4.1.1 social influence 👨👩👧👦 ADVANCED INFO Flashcards
1
Q
define conformity
A
a change in opinion or behaviour because of real or imagined group pressure from the majority group of people
2
Q
define obedience
A
a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order . the person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority , who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming .
3
Q
define minority influence
A
a form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person ) persuade others to adopt their beliefs attitudes or behaviours.
4
Q
what was the aim of Milgrams experiment (1963)
A
To measure the extent to which people are willing to obey a figure of authority who asks them to do something which conflicts with their personal conscience using a laboratory based procedure.
5
Q
what was the method/procedure of milgrams experiment
A
- recruited 40 male participants who volunteered through newspaper advertisement .
- everyone was payed 4.50 and told they would receive this even if they quit during the study.
- two confederates - an experimenter (the authority figure) and the “learner”
- teachers were instructed that they must administer an increasingly strong electric shocks to the “learner” each time he got a question wrong
6
Q
what happens if the “teacher” asks to stop the experiment in milgrams study
A
The experimenter (the authority figure) uses prompts such as :
“please continue”
“the experiment requires that you continue”
“it’s a absolutely essential that you continue”
“you have no other choice you must go on “
7
Q
how is the procedure standardised in the milgram study
A
The experimenter uses the same prompts such as “it’s absolutely essential that you continue” when the teacher (participant) asks to stop the study.
8
Q
why did the voltage levels go up in 15 volt increments in the milgram study ?
A
They went up in 15 volt increments to a maximum of 450 volts in order to create a gradual commitment.
9
Q
what were the results of milgrams study
A
- participants continued to the maximum voltage of 450 volts , far beyond what was marked - “danger severe shock”
- All participants shocked to 300 Volts
- only 12.5% of participants stopped at the point where the learner first objected
- 14 defied the experiment after 300 volts (remaining autonomous )
- 26 obeyed to the end and gave 450 vaults (agentic shift)
10
Q
what qualitative data was collected for the results of milgrams experiment and how ?
A
qualitative data was collected using observations
- participants showed signs of extreme tension , many were seen to : sweat tremble stutter bite their lips groan dig their nails into their hands
THREE PARTICIPANTS HAD FULL BLOWN UNCONTROLLABLE SEIZURES
11
Q
did the participants receive a debrief after milgrams study
A
All participants were debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal.
they were sent a follow up questionnaire and 84% reported they felt glad they participated
12
Q
what was the conclusion of Milgrams study into obedience
A
- That ordinary people are surprisingly obedient to authority even when being ask to inflict pain onto others and behave in an inhumane manner.
- Therefore elucidating that it is not evil people who commit atrocities it is in fact , ordinary people obeying orders
- Crimes against humanity may be the result of situational factors rather than dispositional factors
- Agency theory is apparent in this study.
13
Q
Why is agency theory present in Milgrams study
A
- 14 participants defied the experimenter after 300 volts . showing that they remained in an autonomous state .
- 26 participants obeyed to the end and gave 450 volts showing they were in an agentic state.
14
Q
evaluate the internal validity of milgrams. research
A
Milgrams study appeared to have high internal validity . It took place in a laboratory. The situation appeared real to participants as evidenced by their severe reactions to the experiment e.g seizures
COUNTER ARGUMENT - However many of the participants worked out the procedure was faked . This can then become a limitation as it is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
15
Q
explain the ethical issue of deception in milgrams experiment
A
-Deception was an ethical issue in milgrams experiment .
yes
-the participants were led to believe that the true aim of the experiment was to show how punishment affects learning. However the true aim is to investigate obedience to an authority figure .
-They were also deceived into thinking that they were actually administering real electric shocks to the “learner”. however they were not
COUNTER ARGUMENT- If the participants were told the true aims of the study , they may or acted differently.
16
Q
explain the ethical issue of protection fr harm in milgrams experiment
A
- Milgram failed to protect his participants from harm.
- Participants were led to believe they had rendered somebody unconscious or killed them . Three participants had full blown seizures and there were signs of extreme tension in most participants.
- this causes ethical issues as they feel guilty and upset they were harmed psychologically and physically in some cases with the seizures.
COUNTER ARGUMENT- there was a thorough debrief at the end and 84% of participants said they were pleased to have taken part .
