S1: Social Influence Flashcards
what is conformity?
Conformity is a type of social influence that describes how a person changes their attitude or behaviour in
response to group pressure.
Types of conformity?
COMPLIANCE
IDENTIFICATION
INTERNALISATION
Compliance:
the shallowest level of conformity - Here a person changes their public behaviour, the way they act, but not their private beliefs.
This is usually a short‐term change
often the result of normative social influence (NSI).
For example, you might say that you like dub‐step music because many other people in your class like dub‐step music, however privately you can’t stand it.
Identification:
middle level of conformity - Here a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group.
This is a usually a short‐term change
normally the result of normative social influence (NSI).
For example, a person may decide to become a vegetarian because all of their new flat mates are vegetarian. However, whenever they walk past a McDonald’s they can’t resist a Big Mac and when they are away from their flat mates they still eat meat.
internalisation:
the deepest level of conformity - Here a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs.
This is usually a long‐term change
result of informational social influence (ISI).
For example, if an individual is influenced by a group of Buddhists and converts to this faith, then their new religious way of life will continue without the presence of the group as they have internalised this belief.
Explanations of conformity:
Normative Social Influence
Informational Social Influence
Normative social influence (NSI):
is when a person conforms to be accepted and to feel that they belong to the group.
Here a person conforms because it is socially rewarding, or to avoid social rejection; for example, to avoid feeling that they don’t ‘fit in’.
Normative social influence is usually associated with compliance and identification.
this explanation of social influence leads to a short‐term type of conformity, which is motivated by the desire to fit in with the majority.
Informational social influence (ISI):
is when a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is ‘right’.
Informational social influence is usually associated with internalisation, where a person changes both their public behaviour and their private beliefs, on a long‐term basis.
This semi‐permanent change in behaviour and belief is the result of a person adopting a new belief system, because they genuinely believe that their new beliefs are ‘right’ or that the majority are ‘experts’.
Key Study: Jenness (1932)
AIM:
METHOD:
RESULTS:
CONCLUSION:
Aim:
To examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambiguous (unclear) situation, in response to group discussion.
Method:
He used an ambiguous situation that involved a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His sample consisted of 101 psychology students, who individually estimated how many beans the glass bottle contained. Participants were then divide into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity individually estimate the number of beans, to see if they changed their original answer.
RESULTS:
- Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original answer, when they were provided with another opportunity to estimate the number of beans in the glass bottle.
- On average male participants changed their answer by 256 beans and female participants changed their answers by 382 beans.
CONCLUSION:
These results demonstrate the power of conformity in an ambiguous situation and are likely to be the result of informational social influence. The participants in this experiment changed their answers because they believed the group estimate was more likely to be right, than their own individual estimate.
Asch (1951):
AIM:
METHOD:
CONCLUSION:
EVALUATION:
(3 weakness)
Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation.
METHOD:
Asch’s sample consisted of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed on real naïve participants in a room with seven confederates (actors), who had agreed their answers in advance. The real participant was deceived and was led to believe that the other seven people were also real participants. The real participant always sat second to last.
In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length. Unlike Jenness’ experiment, the correct answer was always obvious. Each participant completed 18 trials and the confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12 trials, called critical trials. Asch wanted to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was clearly incorrect.
RESULTS:
On average, the real participants conformed to the incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials. 74% of the participants conformed on at least one critical trial and 26% of the participants never conformed. Asch also used a control group, in which one real participant completed the same experiment without any confederates. He found that less than 1% of the participants gave an incorrect answer.
Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out why they conformed. Most of the participants said that they knew their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in, or because they thought they would be ridiculed.
CONCLUSION:
This confirms that participants conformed due to normative social influence and the desire to fit in.
EVALUATION:
WEAKNESS:
BIASED SAMPLE:
Asch used a biased sample of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America. Therefore, we cannot generalise the results to other populations, for example female students, and we are unable to conclude if female students would have conformed in a similar way to male students. As a result Asch’s sample lacks population validity and further research is required to determine whether males and females conform differently
LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY:
Furthermore, it could be argued that Asch’s experiment has low levels of ecological validity. Asch’s test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect conformity in everyday life. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results of Asch to other real life situations, such as why people may start smoking or drinking around friends, and therefore these results are limited in their application to everyday life.
