Paper 1: Topic 1: Social Influence Flashcards

1
Q

Define conformity

A

‘yielding to group pressures’.
‘a change in a person’s behaviour or opinion as a result of a real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Who proposed the 3 types of conformity

A

Kelman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are Kelman 3 types of conformity:
From strongest to weakest

A

Internalisation = Making the beliefs, values,
attitude and behaviour of the group your own. change of view is permanent
Identification = Temporary/short term change
of behaviour and beliefs only in the presence of a group
Compliance) = To follow other people’s ideas/to go along with the group to gain their approval or avoid disapproval. You publically agree but privately disagree. change of view is temporary, usually as a result of normative social influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

2 explanations for social influence

A

Informative social influence
Normative social influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Describe Jenness 1932 experiment on
ISI

A

Aim: examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambigious situation, in response to group discussion
Method: filled a glass bottle with 811 beans
26 students estimated number of beans
They were then divided into groups of 3 and discuss their estimations.
P’s were given chance to give another estimate after to see if they’d change their answer
Results: the range of the whole group decreased by 75%
Conclusion: results suggested individuals change initial estimate due to ISI as they believed group estimates were more likely to be correct.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Strength of ISI

A

P: One strength is that there is empirical evidence to support
ISI.
E: Jenness (1932) asked p’s to make independent judgements about the number of white beans contained in a jar and discuss their estimates in a group. They then made a private estimate. Jenness found this second private estimate moved closer to the group estimate and females typically conformed more.
E: shows that internalisation of group beliefs will take place will occur especially if in an unfamiliar, ambiguous situation.
L: Therefore, providing evidence that people will change their behaviour (conform) in order to feel ‘right’ which increases the validity of ISI.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Define ISI

A

-conforms because they want to be right
-usually the cause of internalisation.
- so copying or obeying others, to have the right answer in an ambiguous situation if they are unsure
Evidence - Fein asked participants to vote for a US presidential candidate after they saw others voting for somebody else. Most of the participants changed their mind because they wanted to be ‘correct’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Define NSI

A

-conforms because they want to be liked and be part of and accepted by the group (fit in to the social norm”) -prevent social rejection and confrontation
- drives compliance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

2 strengths of NSI

A

P: Empirical evidence to support
Eg: Aschs line judgement experiment
-many participants went along with the obviously wrong answer in the critical trials.
-in a later variation that when participants wrote down their answer instead of stating it aloud conformity rates dropped to 12.5%
Ex: post-experimental interviews of the original research participants revealed they had changed their answer to avoid disapproval from the rest of the group. This shows compliance had occurred in order to ‘fit in’.
L: increases validity of theory

P: empirical evidence supporting the explanation that people conform to be liked
E: Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) made an anti-smoking campaign for teenagers in the USA, with a key message that
‘most children in their own age group do not smoke’. Only 10% of non-smokers went on to start smoking, compared to
17% in a town not exposed to the message
Ex: supports the explanation of NSI because teenagers who are exposed to a simple message that most of their peers did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking. In addition, in areas where teens were told most peers did smoke, more teens started smoking.
L: predicted by NSI as it shows that people changed their behaviour to fit with the norm and therefore it increases the validity of the explanation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Define confederates

A

People who are in on an experiment who participate to fill in or control extraneous variables
Eg: Aschs dissenters in unanimity
Milgrams shock experiment - the learner was a confederate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Define cognitive dissonance

A

When someone holds a contradicting actions to beliefs.
This could be due to the want to conform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Describe Linkenback and Perkins 2003 anti-smoking campaign for teenagers as an example for NSI

A

for teenagers in USA
Only 10% of non-smokers went on to start smoking, compared to 17% in a town not exposed to the message (control group)
Empirical evidence to support NSI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Describe Asch’s (1951) original research examining conformity

A

Aim: examine extent to which social pressure to conform from unanimous majority effects
Method:
Sample: 123 male undergraduate students from USA
We’re told they were taking part in a vision test
Line judgement task where one real(naïve) participant in a room with 6-8 confederates
Real p was always seated second to last
18 trials
And confederate gave same incorrect answer on the 12 critical trials

Results: average rate of conformity was 32%
74% conformed at least once

Conclusion:
Asch did post experimental interviews asking p’s why they conformed, complied due to NSI
Pubically agreed but privately disagreed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Factors that affect conformity/Ash’s variations