THEY MET THE UNHARMED LEARNER AT THE END
17
Q
what is a strength of Milgrams study into obedience supporting research
A
- A strength of milgrams study is that it has been recently replicated.
- A 2010 french reality Tv show partially replicated milgrams research .
- participants were paid to give electric shocks (fake) to the other participants (actors) when ordered to by the presenter.
- the results were that they were almost identical to milgrams .80% of participants shocked up to 460 v to an apparently unconscious man , + qualitative data was similar Particpants appeared nervous and showed signs of anxiety.
This supports milgrams original findings and conclusions about authority as it demonstrates his findings weren’t just a one off chance
18
Q
what are the explanations for obedience
A
- agency theory , legitimacy of authority, situtational variables and dispositional variables
19
Q
what is the agency theory
A
milgram beloved that we exist in two different states -
- the autonomous state
- the agentic state
20
Q
what is the autonomous state
A
in the autonomous state we show free will and make our own choices and decisions , we feel responsibility for our own actions.
21
Q
what is the agentic state
A
in the agentic state we follow instructions from someone we perceive has legitimate authority over us . We feel no personal responsibility for their actions
22
Q
what happens when we are asked to do something we view as immoral?
A
we experience moral strain , once we have shifted into an obedient state we feel relieved of the strain and displace responsibility into the authority figure.
23
Q
what is legitimacy of authority
A
-legitimacy of authority is an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us .
This authority is justified by the individuals position of power within w social hierarchy.
24
Q
what is a consequence of legitimacy of authority
A
a consequence is that some people are granted the power to punish others .
we give up some of our independence to people we trust to exercise their authority properly .
we learned to accept authority during childhood from parents and teachers.
25
what is one strength of legitimacy of authority
one strength is that it can help to explain real life examples
26
explain how legitimacy of authority could be used to explain what occurred in the my Lai massacre in 1968
- During the war american soldiers entered my lai and were ordered to kill inhabitants.
- the soldiers involved started they were only following orders because an authority figured it old them to.
- The soldiers were no longer autonomous, they were agents of the army.
27
what is a strength of legitimacy of authority to explain cultural differences in obedience research
- Kilham and Mann (1974) found that in australia only 16% of participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale when replicating milgrams study.
- Mantell 1971 found that 85% went to the top of the voltage scale in german particpants
this shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals, reflects how different societies are structured to perceieve authority figures. cross cultural research support increases the external validity of the explanation
28
how can legitimacy of authority be used to explain the different obedience rates in different cultures
i’m some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals .
The diffrence in obedience roles shows how countries offer in the degree to which people are traditionall obedient to authority , For example a country with a good governance obedience rates may be higher
29
what is some evidence supporting agency theory
-Hoffling et al (1966) used the hospital hierarchy to test obedience in nurses.
30
what was the procedure for hofling et al (1966) study supporting agency theory
- a confederate doctor rang a ward and asked the nurse to give twice the marked safe dose of an unknown drug to a patient
31
what were the results of hofling et al (1966) study supporting agency theory
- 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed the orders against the hospital rules
- when a control group of 22 nurses were asked what they would have done they denied they would of acted without proper authorisation in writing
32
what was the conclusion of hofling et al (1966) study supporting agency theory.
Hofling concluded that the power hierarchy in hospitals was a bigger influence on nurses than following hospital rules.
33
what is some evidence against agency theory
Rank and Jacobsen (1977) wanted to challenge Hofling’s findings
34
what was the procedure of Rank and Jacobsens study that goes against agency theory
- they repeating Hoffling et al.’s experiment using a familiar drug at three times the recommended dose.
- when the researcher pretending to be a doctor telephoned , he had a familiar name and the nurses were able to discuss the order with other nurses before carrying it out
35
what was the results of Rank and Jacobsens study that goes against agency theory
Only 2 out of 18 nurses followed the order
36
what was the conclusion of Rank and Jacobsens study that goes against agency theory
The increased realism of the experiment,
and the discussion with a colleague ,
lowered obedience rates in exactly the same way that milgrams addition of a dissenting confederate had done
37
strengths of the two studies for and against agency theory
- both studies have high ecological validity as they used a naturalistic setting
- Both studied have good application , as hospital procedures since have been tightened up
38
Limitations / evidence against agency theory
- it does not explain individual differences
- autonomy and agency are hard to measure and define concepts , they depend and vary on the situation
- it does not explain why some people are more motivated to follow certain people more then others who have equal authority.