UNETHICAL:
Finally, Asch’s research is ethically questionable. He broke several ethical guidelines, including: deception and protection from harm. Asch deliberately deceived his participants, saying that they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Asch’s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If the participants were aware of the true aim they would have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. In addition, Asch’s participants were not protected from psychological harm and many of the participants reporting feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority. However, Asch interviewed all of his participants following the experiment to overcome this issue.
- What were the variations of asch’s study?
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty.
Explain group size, unanimity and task difficulty.
Group Size:
- Asch carried out many variations to determine how the size of the majority, affects the rate of conformity.
- These variations ranged from 1 confederate to 15 confederates
- When there was one confederate, the real participants conformed on just 3% of the critical trials.
- When the group size was two confederates, the real participants conformed on 12.8% of the critical trials. - Interestingly, when there were three confederates, the real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials, the same percentage as Asch’s original experiment, in which there were seven confederates. This demonstrates that conformity reaches it’s highest level with just three confederates.
- Asch continued investigating group size and in one condition he used 15 confederates. In this experiment the rate of conformity slightly dropped, although Asch didn’t report the percentage. It is possible that the rate of conformity dropped because the real participants became suspicious of the experiment and not because the pressure to conform is less, in larger groups.
Unanimity:
- In Asch’s original experiment, the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer.
- In one variation of Asch’s experiment, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout - the rate of conformity dropped to 5%.
- This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief, then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
- Furthermore, in another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the majority - In this variation conformity still dropped significantly, by this time to 9%.
- This shows that if you break the group’s unanimous position, then conformity is reduced, even if the answer provided by the supporter, is still incorrect.
Task Difficulty:
- In Asch’s original experiment, the correct answer was always obvious so In one his variations he made the task more difficult, by making the difference between the line lengths significantly smaller.
- In this variation Asch found the rate of conformity increased, although he didn’t report the percentage. This is likely to be the result of informational social influence, as individuals look to another for guidance when completing the task, similar to the results found in Jenness’ experiment.
What is Conformity to social roles?
- Conformity to social roles is when an individual adopts a particular behaviour and belief, while in a particular social situation.
- For example, whilst at school your teacher adopts the behaviour and beliefs of a ‘teacher’, which may be very different to the behaviour and beliefs they adopt with their friends at the
weekend. - This type of conformity represents identification, where a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs but only while they are in a particular social role.
Zimbardo (1973):
AIM:
METHOD:
RESULTS:
CONCLUSION:
(3 WEAKNESS)
AIM:
- His aim was to examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner, when placed in a mock prison environment.
- Furthermore, he also wanted to examine whether the behaviour displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, the people themselves, or external situational factors, the environment and conditions of the prison.
METHOD:
- sample consisted of 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert.
- The participants were selected on the basis of their physical and mental stability
- paid $15 a day to take part.
- The participants were randomly assigned to one of two social roles, prisoners or guards.
- Zimbardo wanted to make the experience as realistic as possible, turning the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison.
- Furthermore, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed around their ankles.
- The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon.
- The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence.
- The experiment was set to run for two weeks.
RESULTS:
- Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles.
- Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners.
- The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role.
- 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.
- Although the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six days, when fellow postgraduate student Christina Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment were inhumane. [Maslach later became Zimbardo’s wife].
CONCLUSION:
- Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles.
- Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously.
EVALUATION:
WEAKNESS:
A recent replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment, carried out by Reicher and Haslam (2006), contradicts the findings of Zimbardo.
- Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s research by randomly assigning 15 men to the role of prisoner or guard.
- In this replication, the participants did not conform to their social roles automatically.
- For example, the guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the guard’s authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a collapse of the prison system.
- These results clearly contradict the findings of Zimbardo and suggest that conformity to social roles may not automatic, as Zimbardo originally implied.
Furthermore, individual differences and personality also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles. - In Zimbardo’s original experiment the behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour to a few good guards who helped the prisoners.
- This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles and dispositional factors also play a role.
Zimbardo’s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm.
- Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment.
- Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt, as a result of their actions during the Stanford Prison Experiment.
- Although Zimbardo followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he acknowledged that the study should have been stopped earlier.
What is Obedience?
obedience is a form of social influence that is in direct response to an order from another person.
Milgram (1963)
AIM:
METHOD:
RESULTS:
CONCLUSION:
EVALUATION:
AIM:
He wanted to find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to.
METHOD:
- Milgram’s sample consisted of 40 male participants from a range of occupations and backgrounds.
