3.1.1 Social influence Flashcards
What is conformity?
Yielding to group pressure
When does conformity occur?
When individual’s behaviour/beliefs are influenced by larger group of people (majority)
Name 3 types of conformity (from weakest to strongest)
- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalisation
Describe compliance
- When individual changes their behaviour/opinion to match those of group to gain acceptance and avoid disapproval
- Occurs ∵ individual wants to fit in
- Involves public change of behaviour but private thoughts don’t change
- Temporary form conformity displayed in front of group (never happens when individual is alone)
Give an example of compliance
e.g. laughing at a joke you don’t understand ∵ rest of group is laughing
Describe Identification
- When individual changes their behaviour/opinion publicly and privately to match the group’s
- ∵ they want be a member of the group
- Conformity temporary = only maintained when individual is within group
Give an example of identification
e.g. When individual joins the army, they adopt beliefs of their fellow soldiers but when they leave the army, they may adopt new beliefs/behaviours
Describe Internalisation
- When individual permanently changes their behaviour/beliefs to group’s
- Individual believes group’s belief is correct = public and private change
Give an example of internalisation
e.g. individual becomes a vegetarian = won’t eat meat even when group isn’t there
Name 2 explanations for conformity
- Informational Social Influence (ISI)
- Normative Social Influence (NSI)
Describe normative social influence (NSI)
- Occurs when we want to accepted, liked and respected by the majority
- And to avoid disapproval, rejection (is painful)
- To ensure this to agree with majority publicly, even though we may disagree privately and internally
- Linked to compliance
When are people likely to conform to NSI? (3x)
- Group is important to us ∴ we want to be seen as apart of it → conforming is easy way to do this
- People will conform to majority when majority is large
- Results in more pressure and greater need to be accepted
- People will conform when they see that it may cost them not to
Describe informational social influence (ISI)
- Occurs when individual are unsure how to behave in particular situation → look to opinions/behaviours of group to form their own opinions on how they should behave/act
- Linked to internalisation ∵ results in private acceptance of group’s opinion
- Occurs mostly in unfamiliar situations → conforming to crowd = safe option, avoids standing out from majority
When are people likely to conform to ISI? (3x)
- If situation is ambiguous
- In an emergency
- Look to majority for information on best cause of action
- If we believe major are experts
Name a key study that supports normative social influence (NSI)
Asch (1955)
Asch (1955)
State the aim
To create an unambiguous task to investigate the extent to which individuals will conform to a majority who give obviously wrong answers
Asch (1955)
Describe the procedure
- Male student volunteers → believed it a test of vision
- Shown stimulus line & 3 other lines = A, B or C
- Asked one by one to say which of 3 lines (A, B or C) matched original stimulus line
- All confederates expect 1 student = gave same correct answer for 1st 6 trails & incorrect answers for 12 trails
- Real participant always answered last/second
Asch (1955)
Describe the findings (4x)
- In control trials (no confederates) = 0.7% (incorrect answers)
- In critical trials = over 1/3 (conformed to majority groups incorrect answer)
- 75% of real participants conformed at least once
- NSI most common reason for conforming
Asch (1955)
State the conclusion
- Majority influence does affect individual
- Conform even when majority is wrong
- Individual differences
- in the extent to which individuals are influenced by majority
- Wanted to fit in
- ∵ many participants conformed publicly but their private thoughts unchanged
Name 3 cons of Asch’s (1955) study
- Time consuming & expensive
- Only one real participant was tested at time
- Lacks ecological validity
- Don’t tell us about conformity in real world
- Very rare to disagree so fundamentally with someone over ‘correct’ answer in real life
- Unrepresentative
- Only test American male college students ∴ findings only represent that group of people
- 1950 USA = known for being conformist ∴ results may not present today’s society/other cultures
Name a pro of Asch’s (1955) study
- Asch’s methods for studying conformity has been adopted by many other researchers
- Now established way of performing conformity research
- The basic procedure
Name the 2 key studies for informational social influence (ISI)
- Jenness (1932)
- Sherif (1935)
Jenness (1932)
Method
- Participants had to estimate the no. of jelly beans in jar & then discussed estimates in either large group or several smaller groups