39
who identified situational variables/explanations for obedience
milgram
40
what are the three situational variables / explanations for obedience
- proximity (to learner ) and (to authority figure)
- location
- uniform
41
how was milgrams original experiment altered to measure proximity to the learner as a situational variable
Milgram changed the location , he moved the teacher and learner into the same room .
he made the teacher force the learners hand on to an electroshock plate
42
what were the results when the teacher and learner and teacher were put in the same room in milgrams research into situational variables
obedience rates fell from 65% to 40%
43
what were the results of making the teacher force the learner hand on to the plate when investigating proximity in milgrams research
Obedience rates fell from 65% to 30%
44
why did altering proximity of the learner in milgrams research decrease obedience
proximity increases awareness of obeying an order . A task becomes harder if you can see the pain you are inflicting on somebody else.
45
how was milgrams original experiment altered to measure proximity to the authority figure as a situational variable
The experimenter left the room and orders were given by telephone
46
what were the results when proximity to the authority figure was altered in milgrams research into situational variables
the obedience level falls from 65% to 22.5%
47
why did altering the proximity of the authority figure in milgrams research decrease obedience
If the person giving orders is right next to you it is harder to disobey them.
48
how was milgrams original experiment altered to measure location as a situational variable
The original study took place at Yale university - they moved it to run down office block
49
what happened to obedience levels in milgrams study when they moved the study to a rundown office block
obedience rates fell from 65% to 48%
50
why did altering the location of milgrams study affect obedience levels
Being in a well regarded setting increases legitimate authority , research that takes place there is regarded as important . By moving the study to a run down office block , it regards the research as less important .
51
how was milgrams original experiment altered to measure uniform as a situational variable
the original experimenter wore a grey lab coat , in the adaptation of the study they wore “normal clothes”
52
what were the results of altering uniform in milgrams study into situational variables
Obedience levels dropped from 65% to 20%
53
what are the strengths of milgrams situational explanations of obedience
- milgrams research has high control of variables , it was highly standardised
- there is research to support influence of uniform on obedience
- qualitative and quantitative data were collected , making the research credible and scientific
54
what are the limitations of situational explanations of obedience
- mandel (1998 criticism)- offers an excuse for evil behaviour
- oren and holland criticism - particpants working out procedure was fake
- samples were all from the same area with very few women included , so we’re not representative of obedience in the whole population
- the sample was self selected by advertisement - participants were more likely to follow orders
55
evaluate the strength that milgrams research has a high control of variables
P) a strength is that milgrams research has a high control of variables
E) The experimenter allowed each variable to be altered individually in order to improve the accuracy , as each environment is suited to what variable is being investigated . The experiments are controlled and standardised making them more reliable.
Exp) This is a strength because we are able to judge them individually meaning it’s easier to evaluate them separately rather than as a whole.
56
evaluate the strength that there is research support for influence on uniform on obedience.
P) There is research research support for the influence on uniform on obedience .
E) Bickman (1974) found that People were more obedient when she was wearing a high vis jacket rather than ‘everyday clothing’
Exp) This shows that uniform is a sign of authority and obedience levels rise when uniform is present
57
evaluate the limitation - Mandels criticism on milgrams situational explanations for obedience
P) Mandel 1998 criticised milgrams situational explanations for obedience
E) He suggested that it offers an excuse or “alibi” for evil behaviour
Exp) situational explanations of obedience could be offensive to those who have suffered and survived experiences such as the Holocaust
58
evaluate the limitation - Orne and Holland’s criticism of milgrams study that particpants worked out the experiment was faked
P) Orne and Holland criticised milgrams original study , suggesting many participants worked out the procedure was fake through manipulations
E) In the “member of the public” (uniform) variation , even milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some particpants may well of worked out the truth.