- The participants were all volunteers who had responded to an advert in a local paper, which offered $4.50 to take part in an experiment on ‘punishment and learning’.
- The 40 participants were all invited to a laboratory at Yale University and upon arrival they met with the experimenter and another participant, Mr Wallace, who were both confederates.
- The experimenter explained that one person would be randomly assigned the role of teacher and the other, a learner - However, the real participant was always assigned the role of teacher.
- The experimenter explained that the teacher, the real participant, would read the learner a series of word pairs and then test their recall. The learner, who was positioned in an adjacent room, would indicate his choice using a system of lights. The teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock ever time the learner made a mistake and to increase the voltage after each mistake.
- The teacher watched the learner being strapped to the electric chair and was given a sample electric shock to convince them that the procedure was real.
- The learner wasn’t actually strapped to the chair and gave predetermined answers to the test.
- As the electric shocks increased the learner’s screams, which were recorded, became louder and more dramatic.
- At 180 volts the learner complained of a weak heart.
- At 300 volts he banged on the wall and demanded to leave
- At 315 volts he became silent, to give the illusions that was unconscious, or even dead.
- The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue, or 450 volts was reached.
- If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of prods, for example: ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’ Following the experiment the participants were debriefed.
RESULTS:
- Milgram found that all of the real participants went to at least 300 volts.
- 65% continued until the full 450 volts.
CONCLUSION:
- He concluded that under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey unjust orders.
EVALUATION:
WEANKNESS:
Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for breaking numerous ethical guidelines, including: deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm:
- Milgram deceived his participants as he said the experiment was on ‘punishment and learning’, when in fact he was measuring obedience, and he pretended the learner was receiving electric shocks.
- In addition, it was very difficult for participants with withdraw from the experiment, as the experimenter prompted the participants to continue.
- Remember that the participants in Milgram’s study did have a right to withdraw, as they were told before the study began that they could leave at any time. However, you could mention that due to the nature of the verbal prods
given by the experimenter that they didn’t think that they had the right to withdraw.
- Finally, many of the participants reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while taking part in the experiment and therefore they were not protect from psychological harm.
- This is an issue, as Milgram didn’t respect his participants, some of whom felt very guilt following the experiment, knowing that they could have harmed another person.
- However, it must be noted that it was essential for Milgram to deceive his participants and remove their right to withdraw to test obedience and produce valid results.
- Furthermore, he did debrief his participants following the experiment and 83.7% of participants said that they were happy to have taken part in the experiment and contribute to scientific research.
Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity.
- Milgram tested obedience in a laboratory, which is very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people are often asked to follow more subtle instructions, rather than administering electric shocks.
- As a result we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions in the same way.
Finally, Milgram’s research lacked population validity.
- Milgram used a bias sample of 40 male volunteers, which means we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, in particular females, and cannot conclude if female participants would respond in a similar way.
what is agentic state?
LINK TO MILGRAM
- where an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure, acting as their agent.
- The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is referred to as the ‘agentic shift’.
ONE VARIATION: additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of the teacher.
- In Milgram’s original experiment 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts and were arguably in an agentic state.
- In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from 65% to 92.5%.
- This variation highlights the power of shifting responsibility (agentic shift), as these participants were able to shift their responsibility onto the person administering the electric shocks and continue obeying orders because they felt less responsible.
- Therefore, the ability to enter an agentic state increases the level of obedience, as the level of personal responsibility decreases.
What is a legitimate authority?
legitimate authority:
For a person to obey an instruction they need to believe that the authority is legitimate and this can be affected by multiple variables.
- In Milgram’s original research, which took place at Yale University, the percentage of participants administering the full 450 volts was high (65%).
- However, when the experiment took place in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience levels dropped significantly (48%).
- This change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority, as participants were less likely to trust the experiment.
- In addition, when the experimenter in Milgram’s research was replaced by another participant, in ordinary clothes, the obedience levels dropped even further (20%).
- The lack of a uniform and questionable position of authority reduced the credibility of the authority, which meant the participants were far less likely to obey.
what are the situational explanations for obedience?
Situational explanations for obedience focus on external factors that affect the likelihood that someone will obey orders.
Examples of situational factors:
- proximity
- location
- uniform.
SITUATIONAL FACTORS:
PROXIMITY?
- In Milgram’s original research the teacher and the learner were in separate rooms.
- In order to test the power of proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner where seated in the same room.
