Paper 1 - Social Influences

Question 1

What is conformity?

Answer 1

Individuals change their attitudes, beliefs and behaviours to adhere to existing norms (majority view)

Question 2

What are the 3 types of conformity?

Answer 2

Internalisation - Person changes view privately & publically (internalise it), permanent change, genuinely accept the view to be correct
Compliance - ‘Go along with the group’. Publically change view only. Temporary change due to group pressure.
Identification - Identify with the group value (we want to be a part of that group so change view/behaviour to be like them. Public acceptance only.

Question 3

What are the 2 explanations for conformity?

Answer 3

Informational :
Need to be right
Cognitive, process
Happens in ambiguous situations (unclear/new)
Don’t have the information so look to others.

Normative :
Need to be liked
Emotional process
Need for social approval to avoid rejection
Happens with friends/strangers

Question 4

What are strengths of conformity?

Answer 4

Jenness “how many beans in a bottle?”
1.Ppts answer on their own, write down 2.ppt’s put into groups to discuss answer (1 collective answer given)
3.ppt’s individually asked again out loud
Ppt’s final answer converged to the group answer (supports internalisation/informational)

Schultz : Signs in hotels sag “most people reuse their towels” this led to a 25% increase in people re-using their towels. Supports normative/identification

Asch : 37.5% of ppts conformed to an obviously incorrect answer to avoid rejection. Supports normative social influence.

Question 5

What are weaknesses of conformity?

Answer 5

It is unclear whether normative or informational influence has taken place. Rely on people being truthful.

McGhee found that students that are naffiliators (people with string need to affiliate with others), are more likely to conform. Explanation does not take into account personality differences.

It is reductionist

Question 6

What is Asch’s line study an example of

Answer 6

Compliance and normative social influence

Question 7

What was the aim & pilot study of Asch’s line study?

Answer 7

To see if people will conform to an obvious incorrect majority (ppts told was a study on perception, study experienced deception)

It was important to ensure line task was obvious. 36 ppts judge 20 line take. 717/720 were clear and obvious (study = valid)

Question 8

What was the procedure of Asch’s line study?

Answer 8

1 ppt, sat around a table with 6 confederates (actors), ppt was always last (in the original).
Ppts had to match a target line with line A, B or C, they would give their answers out loud, 6 confederates first then the ppt was last the answer.
They did this 18 times : The first 6 the confederates gave the correct answer then the remaining 12, the obvious incorrect answer.

Question 9

What was the findings of Asch’s line study?

Answer 9

37.5% conformity rate 75% confirmed at least once, 25% never confirmed.

Question 10

What are the 3 variations of research?

Answer 10

Group size
Unanimous position
Task difficulty

Question 11

What is group size as a variation of research of line study?

Answer 11

Group Size - The bigger the group the higher the % of conformity
2 confederates = 14%
3 confederates = 32%
4 or more confederates = 37% (doesn’t change after)
normative social influence (pressure to fit in)

Question 12

What is unanimous position as a variation of research of line study?

Answer 12

In this variation
1 unfederate gave the other incorrect answer, conformity decreases to 9%
1 unfederate gave the correct answer, conformity decreases to 5%
pressure broken so free to give own answer

Question 13

What is task difficulty in relation to variation of line study research?

Answer 13

The harder the task the higher the rate of conformity
Informational social influence (don’t have the answer it is an ambiguous situation so look to others.

Question 14

What are the strengths of the Asch line study?

Answer 14

-Lucas asked ppts to solve easy and hard maths questions on their own BUT were given ‘3 other students’ answers. Ppts conformed to the ‘3 students answers’ on the hard questions. (Informational social influence - backs up Asch Task Difficulty). Pilot study : line clear and obvious = valid (testing normative S.I)
S.I = social influence

Question 15

What are the weaknesses of Asch line study?

Answer 15

Ethical Issues
-Deception (ppts told the surya was on perception, it was on conformity (to get natural behaviour)
-Informed consent, not sought as deception used
-Protection from harm, ppts may have felt embarrassed
Methodological Issues
-Demand characteristics (ppts look to cues on how to behave and it would affect the results of the study. Also some say the confederates were not convincing in Asch’s research)
-Gender bias (only males studied, cannot be generalised to female, females conformity may be higher as they are more concerned with social relationships
-Cultural bias (only Americans used, individualistic culture, cannot be generalised to eastern culture and they are known to be more conformist)

Question 16

What is the aim of Zimbardo’s study of conformity to social roles?