- Group estimates were then arrived at & individuals made 2nd estimate guess individually
Jenness (1932)
Findings
- When individuals asked to make 2nd estimate = significant convergence towards group estimate
- All conformed with majority opinion
- Females conformed more than males
Jenness (1932)
Conclusion
Ambiguous/unfamiliar situations lead to judgements being affected by majority viewpoint
Sherif (1935)
Method
- Placed participants in dark room & showed them optical illusion → auto-kinetic effect
- Illusion shows point of light moving
- Estimated how far light moved 1st individually, then as group & finally individually again
Sherif (1935)
Findings
- Participants changed their initial individual estimate when working in the group
- When estimating individually (2nd), participants changed their estimates to reflect group’s estimate
Evaluate Jenness’ (1932) and Sherif’s (1935) study
- Both studies conducted under lab settings
- Demand characteristics as participants knew they were being observed
- Lack mundane realism
- Trying estimate movement of light/no. of jellybeans in jar = unrealistic to real world situations where ISI could occur
- Participants were deceived - raises ethical issues
- Could agree deception was minor and needed for realistic results
Name 4 evaluation points for NSI
- Support from Asch’s Interviews
- Asch’s variation
- Hogg and Tuner (1987)
- Explains bullying
NSI
Elaborate on evaluation point: Explains bullying (when kid is uncomfortable with it)
- Children with few friends = greater need for social acceptance
- = more likely to comply to pressure from bullying group to victimise another kid
- By conforming, child feels accepted by bullying majority regardless of their private beliefs
NSI
Elaborate on evaluation point: Hogg and Tuner (1987)
- Did conformity experiment similar to Asch & found conformity to wrong answer occurred when people were in group of friends
- Supports NSI = people conform ∵ group was important to them
NSI
Elaborate on evaluation point: Asch’s variation
- People conformed less when group was small (what NSI predicts)
- When 2 confederate = 13%
- People conform if group is large
- Group had 3 confederates and 1 participant = conformity 33%
NSI
Elaborate on evaluation point: Support from Asch’s Interviews
- Interviews with Asch’s participants showed they knew right answer but conformed ∵ of fear of ridicule
- Supports NSI = suggests we conform to accepted & avoid rejection
- Participants said “I didn’t want to look stupid”
Name 4 evaluation points for ISI
- Jeness’ study
- Asch’s variation experiment
- Wittenbrink & Henly (1996)
- Sherif’s study
ISI
Elaborate on evaluation point: Asch’s variation experiment
- Made task harder (comparison lines more similar) = conformity increased
- Participant unsure of correct answer = look to group for correct answer
ISI
Elaborate on evaluation point: Wittenbrink & Henly (1996)
- White participants who were exposed to negative information about African Americans that they believed view of majority
- = increased the score they received on prejudice scale
- Suggests they conformed to majority ∵ they believe them to be correct
Name 3 factors that affect conformity
- Group Size
- Unanimity
- Task Difficulty
Describe how group size affects conformity
Use Asch’s variations to back up your answer
Majority group size ↑ = conformity ↑ but only up to certain point
- Asch Findings
- 1 confederate = 3%
- 2 confederates = 13%
- 3 confederates + 1 participant = 33%
- Up to 15 confederates = no increase on conformity
- Conformity highest = 3-5 person majority
Describe how unanimity affects conformity
Use Asch’s variations to back up your answer
Asch Findings
- All confederates gave same incorrect response → conformity = 33%
- Some confederates gave correct answer
- Conformity = 5.5%
- If confederate went against both participant & other confederates → conformity = 9%
- Conclusion: Breaking unanimity through different POV = reduces conformity
Describe how task difficulty affects conformity
Use Asch’s variations to back up your answer
Task difficulty ↑ = conformity ↑ due to ISI
- Increased difficulty of “line experiment” = lines similar in length
- Conformity increased expect for those who had high levels of self-efficacy
- Shows how situational variables (task difficulty) & individual differences (self-efficacy) = plays key role in conformity
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
State the aim
To investigate how readily people would conform to roles of guard & prisoner in role-playing exercise that stimulated prison life
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Describe the procedure
- Recruited male university students
- Asked for volunteers in study investigating prison life
- Basement of Stanford university converted into mock prison
- Study scheduled to last 2 weeks
- Students assessed as being mentally and physically stable with no criminal tendencies were chosen
- Social roles randomly allocated