A

Group size
Task difficulty
Unanimity - extent that members of a majority agree with each other

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Explain results of Aschs group size variation

A

Group size:
How size of majority affects rate of conformity
Range from 1 to 15 confederates
With 1: 3% conformity rate of p
With 2: 12.8% conformity rate
With 3: 32% conformity rate
All on critical trials
Suggests conformity reaches its highest level at 3 confederates and a majority pressure is created
with 15 confederates: rate dropped to 29% because p’s came suspicious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Explain results of Aschs unanimity variation

A

1 confederate (the dissenter) was asked to give the correct answer throughout trials
Rate of conformity dropped to 5%
Because the p has support for their belied they’re more likely to resist the pressure to conform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Explain results for Aschs task difficulty variations

A

In the original experiment the correct answer was obvious.
He made the lines look more similar in length making the task more ambiguous
Rate of conformity increased
Likely to done due to ISI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evaluate Aschs experiment GET A STRENGTH

A

P - Lacks temporal validity
E - Perrin and spencer - replicated Asch’s study using science and engineering students in the UK and only one student conformed in a total of 396 trials - different to the 74% of participants that conformed at least once Asch
As 1950s in USA it was an era of McCarthyism (a paranoid hunt for communist infiltrators). Most people at this time were so scared they became social conformists and this may have increased the conformity levels in Asch’s study.

P- Low populational validity
eg: NETO - women conform more than men - Asch sample was only males so didn’t take gender or culture into account - the participants in Asch were all from USA, an individualist culture.
Eg: Bond and Smith (1996) analysed results of 133 studies replicating Asch’s line-judging task. They found a significant relationship demonstrating conformity is greater in more collectivistic countries.
Aschs study presents an androcentric and culture bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Define conformity to social roles

A

When an individual adopts a particular behaviour and belief, while in a particular social situation.
Represents identification- they change their behaviour only in the presence of the group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was Zimbardo study called and when was it

A

Stanford prision experiment
1973

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Describe Zimbardo study on conformity to social roles

A

Aim: examine if people would conform to social roles of prisiomers guard or prisiomers when placed in a mock prison environment.
Wanted to see if behaviour displayed in prisiomers was due to dispositional or situational factors
Method:
Sample: 21 male university student volunteers from a newspaper advert
Selected from 75 volenteers on the basis of their physical and mental stability
Paid $15 a day each
Randomly allocated into role of prisoner or guard
Basement of Stanford university - mock prision
‘Prisoners’ were arrested by real police in the middle of the night, finger printed, stripped and given an identification number - dehumanisation
Results: both prisoners and guard identified quickly to their roles, prisoners rebelled within days as guards grew increasingly abusive Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early, because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, for example, crying and extreme anxiety.
experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six day
Conclusion: Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles
situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Define situational and dispositional factors

A

Dispositional - internal factors due to the people themselves personality and individual characteristics
Situational - external factors due to the environment that influence an experiment out of the researchers control.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Evaluate Zimbardos Stanford prisiomers experiment GET STRENGTH

A

Limit:
P: criticised for its powerful demand characteristics and low internal validity.
Eg: Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argue that p’s were play acting based on stereotypes rather than actually conforming to a role they showed the SPE to students and the majority correctly guessed the aim of the study.
Ex: may have been demand characteristics that affected the way the prisoners acted rather than the role they were assigned, challenging the internal validity of the results.
Link: Zimbardo counter argues this claim by suggesting 90% of the prisoner’s conversations were about prison life.
Overall, the validity of the experiment can certainly be challenged.

results have never been replicated again and researchers have challenged the findings.
Eg: Reicher and Haslam (2006) conducted a partial replication of the study in the broadcast of The BBC Prison Study.
Contrastingly, this time it was the prisoners that took control in the mock prison and subjected the guards to harassment.
Ex: researchers used Social Identity Theory (SIT) to explain the behaviour, which argues that our self-identity is based on membership within social groups. They suggested that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity, unlike the prisoners and it was this identity that encouraged them to refuse to accept the limits of their role as prisoner.
L: contradictory finding challenges Zimbardo’s conclusion of the Stanford Prison Experiment as the findings of The BBC
Prison Study cannot be explained with conformity to social roles in a given situation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Define obedience

A

form of social influence that is in direct response to an order from another person usually of higher authority or social status

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Describe Milgrams research investigating obedience to authority

A

Aim: investigate whether ordinary people would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain and inure an innocent person.