Answer 16

To measure the extent to which people conform to social roles

Question 17

What is the procedure of Zimbardo’s study of conformity to social roles?

Answer 17

• 24 psychologically sound people volunteered to be in the study.
• 12 randomly assigned to ‘prisoner’ role -> they were unknowingly (deception)arrested from their homes, taken to prison, striped, hosed down & deloused (all this dehumanised them), given a uniform and an identification number that they would then be referred to as instead of their name (deindividualisation).
• 12 randomly assigned to ‘guard’ role -> they were given a uniform, baton, handcuffs (shows power) & reflective sunglasses (hides eyes/emotions, is a mask)
• How to behave : Prisoners told they couldn’t leave, they must ask for parole instead. Guards were told they had complete power - just not to use batons.
• Zimbardo played the role of superintendent = overt, ppt, controlled, observation, planned to be 2 weeks.

Question 18

What is the results of Zimbardo’s study of conformity to social roles?

Answer 18

• Guards were enthusiastic in their roles & became more harsh
• Prisoners rebelled on day 2, guards retaliated and became more (prisoners were woken in the night for multiple head counts, washing bathroom with bare hands and a role-play called ‘Frankenstein’ guards so invested, they did unpaid overtime
• Study shut down on day 6 due to extreme psychological distress

Question 19

What is the conclusion of Zimbardo’s study of conformity to social roles?

Answer 19

Social roles have a powerful influence on behaviour, guards were harsh and brutal, prisoners were submissive

Question 20

What are the 5/6 A03 ethical issues of Zimbardo’s study on conformity of social roles?

Answer 20

Informed Consent - Not obtained, first study of its kind - didn’t know what could/would happen. Also not told prisoners would be arrested -> got just consent
Deception - Prisoners arrested from homes also told no physical harm would come to them.
Right to Withdraw - Yes/no : Prisoners told they weren’t allowed to leave, had to ask for parole.
Protection from Harm - 2 had to leave, study shut down on day 6 due to severe psychological distress. Some prisoners hit with baton.
Confidentiality -
Privacy - Prisoners stripped and watched 24/7 (was it needed? Why?)

Question 21

What are the 4 A03 methodological issues of Zimbardo’s study on conformity of social roles?

Answer 21

Who were the participants - Male Americans (not representative to female/other cultures)
How were they obtained - Posted put up around uni = volunteers = increase motivated (may have interest in topic)
Individualistic or Collectivist - Individualistic, cannot generalise to collectionist cultures, they may conform a lot quicker
What was the method used - Ppts observation, Zimbardo took part -> could lead to bias

Question 22

What are the +/- of Zimbardo’s conformity study?

Answer 22

Strengths - Ppts all stable & were randomly allocated to a role. Behaviour was a result of the role - not personality = increase in internal validity

Weaknesses - Results exaggerated by Zimbardo, Guard brutally wasn’t as bad. ⅓ were brutal, ⅓ applied rules, ⅓ supported prisoners

Question 23

What is the RWA of Zimbardo’s conformity study?

Answer 23

Stanford Prison Relevance to Abu Ghraib (Iraq war). The same conformity to social role effect evidenced in Zimbardo’s study was also present
in Abu Ghraib military prison. Zimbardo believed the guards who committed the abuses were the victims of situational factors (no accountability/lack of training) that made abuse more likely. Misuse of power associated with the role of guard led to the
abuse of prisoners in both situations.

Question 24

What was the study for obedience?

Answer 24

Milgram Shock Study

Question 25

What was the aim of the Milgram shock study?

Answer 25

How far will people go to obey an authority figure.

Question 26

What was the procedure of the Milgram shock study?