- 11 = prisoners
- 10 = guards
- Social roles randomly allocated
- Prisoners” arrested by real police officers at home
- Were deloused, given prison uniform & ID number
- Guards wore khaki uniforms, reflective sunglasses (preventing eye contact) & given handcuffs, batons and keys
- Prisoners allowed certain rights e.g. 3 meals per day
- Each cell was allocated 3 prisoners
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Describe the findings
- Prisoners and guards settled into their roles
- Guards became more abusive and tyrannical
- Dehumanisation
- Guards taunted prisoners and woke them at night to carry out demeaning jobs e.g. cleaning toilets with their bare hands
- Prisoners = submissive & didn’t question guard’s behaviour
- Some sided with guards against other prisoners who rebelled
- De-individuation
- Referred to others by ID’s rather than names
- 5 prisoners released early
- Displayed extreme behaviour e.g. crying, anxiety, rage
- Study stopped after 6 days
- Significant harm was being caused by aggressive behaviour of guards & submissive behaviour of prisoners
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Name 2 postive evaluation points
- Abu Grahib
- Control over variables
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Name 2 negative evaluation points
- Demand characteristics
- Unethical
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Elaborate on the postive evaluation point: Abu Grahib (military prison)
- Guards who committed abuse were victims of situational factors that made the abuse more likely
- e.g. lack of training, no accountability to higher authority
- Led guards to abuse Iraqi prisoners
- Shows Zimbardo’s research can explain real life conformity to social roles
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Elaborate on the postive evaluation point: Control over variables
- Randomly allocated to roles
- Rules out effect of individual differences
- If guards and prisoners had different personalities but were randomly allocated = suggests their conformity was due to situation & not their individual differences
- Increases internal validity = more confidences in drawing conclusions
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Elaborate on the negative evaluation point: Demand characteristics
- Participants showing demand characteristics rather than genuinely conforming to their roles
- Performances based on their stereotypes of how guards/prisoner behave
- Explain why prisoners rioted - through that was what real prisoners do
- Performances based on their stereotypes of how guards/prisoner behave
- However, Zimbardo disagreed = presented quantitative data gathered from prisoners
- 90% of prisoners’ conversation were about prison life
- 1 prisoner thought prison was real run by psychologists instead of government
- Situation was real to participants = gives high degree of internal validity
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
Elaborate on the negative evaluation point: Unethical
- Lack of fully informed consent
- Prisoners didn’t contest to being ‘arrested’ at home
- Weren’t told partly ∵ final approval from police wasn’t given until minutes before participants decide to participate
- & researchers wanted arrest to come as surprise
- However, this was breach of ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all participants signed
- Prisoners didn’t contest to being ‘arrested’ at home
- Not protected from psychological harm
- Experienced humiliation and distress
- e.g. 1 prisoner had to be released after 36 hours ∵ of uncontrollable screaming, crying and anger
Milgram (1963)
State the aim
To investigate if ordinary American men would obey an unjust order from authority figure to inflict pain on another person
Milgram (1963)
Describe the method
- Male participants from different backgrounds & ages
- Deceived, study on “memory and learning” & invited to Yale’s psychology laboratory
- Participant introduced to experimenter & “Mr Wallace” = confederate
- Participant was always assigned role of teacher & Mr Wallace = learner
- Room with shock generator → instructed to apply shocks of increasing levels to learner every time they answered question incorrectly
- Participant was given shock of 45 volts → prove authenticity
- & Confederate strapped in chair room next door
- 15 V to 450 V in increments
- Each time he was shocked by participant = varied recorded responses of pain were played
- 330+ V = no response
- If teacher objected = given series of verbal “prods” by experimenter to continue
Milgram (1963)
Name 3 -ve evaluation points
- Deception
- Right to withdraw
- Harm
Milgram (1963)
Name a +ve evaluation point
Hofling (1966)
Milgram (1963)
Elaborate on +ve evaluation point: Hofling (1966)
- Confederate ‘Dr Smith’ allegedly instructed 22 nurses over phone to give his patients ‘Mr Jones’ 20 mg of unfamiliar drug (harmless pill)
- Label on box said max dose = 10 mg