Method:
-Sample: 40 male American volunteers recruited through a newspaper advert. -Paid $4.50 to take part.
-lab experiment at prestigious Yale University
-experimenter and another ppt (who were both confederates) ‘drew lots’ to see who would be assigned to each role within the study but this was fixed so that the real ppt was always assigned to the role of ‘teacher’ and was instructed by the experimenter to administer an electric shocks to the ‘learner’, ‘Mr Wallace’, every time he made a mistake when recalling a list of word pairs
-each time the learner got a word pair wrong, the teacher had to administer an electric shock of increasingly voltage, starting at 15 volts to max 450 volts.
-At 300 volts the learner would bang on the wall and complain.
-After the 315-volt shock was administered there were no further responses heard from the learner.
-If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of verbal prods, for example:
The experiment requires that you continue.’

Results:
Quantitive data:
all of the ppts went to at least 300 volts
65% administered the full 450 volts.

Qualitative data: p’s showed signs of distress and tension eg: sweating, stuttering and trembling.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

When was Milgrams obedience infamous shock experiment

A

1963

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What are the 3 situational factors/variables of obedience in Milgrams experiment

A

Proximity : how close you are to someone/something

Location

Uniform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Describe proximity as a situational factor of Milgrams experiment

A

variation:
teacher and learner were seated in the same room. the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%. obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to understand the learner’s pain more directly.

Milgram also found that when the experimenter left the room and gave the instructions over the telephone, obedience levels fell to 20.5%

29
Q

Describe location as a situational factor of Milgrams experiment

A

original research in a laboratory of Yale University.
variation in a rundown building in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%,
importance of location in creating a prestigious atmosphere generating respect and obedience

30
Q

Describe uniform as a situational factor of Milgrams experiment

A

experimenter wore a white lab coat, indicating his status as a university professor or scientist
variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘participant’ in normal everyday clothes pretending to be an ordinary member of the public, who was in fact another confederate
percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 20%

31
Q

A strength and 2 limitatioms of Milgrams experiment

A

Supporting evidence:
Strength:
uniform is a situational factor affecting levels of obedience is that is it supported by empirical evidence.
Eg: Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in New York
City where confederates stood on the street and asked passers-by to perform a small task such as picking up a piece of litter, security guard’s uniform, members of the public were twice as likely to obey the order.
Link: uniform adds to the legitimacy of the authority figure and is a situational variable which increases obedience levels as suggested by Milgram’s research and the grey lab coat.

Limitation:
P: methodological issues with experimental realism of the shock machine
Eg: Orne and Holland (1968) - lack of belief over the electric shocks would have led to demand characteristics, challenging the internal validity of results.
Sheridan and King (1972) - P’s were asked to administer real shocks to a puppy. 54% of males and 100% of females administered what they thought were fatal shocks, with the puppy getting an anaesthetic to put it to sleep and the p’s believing they’d killed it.
Ex: participants in Milgram were not just reacting to demand characteristics because the results were replicated with real shocks.
Link: validity of the results of Milgram can be questioned

Limitation + strength:
Low Ecological validity
P: carried out in a lab setting and therefore the participants may not have been acting naturally
Eg: Hofling (1966) - a field experiment, 21/22 nurses obeyed an unknown doctor’s telephone instruction to administer drugs over the prescribed limit to a patient. concluded that the power and authority of doctors was a greater influence on the nurse’s behaviour than basic hospital rules.
findings from this research had higher levels of ecological validity than Milgram’s as it was carried in a real hospital setting, but it still yielded the same results. This suggests that the results of Milgram’s study has high ecoglocial validity can be generalised to other situations.

32
Q

5 explanations for obedience

A

Proximity
Location
Uniform
Legitimacy of authority
Agentic state

33
Q

2 Social-Psychological Factors in obedience

A

Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority

34
Q

Define agentic state as a Social-Psychological Factor/ explanation of obedience

A

suggests that we are socialised from a very young age to follow the rules of society.

Autonomous state: acting independently and taking responsibility for your own actions

Agentic state:
individual carries out the orders of an authority figure and acts as their ‘agent’, with little personal responsibility and reduced moral strain for their actions.