Answer 26

• Ppt’s (1 ppt in each trial) = 40 white American males that volunteered (from advert in the local
  paper).
• Ppt met ‘Mr Wallace’ (a confederate) in the waiting room of Yale university.
• Ppt & Mr Wallace draw straws to assign the role of teacher or learner - this is fixed! The teacher is
  ALWAYS the teacher (happened by chance).
• Mr Wallace is taken to a room & the ppt (teacher) watches him be hooked up to an electric shock
  machine, Mr Wallace complains of a weak heart - he’s vulnerable (ppt then gets a 45v shock from
  this machine - the only real shock given). (Give a pain measure and so ppt knows the machine is
  real).
• Ppt is then taken to another room, where an experimenter, Mr Williams is in a white lab coat
• Ppt is sat in front of a shock switch machine with switches starting from 15v-450v, each switch
  increased by 15v each time. Mr Williams (confederate) the experimenter is in the room (wears a
  white lab coat - signifies on else subject/authority)
• Teacher reads word pairs out to learner, learner responds, if word pairs are incorrect the teacher
  has to give an electric shock to Mr Wallace which increases 15v each time.
• The learner, Mr Wallace, does protest/scream/moans - this is a recording so is standardised (every
  ppt gets this, same into in same order = control)
• If the ppt (teacher) refused to continue/questioned the experimenter, Mr Williams had to use
  probes : “you must go on”, “the experiment requires you to continue”, “please continue”
• Mr Wallace did not answer from 315v (illusion he had died)

Question 27

What were the results and conclusion of the Milgram shock study?

Answer 27

Results - 100% went to 300v, 65% went to 450v (all ppts debriefed & met Mr Wallace after, 1 year later in a follow up 84% said they were happy they took part).
Conclusion - People will obey a legitimate authority figure.

Question 28

A03 : Strengths of Obedience (Milgram)

Answer 28

+ Bearoris : French TV show. Ppts paid to give FAKE electric shocks when ordered to by the TV
presenter. Ppts did show anxiety like in Milgram’s Study (backs up milgram).
+ Hofling : nurse told over the phone to give a high dosage of an unknown drug to patients by an
‘on call doctor’ (21/22 obeyed = backs up milgram.

Question 29

A03: Weaknesses of Obedience (Milgram)

Answer 29

Rank & Jacobson : nurses told to give high dosage of Valium to patients from a known doctor (only 2/18 obeyed so goes against milgram)

Question 30

A03: Ethical issues of Obedience (Milgram)

Answer 30

Informed consent : no, ppts told it was on teaching & learning
Deception : Ppt told experiment was on teaching & learning
Mr Wallace was a confederate and so was Mr Williams
Screams/answers were a recording
Straws were fixed
Shocks were fake
Right to Withdraw : Yes/felt they couldn’t due to probes
Protection from Harm : Ppts had a full blown seizure. All showed signs of stress/anxiety.

Question 31

A03: Methodological issues of Obedience (Milgram)

Answer 31

Who were the ppts? White American males (gender bias, cultural bias)
How were they obtained? Volunteers (increase motivated / specific type of person)
Individualistic or Collectivist? Only explains individualistic culture (obedience rate)
What was the method used? Lab experiment (shows cause & effect, standardised procedure)

Question 32

What are the different situational factors of Milgram’s obedience?

Answer 32

Location
Proximity
Uniform

Question 33

Obedience : Location as a situational factor

Answer 33

Location
Original : Yale University Obedience = 65% when to 450v
Variation : Run-down, inner city, office blocks = obedience decreased to 47.5%
Why (A03) : The location is no longer legitimate, loses pressure and prestigious

Question 34

Obedience : Proximity as a situational factor

Answer 34

Proximity
Original : Teacher & experimenter in the same room, learned in a different room
Variation :
1.Teacher (ppt) and learner in the same room = obedience decreases to 40%
Why (A03) : Ppt can now see the pain they are inflicting, they go into the autonomous state (take responsibility for their actions)
2. Teacher (ppt) puts learners hand on a shock plate = obedience decreases to 30%
Why (A03) : Ppt is in autonomous state and is personally administering the pain, they feel responsible and can see the consequences
3. Experimenter gives orders over the phone = obedience decreases to 20.5%
Why (A03) : The pressure from the authority figure is no longer present, easier to defy an order

Question 35

Obedience : Uniform as a situational factor

Answer 35

Uniform
Original : Experimenter wears grey/white lab coat
Variation : Experimenter is ‘called’ away in an emergency, he is replaced by a man/experimenter wearing everyday clothes = obedience decreases to 20%
Why (A03) : No longer legitimate or recognised as an authority figure (they’re equal)

Question 36

A03 : Strengths of situational factors (obedience)

Answer 36

Bickman : A confederate dressed in a security guard uniform, suit or milkman uniform asked people on the streets of New York to pick rubbish up and bin it. Ppts were twice more likely to obey the security guard compared to the man in a suit. (Security guard has legitimate power) (very few obeyed the milkman, it is a uniform, but does not hold legitimate power)

