LSG display the most negative committee
  stereotype evaluation in conditions where
  conflict message.

22
LSGs Desiring conflict with a message of peace.
Desires conflict
Those who exist on subjectively illegitimate
social conditions show greater preferences for
conflict overall. BUT Under such conditions it
is those who hear messages of PEACE that want
conflict the most.
Does NOT desire conflict
23
Representing the group?
Representative of the group.
Participants were neutral to both message givers
when situation subjectively legitimate
Participants Polarised for or against message
giver when situation subjectively illegitimate
Un-representative of the group.
24
Structure, message and stereotypes mediation.
Committee stereotype valance
Beta 0.471 plt0.001
Beta -0.36 Plt0.001
Structural Legitimacy
Beta -0.24 p0.004
Protest Preferences
Beta -0.102 p0.268
Message Content
Beta 0.172 p0.024
Beta -0.179 p0.037
Legitimacy x Content
Beta -0.135 p0.104
25
Conclusions

• Structural legitimacy does appear to impact on
  protest preferences.
• HSGs may talk the talk but not then walk the
  walk.
• Message content has little direct effect.
• Structure and agency appear to interact.
• Messages of acceptance can be counterproductive
• a propaganda effect?
• Legitimacy and acceptance from LSGs does appear
  to lead to stability in the status quo.
• The impact of structural relations, group
  processes message content interact differently
  for high and low status groups.
• Can we adequately theorise these factors
  independently of one another?
• A contagion theory of social influence is once
  again shown to be unsustainable.
• Why is it that psychology is not doing more to
  challenge this rhetoric so frequently used in
  the maintenance of illegitimate power ?