Agentic shift: when someone overcomes moral strain so goes from autonomous to agentic state

35
Q

Link the agentic state and binding factors as an explanation for milgrams experiment results

A

65% of ppts administered the full 450 volts - were arguably in an agentic state.
variation of Migram: an additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of teacher, percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts rose from 65% to 92.5%, which highlights the power of shifting responsibility (agentic shift) to another person by having them act as the agent.

Binding factors:
he observed that many participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so
Milgram said this was due to them staying in an agentic state through binding factors
Binding factors are when aspects of the situation mean the individual is able to take away their own ‘moral strain’ and ignore their damaging behaviour

36
Q

Define obedience

A

comply with the demands of someone you see as an authority figure

37
Q

2 strengths and a limitation of legitimacy of authority and agentic state as theories of explaining obedience

A

Strength of agentic state:
P: empirical evidence suggests that the responsibility in Milgram’s study did shift to the experimenter.
Eg: Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed students Milgram’s study and asked who was responsible in this situation. students thought that the experimenter was responsible.
Ex: students perceived the blame to be with the authority figure, despite the teacher carrying out the shocks. As they had legitimate authority (top of the hierarchy)
Link: increases validity

Limitation of agentic state:
P: cannot explain all situations of obedience - is an incomplete explanation.
Eg: Milgram 35% of participants did’nt follow the instructions to ‘shock’ the learner up to the ‘lethal’ 450v. suggests that other factors must account for the levels of obedience else there would have been 100% obedience.
It does not fully explain the lack of moral strain seen by the nurses in Hofling. As nurses didn’t show anxiety.
Link: agentic state theory can only be used to explain some situations of obedience and must be generalised with
caution.

Strength of legitimacy of authority:
P: has good real life application and can help explain how blind obedience can lead to war crimes.
Eg: Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue My Lai massacre
(1968) where a group of US soldiers killed the 800 inhabitants of a Vietnamese village claiming they were simply obeying the orders of Lieutenant William Calley - power hierarchy of the US Army.
Ex: demonstrates how when people feel they are following orders from an individual with higher perceived authority, such as in hierarchy rankings of the US Army Link: useful in explaining atrocities of human behaviour

38
Q

What’s the dispositional explanation for obedience

A

Authoritarian personality

39
Q

Explain the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience

A

Adorno et al. (1950) believed foundations for an authoritarian personality were laid in early childhood due to harsh and strict parenting
made the child feel that the love of their parents was conditional and dependent upon how they behaved.
It is argued that this creates resentment within the child as they grow up and, since they cannot express it at the time, the feelings are displaced onto others that are seen as ‘weak’ or ‘inferior’, as a form of scapegoating

40
Q

Describe Adornos experiment on authoritarian personality

A

Sample: 2,000 middle-class, Caucasian Americans to find out their unconscious views towards other racial groups.
Method: Adorno developed a number of questionnaires including one called the F-scale, which measures fascist tendencies, as fascism (an extreme right-wing ideology) is thought to be at the core of the authoritarian personality.
Findings: Individuals who scored highly on the F-scale self-reported identifying with ‘strong’ people and showed disrespect towards the ‘weak’. those high on the F-scale were status-conscious regarding themselves and others, showing excessive respect to those in higher power.
Conclusion: individuals with an authoritarian personality were more obedient to authority figures and showed an extreme submissiveness and respect

Some examples from the F-Scale are:
Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn
Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished

There were strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

41
Q

Evaluation of Authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience

A

Strength:
P: research to support
Eg: Milgram and Elms post-experimental interviews with p’s in Milgrams shock experiment. To see if there’s.a link between high levels of obedience and authoritarian personality. Found that higher F-scale score the more obedient the p. And they were less close to their fathers.
During childhood and admired the experimenter in the study.
Ex: the obedient p’s in Milgrams study showed more charectaristics of the authoritarian personality
Link: increases validity of theory

LImit:
P: individual differences
E: Middendorp and Meleon found less educated people are more likely than well educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics.
Ex: so it’s possible to conclude that it’s not authoritarian personality characteristics alone that lead to obedience but also levels of education.
Link: decreases validity of theory

Limit:
P: political bias of Adornos F-scale.
Eg: Christie and Jahoda suggested F-scale only measures extreme right-wing ideologies and ignores the role that authoritarianism has played historically in left-wing politics like Chinese Maoism and Russian Bolshevism.
Ex: this displays bias as the F-scale can’t account for obedience to authority across the diverse political range

42
Q

Define resistance to social influence

A

Our willingness to resist pressure to conform or obey, including social support and locus of control

43
Q

What’s the 2 explanations for resistance to social influence

A

Social support
Locus of control (LoC)

44
Q

Explain social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence

A

People resist conformity if they have an ally who builds there confidence and allows individuals to remain independent and avoid NSI
Example: Aschs unanimity variation including the use of dissenters

45
Q

Evaluating social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence

A

Strength:
P: research support for social support in reducing pressure to conform
Eg: Asch’s (1951) variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%.
Ex: This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
Link: social support lowers the pressure of the group making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour.