- In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%.
- Here obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to experience the learner’s pain more directly.
- In another variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand directly onto the shock plate.
- In this more extreme variation, the percentage dropped even further, to 30%.
- In these two variations, the closer the proximity of the teacher and learner, the lower the level of obedience.
- The proximity of the authority figure also affects the level of obedience.
- In one variation, after the experimenter had given the initial instructions they left the room.
- All subsequent instructions were provided over the phone.
- In this variation participants were more likely to defy the experimenter
- only 21% of the participants administers the full 450 volts.
SITUATIONAL FACTORS:
LOCATION?
- Milgram’s conducted his original research in a laboratory of Yale University.
- In order to test the power of the location, Milgram conducted a variation in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
- In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%.
- This highlights the impact of location on obedience, with less credible locations resulting in a reduction in the level of obedience.
SITUATIONAL FACTORS:
UNIFORM
- In most of Milgram’s variations the experimenter wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a University Professor.
- Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes, who was in fact another confederate.
- In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the leaner made a mistake.
- The percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power of uniform.
Bickman (1974) also investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment conducted in New York.
- Bickman used three male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard; and one dressed in ordinary clothes.
- The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’.
- On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30%.
- These results all suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform.
- This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power.
what is AUTHORITARION PERSONALITY?
The authoritarian personality was first identified by Adorno et al. (1950) and refers to a person who has extreme respect for authority and is more likely to be obedient to those who hold power over them.
Adorno Et Al:
Aim:
Method:
Results:
Aim:
Adorno et al. (1950) conducted a study using over 2,000 middle‐class, Caucasian Americans to find out their unconscious views towards other racial groups.
Method:
- Adorno and his colleagues 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.
Examples of items from the F‐scale include:
‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn’
‘Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished’
‘There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his
parents’
RESULTS:
- Individuals who scored highly on the
F‐scale and the other questionnaires self‐reported identifying with ‘strong’ people and showed disrespect towards the ‘weak’.
- In addition, those high on the
F‐scale were status‐conscious regarding themselves and others, showing excessive respect to those in
higher power.
- Adorno and colleagues also found that authoritarian people had a particular cognitive style, which categorised other people into specific stereotypical categories, leading to a strong positive
correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
Conclusion:
- It was concluded that individuals with an authoritarian personality were more obedient to authority figures and showed an extreme submissiveness and respect.
- They are also uncomfortable with
uncertainty, with everything being seen as either right or wrong with ‘no grey areas’ in-between, demonstrating an inflexible attitude.
- They, therefore, believe that society requires strong leadership to
enforce rigid, traditional values.
Evaluating the Authoritarian Personality
There is research support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.
- Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted post‐experimental interviews with participants who were fully obedient in
Milgram’s original study, to see if there was a link between high levels of obedience and an authoritarian personality.
- It was found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F‐scale in comparison to the disobedient participants.
- Furthermore, the obedient participants were less close to their fathers during childhood and admired the experimenter in Milgram’s study, which was quite the opposite for disobedient participants.
- It was concluded that the obedient participants in Milgram’s original research displayed more characteristics of the authoritarian personality.
There may be individual differences that contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality.
- Research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) has found that less‐educated people are more likely than well‐educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics. - If these claims are correct, then it is possible to conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics
alone that lead to obedience, but levels of education.
There may be methodological criticisms associated with the measures used to determine authoritarian personality traits.
- It is possible that the F‐scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where participants provide answers that are socially acceptable.
- For example, participants may appear more authoritarian because they believe that their answers are the socially ‘correct’ and consequently they are incorrectly classified as authoritarian when they are not.
- This, therefore, reduces the internal
validity of the questionnaire research method used in determining the degree of authoritarianism.
Resisting social influence:
social support + evidence
Social Support:
- One reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally, someone supporting their point of view.
- Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independent.
- Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence.
- Furthermore, individuals who have support for their point of view are more likely to disobey orders.
Evaluation:
Evidence for this explanation comes from one of Asch’s (1951) variations.
- In one of the variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout.
- In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5%.
- This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
Furthermore, evidence for this explanation comes from Milgram (1974). - In one of 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, percentage of real participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts, dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%.
- 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.
Variations from Asch and Milgram suggest that if an individual has social support then they are likely to resist the pressure to conform or obey.
Resisting social influence:
locus of control + evidence
In some cases people can resist the pressure to conform or obey because of their personality.