- If nurse obeyed = breaking several rules e.g. overdosing
- Label on box said max dose = 10 mg
- 21/22 nurses obeyed = suggests in real situations nurses will break rules & obey authority figure
- Supports Milgram’s findings = shows in real life obedience to injustice authority figure is high
Milgram (1963)
Elaborate on -ve evaluation point: Harm
- Caused severe psychological harm = stress
- Shown by reactions e.g. sweating, seizures
- However, 2% participants had regrets about being involved & 74% thought they had learnt something useful about themselves
- Debriefing was carried out & were debriefed a year later, psychiatric assessments showed no signs of long term damage
- Can argue cost of initial stress was worth the benefit of results
Milgram (1963)
Elaborate on -ve evaluation point: Deception
- Deceived about true nature of study, electric shocks and Mr Wallace being real participant
- ∴ unable to their fully informed consent
- Defended use of deception by debriefing afterwards
- & deception needed = no social desirability/demand characteristics
- ∴ can generalise findings
- & deception needed = no social desirability/demand characteristics
Milgram (1963)
Elaborate on -ve evaluation point: Right to withdraw
- Argued participants had right to withdraw as 35% refused to carry beyond 300 V
- However, right to withdraw was not given explicitly before study & attempts to withdraw were met with verbal ‘prods’ = made it difficult
Name 5 explanations of obedience
- Agentic State
- Legitimacy of Authority
- Proximity
- Location
- Uniform
Explanations of Obedience
Describe the Agentic state
- Individuals obey ∵ don’t see themselves responsible for their behaviour but an agent of authority figure
- See authority figure as responsible for consequences & become de-individuated
- Enter this Agentic state ∵ normally concerned around maintaining positive self-image ∴ restricts this behaviour
- However, responsibility shifts to authority figure → perception of self = irrelevant
Explanations of Obedience
Describe legitimacy of authority
- Individuals obey ∵ they accept power and status of authority figure
- Assessed by looking at context/setting and status of authority figure
- e.g. authority figures have visible symbols = lab coat
- Make it difficult to disobey
- e.g. authority figures have visible symbols = lab coat
Explanations of Obedience
Evaluate legitimacy of authority
- Milgram’s participants may have obeyed ∵ experimenter was wearing lab coat + study took placed in prestigious Yale university
- Rundown office block = 47.5%
- Suggests perceived legitimacy of authority figure was lower ∵ location + context
- Rundown office block = 47.5%
- Holfing’s study - 21 nurses may have obeyed ∵ order was given by doctor
- Bushman (1988): Female assistant = police uniform → asked to loan money to stranger: obedience higher than as business woman or beggar
Explanations of Obedience
Evaluate Agentic state
Pro:
- 65% of Milgram’s participants that obeyed = were in Agentic state
- 35% = autonomous state
- When they asked about Mr Wallace’s health = experimenter would say ‘you will not be held responsible for your actions’ = encouraged Agentic state
Con:
- Milgram’s participants may been in Agentic state for 30 mins
- But unrealistic/irresponsible to suggest Nazis were in Agentic state for years of suffering they inflicted
- Not good enough explanation for real life acts of blind/unjust obedience e.g. Holocaust
Describe how proximity affects obedience
Use evidence to back up your answer
- Proximity between teacher and learner affected obedience
- Teacher & learner in same room = 40%
- Teacher had to force learner’s hand on shock plate = 30%
- & proximity between authority figure and teacher
- Experimenter gave orders over phone = 20%
- Closer people were to observing consequences of their actions = lower obedience rates as people resisted
- When people feel detached from consequences of their actions = higher obedience
Describe how location affects obedience
Use evidence to back up your answer
- Affects amount of perceived legitimate authority person giving orders has
- Prestigious Yale university = added to perceived legitimacy of authority figure
- Rundown office block = 47.5%
- Suggests perceived legitimacy of authority figure was lower ∵ location + context
- i.e. rundown office block = experimenter had less perceived authority than researcher at uni
Describe how uniform affects obedience
Use evidence to back up your answera
- Wearing uniform = perceived as having legitimate authority = more likely to obey
- Milgram: white lab coat = added to perceived authority
- Bushman (1988)
- Female assistant = police uniform → asked to loan money to stranger = 72% obedience
- Business woman = 48%
- Beggar = 52%
Name the dispositional explanation for obedience
Authoritarian Personality
Describe the authoritarian personality
- Based on idea that behaviour is caused by internal characteristics of individual