Exp) This shows the results lack internal validity because it is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to obedience or because particpants saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
59
what are the Situational explanations for obedience that could be used to explain the behaviour of the charlie company in the MY LAI MASSACRE
- uniform - in the army it is easy to see who is above you in terms of authority
- Proximity - they killed inhabitants using guns not by hands - easier for them
- location - they were over seas and not in their own country
- legitimacy of authority - hierarchy in the army - they may of feared for their own life if they didnt follow orders
60
what is the shift from autonomy to being an agent called
the agentic shift
61
why did milgram suggest that the agentic shift occurs
It occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. This person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
62
what are Binding factors
binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour .
reducing moral strain
eg shifting responsibility to the victim or denying the damage done
These factors keep somebody in an agentic state
63
evaluate the strength - agentic state is supported by milgrams research
P) one strength of the agentic state explanation is that it is supported by milgrams research.
E)65% of particpants shocked all the way to 450 volts and 0% of particpants stopped before 300 volts
Exp) Milgram suggested that particpants perceived the man in the white coal at as an authority figure who has powere due to social hierarchy , he was lead experimenter / scientist . The particpants therefore obeyed because they shifted from an autonomous to an agentic state.
64
evaluate the limitation- agentic shift explanation it doesn’t explain many of the findings in obedience research
P) One limitation of the agentic shift explanation is that it doesn’t explain many of the findings in obedience research.
E) 35% of particpants in milgrams study did not obey .
Exp) All humans are social animals in social hierarchies. therefore all participants should have obeyed the orders . This shows that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
+Behaviour of nurses in Hoflings study can’t be explained . There was no signs of anxiety as agentic shift took place , as expected
65
evaluate the limitation - agentic state can not account for all behaviour of nazis in world war 2
P) another limitation is that the agentic state can not account for all behaviour of thr nazis in world war 2
E)There is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and agentic shift. Mandel (1998) described one incident involving a German Batallion following orders to shoot civillians in poland.
Exp) despite the fact they did not have direct orders to do so . They were told they could be assigned other duties if they preferred.
66
what is an authoritarian personality
an authoritarian personality is a type of personality that adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority . Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors
67
what are the characteristics of the authoritarian personality
- obedience to authority , extreme respect and submissiveness to it
- show contempt for people they perceive as having inferior social status
- highly conventional attitudes towards sex , race and gender
- view society as “going to the dogs” - in turn needing strong and powerful leaders in order to enforce traditional values
- inflexible in their outlook - no grey areas everytgung is always right or wrong - uncomfortable with uncertainty
68
what is a dispositional explanation for obedience
the authoritarian personality
69
what is the F scale
The F scale (potential for facism scale) was a questionaire designed to measure how authoritarian a person is .
70
what was the procedure for Adornos study for dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality
- Adorno et al (1950) investigated the causes of obedient personality in a study of more then 2000 middle class white male americans , and their unconscious attitudes to other racial groups
- They developed the potential for facism scale (F-scale) to measure this.
- Particpants had to rate their agreement with each item on a 6 point scale
e. g of a statement the questionaire contained - “obedience eland respect for authority are the most important things children should learn”
71
what were the findings from adorno et al (1950) study into dispositional explanations for obedience - the authoritarian personality
- people with authoritarian learnings eg those who scored high on the f scale , identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak
- There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and predjudice
- They were very conscious of their own and others status , showing excessive defence to those of higher status’
- The highest correlations were between anti-semi toks and ethnocentrism showing a dislike to foreigners was linked to anti-jewish and nazi sympathisers
- they developed an “us” and “them” mentality - characteristics of authoritarian personality make them hostile to all non-conventional people.
72
explain how the authoritarian personality develops in childhood
Authoritarian personality develops as a result of harsh parenting as they may repress their hostility towards their parents and seem to idolise them.
typically identified by adorno features such as strict discipline , an expectation of absolute loyalty. , impossibly high standards and severe criticisms of perceived failings.
The hostility towards parents taht was repressed can be displaced onto non threatening minority groups , this can be through prejudice and discrimination.
73
evaluate the strength - there is support for the link between authoritarian personality and obedience (dispositional explanations)
p) There is support for the link between authoritarian personality and obedience
E) Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted interviews with a sample of fully obedient particpants scoring highly on the F scale .