Question 37

A03 : Weaknesses of situational factors (obedience)

Answer 37

Orne & Holland : The experiment and situational variables may have caused demand characteristics, depending on how good the confederates acted (in proximity variation) AND questions were raised on how necessary it was for the experiment to be called away and replaced by a man in everyday clothes (we don’t know if ppts were obeying or play acting)

Mandel : Situational variations oversimplify the happenings during WW2 and are offensive as it does just justify that officers were just following orders as they said (taking no responsibility)

Question 38

What does agentic shift mean in relation to situational explanations for obedience

Answer 38

Goes from autonomous state to agentic state due to perceived authority

Question 39

What are the 2 situational explanations for obedience?

Answer 39

1. Agentic state
2. Legitimacy of Authority - In a given society

Question 40

A01 : Explain the agentic state as a situational explanation of obedience

Answer 40

Destructive behaviour happens when we act as agent for an authority figure. Personal responsibility is passed to the authority figure. There must be binding factors. The request us made by legitimate authority figure in a legislate setting, this allows the person to recede their moral strain (pass blame on to victim) like in WW2 concentration camps.
The opposite sate is autonomous state which is where you take full responsibility

Question 41

A03 : Strengths of agentic state as a situational explanation of obedience

Answer 41

Backs up Hofling ‘on call doctor’ was a legitimate authority figure

Backs up Milgram, Mr Williams was the clear authority figure, the request was legitimate and the setting was legitimate (ppts were in the agentic state)

Blass & Schmitt : Showed students clips of Milgram’s experiment and asked who was responsible. (Students said Mr Williams - backs up ppts were in agentic state)

Question 42

A03 : Weaknesses of agentic state as a situational explanation of obedience

Answer 42

Doesn’t explain Rank & Jacobsons findings, the result was legitimate, by a legitimate authority figure in a legitimate setting (suggests innate tendencies must play a part)

Doesn’t explain the gradual & irreversible transition doctors in concentration camps made. (They were once high standing citizens but in the camps committed some of the most horrific crimes against humanity (experiments)

Question 43

A01 : Explain legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation of obedience

Answer 43

Society is structured by a hierarchy - we learn in childhood who has authority.
Legitimacy is agreed through social agreement, we give up some independence to these people to ensure society runs efficiently. These people are usually indentifiable by uniform. Have the power to punish. We learn this in childhood and it is reinforced throughout childhood (at school).

Question 44

A03 : Strengths of legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation of obedience

Answer 44

Kilham repeated Milgram experiment in : Australia (16% went to 450v), Germany (85% went to 450v). In certain cultures it is embedded that legitimate authority figures can demand authority.

Question 45

A03 : Weaknesses of legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation of obedience

Answer 45

Doesn’t explain why some people defy an order (this explanation cannot explain Rank and Jacobson results (doctor legitimate), there must have been innate tendencies)

Question 46

A03 : RWA of legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation of obedience

Answer 46

My Lai 500 unarmed civilians were gunned down, women raped, building blow up and village burned down. Soldiers facing charges said ‘I was following orders’ - backs up legitimate of authority in the real world.

Question 47

Authoritarian Personality

Answer 47

Personality is 60-70% innate
The authoritarian personality forms from Diathesis (a genetic predisposition)
stress (an environmental trigger) -> this is strict parenting in childhood

Question 48

People with the authoritarian personality are?

Answer 48

They have a blind obedience to authority
They are submissive to authority
Hostile to those deemed inferior
Saw the world as black and white (right or wrong, no grey areas)
Rigid thinkers
This is caused by strict parenting -> they are very strict, enforce high expectations, highly critical & only give conditional love (e.g. only love you if you get an A). These expectations are caused by hostility in the child, they cannot express their feelings therefore displace it onto those seen as interior.

Question 49

What is the authoritarian personality measured on?

Answer 49

The F-Scale (Facism - For right political views)

Question 50

Adorno’s Theory (what did he do & what did he find out)

Answer 50

Looked at the attitudes of 2000 white middle class Americans
Ppts completed the F-Scale, they rated themselves strongly agree -> strongly disagree on statements like “obedience and respect for authority are important virtues for children to learn”.
Findings : Authoritarians identified with strong people & disapproved of the weak. They had distinctive prejudices about other groups of people.
Could this explain WW2 : All the officers at the camps had the authoritarian personalities?