- Personality type for people who held rigid, intolerant and conservative beliefs
- Have hostile feelings towards those inferior and very obedient towards authority figures
State the causes of the authoritarian personality
- Adorno et al: personality shaped in early childhood
- By having strict, authoritarian, physically abusive parents
- Don’t allow expression of anger
- Under these conditions: children learn to obey authority and acquire same attitudes
State the effects of the authoritarian personality
- Force their opinions on others
- Openly prejudicial
State the research of the authoritarian personality
Adorno created “F-Scale” questionnaire = measures different components that make up authoritarian personality
Describe a postive evaluation about the authoritarian personality
- Milgram interviewed participants & found obedient ones scored high on tests of authoritarianism
- Accepted dispositional factors could play role but didn’t think evidence was strong
- Through variations, showed how situational variables (e.g. uniform, proximity, location) affected obedience rather than personality
Describe 3 negative evaluations about the authoritarian personality
- Research: less educated people = consistently more authoritarian than well-educated
- Instead of authoritarianism causing obedience, lower education = obedience & authoritarian personality
- Other factors can influence obedience
- Unlikely that obedience of whole social groups e.g. Nazis was due to possession of authoritarian personality
- Zillmer et al
- Nazi war criminals scored highly on 3 personality dimensions of Adorno F-scale questionnaire but not all 9
- Limited support for authoritarian personality = limited validity
- Other explanations must be considered
- Zillmer et al
- Authoritarian personality is politically biased
- People with this personality type = always conservative/right-wing political standing
- May not always be true
What is meant by resisting social influence?
Withstanding social pressure to conform to majority or obey authority
Name 2 explanations for how people can resist the pressure to obey or conform
- Social Support
- Locus of Control
Describe how social support can help people to resist conformity
- Pressure to conform can be reduced if there’s other people not conforming
- Asch’s variation
- Other person (dissenter) doesn’t have to agree with participant or have right answer → just have resist majority
- Dissenter acts as ally and ‘model’ & helps participant to follow their own conscience
- Dissenters provide form of social support
How social support can help people to resist conformity
Name 3 evaluation points
- Asch (1956)
- Allen & Levine (1971)
- Jay walking
How social support can help people to resist conformity
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Asch (1956)
- Dissenter/ally answers correctly from beginning = conformity drops from 33% to 5.5%
- Dissenter answers later in study → conformity = 9%
- Suggests social supports is effective & earlier it’s received = more effective in helping participant resist conformity
How social support can help people to resist conformity
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Allen & Levine (1971)
- Conformity reduced on task involving visual judgements if dissenter there
- Even if dissenter wore glasses with thick lenses & had eyesight problems
- Suggests dissenters help resist social influence even when dissenters not skilled in situation
How social support can help people to resist conformity
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Jay walking
- Disobedient models broke law by jay walking = participants more likely to jay walk than when disobedient models weren’t present
- Supports disobedient models increase resistance to social influence
Describe how social support can help people to resist obedience
- Pressure to obey reduced = if other person disobeys
- Milgram’s variation: obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when participant joined by disobedient confederate
- Use act of disobedience as ‘model’ for participant to copy = option to resit social influence
How social support can help people to resist obedience
Name 3 evaluation points
- Oil company
- Milgram
- Laboratory study & knew being observed
How social support can help people to resist obedience
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Milgram
- 2 confederates + participant = decided to leave early in experiment
- 10% of participants = gave max 450 V
- Whole group disobeys = pressure to join disobedient behaviour
- Social supports = resisting social influence
How social support can help people to resist obedience
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Oil company
- Higher levels of rebellion when participants were in groups (to produce evidence that oil company would use to run smear campaign)
- 88% of participants rebelled
- Shows social supports in form of peers = resists social influence