Exp) It is impossible to draw a conclusion that authoritarian personality causes obedience - there may be a third factor involved
74
evaluate the limitation - authoritarian personality is a limited explanation for obedience .
P) This is a limited explanation for obedience .
E) in ore war germany millions of individuals displayed obedient , racist and anti semitic behaviour , It seems unlikely that they could all possess an authoritarian personality.
Exp) This is a limitation because it is clear that social identity explains obedience . The majority of german people identified with anti semitic nazi state
75
evaluate the limitation - there are methodological problems using the F scale to measure authoritarian personality - dispositional explanations for obedience
P) There are methodological problems with using F-scale to measure personality
E)Greenstein describes the F scale as a comedy of methodological errors , every one of its items is worded in the same direction.It is possible to get a high authoritarian score by ticking some boxes.
Exp) These methodological errors suggest that the data collected is meaningless and the concept of authoritarian personality lacks validity.
76
evaluate the limitation - the use of correlational evidence to support the disposition explanation
P) Another limitation is the use of correlational evidence to support this explanation
E) Adorno and colleagues measured on a range of variables and they found correlations , They found authoritarianism strongly correlated with measures of prejudice against minority groups
Exp) This is a limitation becayse no matter how strong the correlation is it doesn’t show that one caused the other . and adorno claimed harsh parenting caused development of the authoritarian personality
77
What is resistance to social influence ?
resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority of obey authority.
78
what factors affect the ability to withstand social pressures
The ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by :
- situational factors
- dispositional factors (personality)
79
social support - what lowers conformity ?
- seeing somebody else not following the majority appears to enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience
- this person acts as a “model”
- aschs research found that when he introduced a confederate who disagreed with the group , conformity reduced by a quarter from the level it was when the majority was unanimous.
80
what causes obedience to be resisted ?
the pressure to obey is reduced if we see another disobey
- in milgrams research obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when a genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate
81
why do people disobey if there’s a disobedient confederate
the disobedient confederate acts as a “disobedient role model” for the particpant to copy and frees them to act on their own conscience
82
who proposed a dispositional explanation of independent behaviour
Rotter 1966
83
what is the locus of control and how is it measured
locus of control refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives , it can be used to explain resistance to social influence.
it is measured on a continuum with high internal LoC on one end and high external LoC on the other
84
what is the difference between Internals and externals (Locus of Control)
- internals believe they are always responsible for what happens to them and their behaviour.
- they are likely to seek more information before following orders
- externals believe their life is merely being controlled by chance , luck or by others, especially those with more power then them.
- they are more likely to obey an authority figure
85
characteristics of somebody with internal LoC
- better academic achievement
- better relationships
- more effort to learn
- better health behaviour
- less smoking
- positive attitudes to exercise
86
characteristics of somebody with external LoC
- more resigned to fate or luck
- Lower levels of psychological well-being
- greater sense of satisfaction in an environment where they have no control
- less effort to stay healthy
87
are externals or internals more likely to conform
Externals are more likely to conform .
They may relate to a sense of learned helplessness . They put up with distress or discomfort as they feel they cannot escape from it.
internals are more likely to be able to resist the pressures . They have greater self confidence, and are more likely to become a leader themself , therefore are more confident in terms of challenging authority.
88
evaluate the strengths of Locus of control in terms of resisting social influence
- The Loc self report inventory has been standardised and used over vast samples , increasing its validity
- Avtgis (1998) used a meta analysis to investigate LoC and Conformity- results - people with an Internal LoC were more resistant and less likely to conform
- Holland (1967) showed that Ingernal Locus people showed greater resistance to authority in a replication of milgrams 1963 study
89
evaluate the limitations of Locus of control in terms of resistance to social influence
Teenage et al 2004 found that external locus people have increased in number over time but resistance to authority has increased aswell , this then can cause doubt about the concept locus of control
90
evaluate the strength that there is evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity (LoC and social support)
P) there is evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity
E) Allen and Levine in 1971 found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in the Asch type study . Conformity decreased even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with vision , showing he was in no position to clearly view the lines
Exp) this supports the view that resistance is not just motivated by what some one else says , but it enables somebody to be free of the pressure from the group
91
evaluate the strength that there is evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience - (Loc and social support)
P) There is evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
E)Gamson et al 1982 found that there were higher levels of resistance in their study than milgram , this was probably because the particpants were in groups in Gamsons study .