Strength:
P: research support for social support in reducing pressure to obey
Eg: Milgram’s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, the percentage of real participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%.
Ex: This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure.

46
Q

Explain locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence

A

extent to which we believe we have control over our own behaviour and life
External Locus of Control: When a person feels they do not have control over their own lives and believe their life is controlled by external factors
Internal Locus of Control: When a person feels they have control over their own life and behaviour
People with a high internal locus of control are believed to be able to resist the pressure to conform and obey
They tend to be more self-confident, intelligent and achievement-orientated, which provides them with personality traits that give them greater resistance to social control

47
Q

Evaluating locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence

A

Strength:
P: research that supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform
Eg: Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with
conformity. From 157 students, Spector found individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in situations of NSI, where individuals conform to be accepted.
Ex: There was no difference between the two groups for ISI.
Link: suggests that NSI, the desire to fit in, is more powerful than ISI, the desire to be right, when considering locus of control.

Strength:
P: Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey
Eg: Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-lewish survivors of
WWII and compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazis with those who had not. found that the 406 ‘rescuers’, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high internal locus of control, in comparison with the 126 people who had simply followed orders
Ex: results support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to follow orders, although there are many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders in WWIl and it is difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor.

Limit:
P: contradictory evidence, since not all research supports the link between locus of control and resistance to social influence
Eg: Twenge’s meta-analysis of studies spanning over four decades and found that, over time, people have become more external in their locus of control but also more resistant to obedience, which is incongruent to Rotter’s original suggestions.
Link:This challenges the established link between internal locus of control and higher resistance

48
Q

Define minority influence

A

social influence can occur when a minority (small group)
changes the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of a majority

likely to lead to internalisation i.e. both public and private behaviour and beliefs align

49
Q

Factors that enhance the effectiveness of a minority (minority influence)

A

Consistency
Commitment
Flexibility

50
Q

Define consistency as a factor of minority influence and explain the experiment of it

A

minority has to be consistent in their views to show the majority that you are firm, resolute and strong in the face of possible criticism or outright hostility

Synchronic consistency: The minority presents a united front and share the same view/message
Diachronic consistency: The minority have been arguing for their view/message for some time

51
Q

Moscovici research into consistency affecting minority influence

A

Aim: see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour perception task.
Method: 172 female participants
were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task.
group of six and shown 36 slides varying in shades of blue
participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide
2 conditions:
1st: consistent condition, the 2 confederates said all slides were green
2nd: inconsistent condition, confederates said 24 were green, 12 were blue

Findings:
in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials
in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials.
Conclusion: results show that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor

52
Q

Define commitment as a factor of minority influence

A

minority has to show full commitment to their message and not be put off by naysayers and critics

Strong commitment - even when the minority are are openly mocked or vilified - may lead the majority to think that the minority clearly believe in their campaign i.e. the minority has a point (known as the augmentation principle)

Eg: martyrdom of Emily Davison, a suffragette who flung herself in front of the king’s horse at the Epsom Derby to raise awareness of women’s right to vote

53
Q

Define flexibility as a factor of minority influence

A

minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority is willing to compromise. This means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable.

54
Q

Describe Nemeths research into flexibility affecting minority influence

A

Aim: Nemeth believed consistency was not the most important factor in minority influence, suggesting that it can often be misinterpreted as a negative trait.
She set about investigating the idea of flexibility as a key characteristic of successful minorities who exert pressure.
Method: p’s in groups of 4 had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident.

two conditions:
1) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change their position (inflexible).
2) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible).

Results: in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority
in the flexible condition, the majority members were much more likely to also compromise and change their view.
Conclusion: suggesting that striking a balance between flexability and consistency is the most successful strategy for a minority to adopt.