How social support can help people to resist obedience
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Laboratory study & knew being observed
- Knew being observed
- Behaviours displayed (shocking/resisting) ∵ of demand characteristics as they felt this was expected of them
- Lacked ecological validity ∵ not natural setting
- ∴ behaviours of social support observed in laboratory may not translate to real world & findings = limited external validity
Describe locus of control
- Rotter (1966): Personality dimension
- Extent to which people believe they are in control of their lives
- Used to explain why people resist conformity and obedience
Explanation for Resisting Social Influence
Describe Internal LOC
- More confident/self-assured in their beliefs
- As they’re more aware of this internalised control = less likely to be led by conformity or through obedience
Explanation for Resisting Social Influence
Describe External LOC
- Less confident in their own views and passive
- ∴ more easily led by others as they believe situations to be out their control
- Less likely to resist social influence & display independent behaviour
Locus of Control
Name a postive evaluation point
Milgram & Oliner
Locus of Control
Elaborate on the postive evaluation point: Milgram & Oliner
- Milgram et al
- Found participants most resistant to authority figures = high internal locus of control & scored high on measure of social responsibility
- Oliner
- Groups that resisted social pressure during Nazi Germany & protected Jewish people
- High internal locus of control & high score for social responsibility
- Supports idea that LOC and social responsibility are credible explanations for why people resist social influence
Locus of Control
Name 2 negative evaluation points
- Correlational research
- Williams et al (1981)
Locus of Control
Elaborate on the negative evaluation point: Correlational research
- Can’t be certain of cause or effect or that high internal LOC causes resistance
- May be that personality variables are the cause & high internal LOC is effect of certain personality traits
Locus of Control
Elaborate on the negative evaluation point: Williams et al (1981)
- LOC as explanation for conformity is less conclusive
- Studied 30 uni students over various conformity based tasks
- Assessed them using Rotters LOC scale & found little difference between them according to the scale
- BUT there were differences in conformity
- Noticed those who conformed less = more assertive
- ∴ assertiveness may be better explanation for why people resist social influences than LOC
Describe minority influence
- Form of social influence
- Small group of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours through conversion
- Leads to internalisation of minority views
- Influence majority through ISI
What 3 qualities do minorities need to have to cause change?
- Consistent
- Flexible
- Committed
Explain why minorities need to be consistent in order for them cause change & how they can do this
- Increases amount of interest from others
- Make majority rethink their views
- Consistency can come from agreement between all people in minority
- Say the same thing (synchronic consistency) & consistency over time (diachronic consistency)
Describe how minorites can be flexible to cause change
- Prepared to adapt their point of view & accept reasonable + valid counterarguments
- Key is balance between consistency and flexibility
Describe how minorites can be committed to cause change and why this works
- Extreme activities to draw attention to their views
- Have to be at some risk to minority group ∵ demonstrates commitment
- Majority group pay even more attention
- Called augmentation principle
State the key study for minority influence
Moscovici (1969)
Moscovici (1969)
Aim
Find how minority could influence a majority
Moscovici (1969)
Procedure
- Group of 6 participants shown 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity
- Had to state whether slides were blue or green
- In each group = 2 confederates that consistently said slides were green on 2/3 of trials
Moscovici (1969)
Findings
- 32% gave same answer as minority on at least one trail
- 2nd condition = exposed to inconsistent minority
- Agreement = 1%
- 3rd condition = no confederates
- Answer wrong just >1% of time
Moscovici (1969)
Conclusion
- Consistent minority who always give same answer = make majority change their viewpoint and conform
- Minorities need to be consistent = social change
Name 4 evaluation points about minority influence
- Lack Ecological Validity
- Ski-lift accident
- Real World Applications - Terrorism
- Wood et al (1994)
Minority Influence
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Lack Ecological Validity
- Tasks no representative of real life minority influence e.g. naming colours of side
- Far from how minorities attempt to change behaviour of majority