Question 51

A03 : strengths of the authoritarian personality (Adorno)

Answer 51

Elms & Milgram : interviewed 20 obedient (went to 450) & 20 disobedient (only went to 300v) ppts from the ordinal study & asked them to compare the F-Scale.

Obedient ppts scored higher on the F-Scale. This can explain Milgram’s findings, those with an authoritarian personality went to 450v.
HOWEVER during the interviews ppts spoke fondly of parents, they were not strict and dad did not physically punish. Therefore the explanation is weak as the authoritarian personality is said to be caused by strict parenting.

Question 52

A03 : weaknesses of the authoritarian personality (Adorno)

Answer 52

The F-Scale is a self-report method, people can lie about their answers to be socially desirable. Therefore lacks validity explaining personality type.

Adorno only found a correlation between harsh parenting and authoritarian personality. Therefore cannot infer cause and effect, it just shows there is a relationship. Doesn’t show causation and is overall a weak explanation, situational variables hold stronger variables.

Millions of Germans showed obedience of anti semitic beliefs - but all cannot have the authoritarian personality. Social identity theory would be a better explanation (belonging to a group & sharing same values, morals and belief.

Question 53

What are the 2 resistance to social influence

Answer 53

Social support
Locus of control

Question 54

Resistance to social influence: social support

Answer 54

An ally that breaks the pressure, allowing you to go against the majority/ defy an order.
Conformity : In the Asch variation “lack of group agreement,” when 1 confederate gave the other incorrect answer conformity dropped to 5%. Social support allows pressure to be broken and confidence to give own answer.
Obedience : In a ‘dissenter’ variation, another ‘teacher’ is in the room with the ppt, he refuses to continue, obedience drops to 10%. Social support allows the ppt to act on their own conscious. The social support models possible behaviour.

Question 55

A03 : Resistance to social influence: social support

Answer 55

+ Albrecht : To stop pregnant girls smoking they were paired with an older, non-smoking buddy. They were less likely to smoke than a control group (no buddy) = social support has a powerful place in society to change behaviour.
+ Gamson : Ppt’s were placed in groups rebelled = social support leads to greater resistance.
+ Allen & Levine : In an Asch like study, when one confederate went against the majority but wore thick jokey glasses & complained he couldn’t see, conformity still dropped. The person breaking the pressure does not need to be legit, the pressure just needs to be broken by some support

Question 56

Resistance to social influence : locus of control

Answer 56

A sense of what directs our lives:
Internal locus of control:
Independent
Goal orientated
Take responsibility
Higher intelligence
(Able to resist social influence)

External locus of control:
Dependent
Fatalistic
Things just happen
Rely on social approval
(Do not resist social influence)

Question 57

A03 : Resistance to social influence : locus of control

Answer 57

+ Holland : Repeated Milgram’s study and got ppt’s to complete a questionnaire to determine their LoC. (37% of internals did not go to 450v, 23% of externals did not go to 450v, internals more likely to defy orders)
- Twenge : An analysis over the last 40 years has found that people have became more independent but more external (suggests the LoC explanation is not valid as this should not happen)
- Rotter : Stated that LoC is only applicable in new situations (therefore an incomplete explanation as it cannot explain defiance in known situations)

Question 58

What is the minority influence?

Answer 58

Minority influence leads to internalisation (accept view publically & private)
There are 3 elements to allow/help the minority became the majority

Question 59

What are the 3 elements that help the minority became majority?

Answer 59

Consistency
Commitment
Flexibility

This leads to the snowball effect. Over time people become converted, this is a
Gradual process - a few people join, then a few more, and more to a tipping point in which the minority become the majority.

Question 60

Minority Influence : Explain consistency

Answer 60

Always keep the message the same (appear confident & unbiased)
Synchronic Consistency (saying the same thing)
Diachronic Consistency (saying the same thing over a period of time)

Question 61

Minority Influence : Explain commitment

Answer 61

If you engage in risk taking behaviour you are likely to grab public attention. Even more so if the behaviour is risky/inconveniences you, this shows you are fully committed to the cause (augmentation principle)

Question 62

Minority influence : flexibility

Answer 62

You are more persuasive if you show willingness to listen to others views. Show flexibility and people are more likely to come on board with the new view

Question 63

A03 : Strengths of Minority influence

Answer 63

+Moscovici -> 4 ppts, 2 confederates were shown 36 slides of different shades of blue. In condition …
1. Confederates consistently said the slides were green, ppts conformed 8.42% of time.
2. Confederates inconsistently said the slides were blue or green. Ppts conformed 1.25% of the time.