In 29/33 of the groups in gamsons study they rebelled .
Exp) This shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance
92
Evaluate the strength that there is evidence to support the link between LoV and resisting obedience
P) There is evidence to support the link between Loc and resisting obedience
E) holland 1967 repeated milgrams baseline study and measured whether particpants were internals or externals . he found that 37% of internals did not continue , whereas only 23% of externals did not continue
Exp) This is therefore a strength for LoC because it shows that internals showed a greater resistance to authority
93
evaluate the limitation that The role of LoC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated
P) A limitation is that the role of Loc in resisting social influence may be exaggerated
E)Rotter (1982) found that locus of control only comes into play in novel (new) situations
Exp) this is a limitation because it means that LoC is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations
Impact ) this means that even if people have an internal LoC , people who havw conformed in the past are more likely to in specific situations
94
define minority influence
minority influence refers to situations where one person or small group of people influences the beliefs or behaviours of other people.
95
who studied minority influence
Moscovici first studied minority influence in the blue slide green slide study
96
what was the aim of moscovicis study into minority influence
to examine the effect of a consistent minority on the majority using an unambiguous task
97
what was the procedure of moscovicis study into minority influence
groups of 4 naive participants and 2 confederates
asked to estimate colour of 36 blue slides , where brightness and variations were altered.
in one condition the consistent minority 2 confedereates said the slides were green on all trials
in another condition the minority varied consistency of their responses
control group wasnt exposed to minority
98
what were the results of moscovicis study into minority influence
in the consistent condition - 32% agreed the slides were green at least once and gave the same response as the minority
in the inconsistent condition - agreement fell to 1.25%
in control group only 2 wrong answers were give (0.25%)
99
what are the three factors that effect minority influence
consistency
commitment
flexibility
100
how does consistency affect minority influence
over time consistency from minoritys views increases the amount of interest from other people.
synchronic consistency- theyre all saying the same thing and/or consistently over time
diachronic consistency- theyve been saying the same thing for some time now
consistency makes people rethink their views - maybe theyve got a point if they keep saying it.
101
how does commitment affect minority influence
minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to the position e.g personal sacrifices, this shows they are not acting out of self interest.
sometimes minorities take part in dangerous activities to show commitment - the augmentation principle
102
how does flexibility affect minority influence
consistency could be seen as unreasonable and unbending and may be counter productive , if minority show flexibility by showing a possibility of compromise it may be effective. Nemeth (1986) suggested it is important to find a key balance between flexibility and consistency
103
use process of change to explain minority influence
commitment, consistency and flexibility all make people think about the topic. If you hear something new you might think about it especially if its from a consistent and passionate source., deeper processing is important in the process of conversion to a different minority viewpoint.
104
what is the snowball effect in relation to minority influence
over time more people switch from majority to minority the faster this happens the faster the rate of conversion, the minority view gradually becomes the majority view and change has occurred
105
one strength of minority influence (supporting research)
supporting evidence which shows importance of consistency - miscovici study
consistent minority - 36% agreed with them , inconsistent - agreement fell to 1.25%
implies consistency plays huge role in minority influence
106
one limitation of minority influence (research has artificial tasks)
largely artificial tasks when researching minority influence
blue/green slide task artificial
results are not as easily generalised and applied to the outside world
lacks external validity
107
one limitatation of moscovici blue slide green slide study into minority influence
his sample only consisted of 172 female participants from america , cannot be generalised to other populations e.g males . there is also further research support that women are more likely to conform than men. lack of genearalisability makes it hard to draw conclusions off for men.
108
one limitation of moscovicic blue slide green slide study - ethical issues
participants in moscovicis study were decieved with the aims of the experiment they were told the study was about a colpur perception task , this means that the participants were unable to give their full informed consent . however if they knew the true aims of the study they may have acted differently , deception may therefore have been necessary.
109
one limitation of moscovici blue slide green slide study - artificial
the study uses artificial stimuli such as blue slides , these lack mundane realism , they have no meaning and therefore cannot be generaliseable to real world settings . therefore lacks external validity