55
Q

Evaluate minority influence

A

Strength:
Provides support for ISI.
Variation: pts privately wrote down answers of colour of slide rather than saying it out loud.
Found that agreement w/ minority position was higher.
Suggesting internalised view point as true and correct.
Moscovici suggests that the majority was convinced of the minority’s argument but found it easier to confess this privately, as being associated with a minority position may seem ‘radical.

Limitation: methodological issues
Judging colour of slides - artificial task - lacks mundane realism.
Research conditions are too far removed from, cases of real-world minority influence eg: political campaigning.
implications of real-world cases eg: life or death are also grossly disproportionate to those seen in a lab setting
Lacks external validity

Limitation:
Miscovici used a bias sample (172 female ppts from America)
Can’t generalise results to males (gynocentric bias) or people from collectivist countries so may not respond to minority influence the same way.
NETO - females are more likely than males to conform further research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants to improve the low population validity of this experiment.

56
Q

What does minority groups also play an important role in facilitating

A

Social change as it influences an entire society to changes its attitudes, behaviours and beliefs
As well as a consistent, committed and flexible minority in influencing an individual

57
Q

Define social change

A

the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations

58
Q

Examples of social change in everyday life where consistent individuals have challenge the norms of society

A

-Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela:
Led civil rights movements and were CONSISTENT against views of apartheid
• Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white male.
Arrested for violating US law. Triggered civil rights movements to end racial segregation laws in the USA.
Showed COMMITMENT
• suffergetes showed CONSISTENCY in their views of female rights. Protested and lobbied until convincing society to give women the right to vote. Hunger strikes
Emily Davison- sacrifice

59
Q

6 processes of social change

A

Drawing attention
Consistent
Flexibility
Deeper processing
Augmentation principle
Snow ball effect
Social crypto amnesia
Gradual commitment

60
Q

Define drawing attention of social change

A

the majority must first of all be made aware of the need for the change.

61
Q

Define consistency of social change

A

a consistent message appears more credible and can help to convince a majority.

62
Q

Define deeper processing as a process of social change

A

the more people think about the issue at hand, rather than blindly accepting it, the more they will be able to challenge the existing social norms to bring about change.

63
Q

Describe the augmentation principle of a process of social change

A

when the majority pays attention to selfless and risky actions being taken by the minority group and is more likely to integrate the group’s opinion into their own personal viewpoints due to the personal sacrifice made by the minority.

64
Q

Describe the snow ball effect as a process of social change

A

once the minority viewpoint has got the attention of some of the majority group members, more and more people begin paying attention and the minority viewpoint gathers

65
Q

Define social crytpoamneisa as a process of social change

A

majority knows that a social change has occurred but the source of the change and the message itself have become disassociated through the process of social cryptoamnesia and they do not recall how it has happened.

66
Q

Define gradual commitment as a process of social change

A

once a small instruction has been followed, it is harder for larger requests to be declined. This is often referred to as ‘the foot in the door technique’ and means that people effectively find themselves adopting a new way of behaving gradually over a period of time.

67
Q

A strength and 2 limitations of social change

A

Strength:
Research to support role of NSI as a process
Eg: Nolan study which spanned one month in California and involved hanging messages on the front doors of people’s houses in San Diego encouraging them to reduce energy consumption by indicating that most other residents in the neighbourhood were already doing this. As a means of control, some houses received a message about energy usage but with no reference to the behaviour of other people in the area. It was found that the experimental group significantly lowered their energy consumption, showing that conformity can lead to positive social change.

Limitation:
Minority influence and majority influence may involve different levels of cognitive processing. Moscovici believes that a minority viewpoint forces individuals to think more deeply about the issue. However, Mackie (1987) counters this, suggesting the opposite to be true. She suggests that when a majority group is thinking or acting in a way that is different from ourselves we are forced to think even more deeply about their reasons. This, therefore, casts doubt on the validity of Moscovici’s minority influence theory, suggesting it may be incorrect.

Limitation:
Methodological issues may undermine the links drawn between social influence processes and social change. For example, many of the research studies providing an explanation for social change, such as those conducted by Asch, Milgram and Moscovici, can themselves be criticised for issues in their methodology ranging from low generalisability to demand characteristics. This means that there are doubts about the validity of some of the processes involved in social influence and social change due to the research informing the theories.

68
Q

Define legitimate of authority

A

Explaination of obedience where individual obeys someone in a perceived higher position of authority or in the social heirarchy