+Nemeth: Ppts put into groups of 4, they had to agree on the amount of compensation to give a ski lift victim (accident). 1 ppt was a confederate in each group.
1. Inflexible condition (confederate would not change his amount = no effect on majority)
2. Flexible condition (confederate compromised and offered a slightly higher fee= majority more likely to compromise)

Flexibility is an important element

Question 64

A03 : Weaknesses of Minority influence

Answer 64

-Studies like Moscovici are artificial judging line colour is unrealistic to everyday minority influence situations. Therefore they lack mundane realism and caution should be taken when applying them to real minority influence situations.

-Most studies do not capture the commitment element that minority influence causes, therefore again lack mundane realism (ie. fathers 4 justice climbing Houses of Parliament)

-Studies lack mundane realism (again) as majorities in real life have power and status not just numbers.

Question 65

Explain social change (minority influence)

Answer 65

Social change causes internalisation to happen, this is public & private acceptance. People go through a conversion process. This happens on a larger scale / worldwide compared to the minority influence.

Question 66

Explain the 6 stages of social change

Answer 66

1. Draw attention (raise awareness to the new view)
2. Cognitive conflict (a thinking conflict between the new view and your current view happens. If the new view seems credible it will lead to deeper thinking)
3. Consistency (always keep the message the same - appear confident and unbiased = more influential)
4. Augmentation (commitment) (if you engage in risk taking behaviour or things that inconveniences you, you grab the attention of the public)
5. Snowball effect (over time people gradually become converted. Slowly people joined the cause, then a few more & more to a TIPPING POINT when the minority became the majority.
6. Social cryptomnesia (over time people have no memories of the change of view, we forget there was an old view)

Question 67

A03 : Explain the 6 stages of social change in relation to the suffragettes

Answer 67

1. Drawing attention to the issue: The suffragettes used different tactics to draw attention to the fact women were denied voting rights
2. Cognitive conflict: Between the current situation and the position encouraged by the Suffragettes
3. Consistency of position: The Suffragettes were consistent in their views, regardless of the attitudes of those around them. They used educational, political and other tactics with the same message.
4. The augmentation principle: The Suffragettes risked imprisonment, their argument was augmented
5. The snowball effect: Universal Suffrage was finally accepted by the majority of people in the UK.
6. Social cryptomnesia: People today don’t know any different, because they only know a time when women has rights and were equal.

Question 68

A03 : Strengths of social change

Answer 68

SAME AS MINORITY INFLUENCE + Nolan
Moscivici: 4 ppts, 2 confederates were shown 36 slides of different shades of blue. In condition …
Confederates consistently said the slides were green, ppts conformed 8.42% of time.
Confederates inconsistently said the slides were blue or green. Ppts conformed 1.25% of the time.

Nolan: Put messages on homes on the street. “Most residents are trying to reduce their energy consumption”.
This led to more people reducing. Normative social influence is also an important element of social change.

Nemeth: Ppts put into groups of 4, they had to agree on the amount of compensation to give a ski lift victim (accident). 1 ppt was a confederate in each group.
Inflexible condition (confederate would not change his amount = no effect on majority)
Flexible condition (confederate compromised and offered a slightly higher fee = majority more likely to compromise)

Question 69

A03 : Weaknesses of social change

Answer 69

Studies like Moscovici are artificial judging line colour is unrealistic to everyday minority influence situations. Therefore they lack mundane realism and caution should be taken when applying them to real minority influence situations.

Most studies do not capture the commitment element that minority influence causes, therefore again lack mundane realism (ie. fathers 4 justice climbing Houses of Parliament)

Studies lack mundane realism (again) as majorities in real life have power and status not just numbers.

Mackie goes against the view that minority influence leads to deeper processing. Majorities actually lead to deeper thinking as we believe other if they think as we do. If the majority thinks differently this causes pressure to change our view.

The effects of solid change may be (indirect: people lose sight of the central/main issue, I.e. global warming for recycling) & (delayed: the effects won’t be seen in our lifetime)