- In real life, outcomes are more important ∴ minorities work in different ways
Minority Influence
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Ski-lift accident
- Support for flexibility
- Groups 3 participants and 1 confederate
- Had to decide level of compensation to pay ski-lift accident victim
- When confederate, consistent minority, continually asked for a lower amount = no effect on majority
- When confederate was flexible & compromise for higher amount - influenced majority to lower their demands
Minority Influence
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Wood et al (1994)
- Meta-analysis roughly 100 minority groups and their influence
- Most consistent = most influential
- Suggests consistency is major factor for minority influence to occur
- However, findings = correlational
- ∴ can’t establish cause and effect between one behavioural trait (consistency) & level of influence
- May be unknown factors that affect influence
Minority Influence
Elaborate on the evaluation point: Real World Applications - Terrorism
- Helps us understand how terrorism radicalises people to join their cause
- Consistent = continuous suicide bombings
- Committed = willing to sacrifice their lives fo rather own cause = forces people to take notice/take them more seriously
- Minority influence doesn’t always = change despite commitment, consistency and flexibility
- Many groups e.g. terrorists may bee seen deviant due to their beliefs or measures they take
- ∴ minority influence = potential for change but doesn’t led directly to it
What is meant by social change?
When individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours
When does social change occur?
Occurs when societies, adopt new attitudes, beliefs & ways of doing things
(e.g. earth orbits the sun and environmental issues)
Describe how minorities cause social change (7x)
- Draw attention of majority (using e.g. protests, campaigns)
- Create cognitive conflict between what majority believes and what minority believes
- Consistent in their message
- Encourage majority to deeply process their viewpoint
- Use augmentation principle - willing to suffer/risk their life for their cause
- Use snowball effect to slowly change views of majority to minority
- Social crytoamnesia (people remember change occurred but don’t remember how it happened) usually happens
Describe how normative social influence can cause social change
- Encourages social change by reporting behaviour or attitudes of majority
- Urges other to follow suit to fit in group
Role of social influence processes in social change
Name 3 evaluation points
- Minority/majority influence involve different levels of cognitive processing
- Role of NSI as process of social change
- Minority influence can act as barrier to social change
Social Change
Elaborate on the evaluation point: “Minority/majority influence involve different levels of cognitive processing”
- Moscovici argues minority influence = majority thinks more deeply ∵ have conflicting views
- Conformity doesn’t cause people to think as deeply
- Mackie (1987) disagrees & suggests majority get people to engage in deeper thinking
- ∵ if majority believes something different to us = forced to think about their arguments and reasoning = can result in social change
- Suggests social change occurs ∵ of thought processes
Social Change
Elaborate on the evaluation point: “Role of NSI as process of social change”
Nolan et al (2008)
- Used social change to reduce energy consumption
- Hung messages on doors of houses every week for 1 month
- Message: most residents try to reduce their energy usage
- Found decreases in energy usage = shows conformity can lead to social change through NSI
- Hung messages on doors of houses every week for 1 month
Social Change
Elaborate on the evaluation point: “Minority influence can act as barrier to social change”
Bashir et al (2013)
- Investigated why people resist social change even when they agree
- e.g. participants didn’t behave environmentally friendly ∵ didn’t want to be associated with stereotypical and minority ‘environmentalists’
- Advice to minorities wanting social change = avoid behaving in ways that reinforce stereotypes ∵ it’ll be off-putting to majority
Describe how consistency leads to social change
- Key to bring about social change from minority groups
- When minority group = consistent = more likely to be influential
- e.g. suffragettes used education, political and various tactics to draw attention of women not being able to vote
- Over time, consistent message + view adopted by majority
Describe how the augmentation principle leads to social change
- Group puts themselves at risk = gather greater support
- ∵ people willing to “suffer” for their cause = more influential than others
- e.g. Martin Luther King
- Put himself forward for his cause at great risk = led to greater support & recognition from majority = social change i.e. equal rights for ethnic groups