Rotter (1966) proposed the idea of locus of control, which is the extent to which people believe they have control over their own lives.
INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL:
- They believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and that they have control over their life.
EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL:
- believe that what happens to them is controlled by external factors and that they do not have complete control over their life.
Rotter suggested that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressures to conform or obey, in comparison to individuals with an external locus of control.
Evaluation:
Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey.
Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WWII and compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazi’s, in comparison to those who had not.
- Oliner and Oliner found that the 406 ‘rescuers’, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high internal locus of control, in comparison to the 126 people who had simply followed orders.
- These results appear to 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 WWII and it is difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor.
Furthermore, research also supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform.
- Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity.
- From 157 students, Spector found that 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 normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted.
- There was no difference between the two groups for informational social influence.
- This suggests that normative social influence, the desire to fit in, is more power than informational social influence, the desire to be right, when considering locus of control.
what is minority influence?
Minority influence occurs when an individual or small group influences the attitudes and behaviour of a larger group.
CONSISTENCY:
MOSCOVICI
AIM:
METHOD:
RESULTS:
EVALUATION:
CONSISTENCY:
- Consistency refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority members share the same belief and retain it over time.
- This then draws the attention of the majority group to the minority position.
One of the most influential experiments investigating minority influence was
conducted by Moscovici (1969).
Aim: To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour
perception task.
Method: His sample consisted of 172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task.
- The participants were placed in groups of six and shown 36 slides, which were all varying shades of blue.
- The participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide.
- Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said
that all 36 slides were green; in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the
slides were green and 12 were blue.
Findings:
- Moscovici found that 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:
- Moscovici’s results show that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority
- consistency is an important factor in exerting minority influence.
EVALUATION:
WEAKNESS:
Moscovici used a bias sample of 172 female participants from America.
- As a result, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example male participants, and we cannot conclude that male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way.
- Furthermore, research often suggests that females are more likely to conform and therefore further research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants.
Moscovici has also been criticised for deceiving his participants, as participants were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test.
- This also means that Moscovici did not gain fully informed consent.
- Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Moscovici’s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results.
- If the participants were aware of the true aim, they might have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently.
On the other hand, a strength for this experiment is that there is real-life evidence that minority influence is effective. For example, the Suffragettes were able to create great social change for women’s right to vote and they did this by being consistent in their message about women’s rights, showing flexibility by saying that only educated women would get to vote and demonstrating commitment by enduring violence for their cause. This led to the snowball effect as some of the majority began to internalise the message of the minority group, and a tipping point emerged where their view became the majority view. This demonstrates the potential power that a minority influence can have.
Commitment for Minority Influence?
On occasion, minorities sometimes engage in very risky or extreme behaviour in order to draw attention to
their views.
- In psychological terms, it is important that these behaviours place the minority at risk in order for them to demonstrate commitment to their cause.
- This is called the augmentation principle, as the majority then in turn pays more attention to the actions being taken and is therefore more likely to
integrate it into their personal viewpoints, augmenting its importance, due to the personal sacrifice made
by the minority.
FLEXIBILITY:
NEMETH:
AIM:
METHOD:
Flexibility:
- the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority is willing to compromise.
- This means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable.
Aim: :
Nemeth (1986) believed that consistency was not the most important factor in minority influence.
- She set about investigating the idea of
flexibility as a key characteristic of successful minorities who exert pressure.
Method:
Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski‐lift accident.
- One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were 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:
- Nemeth found that 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:
- Nemeth’s research highlights the importance of flexibility, and questions the idea of consistency, suggesting that striking a balance between the two is the most successful strategy for a
minority to adopt.
What is social change?
Social change refers to the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations.
What are the real‐world example of social change?
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white male passenger in the 1950s, she was arrested for
violating US law. This event helped trigger the civil rights movement to end the racial segregation laws in
America. The case of Rosa Parks demonstrates that people who are willing to make a sacrifice (in her case
being arrested) to show their commitment to their cause and as a result are more influential in bringing
about a social change.
Another real‐world example of social change is seen with the suffragettes who were consistent in their
view and persistently used educational and political arguments to draw attention to female rights. They
remained consistent for many years and despite opposition continued protesting and lobbying until they
convinced society that women were entitled to vote. Many of the suffragettes made significant sacrifices
for their cause, risking imprisonment and even death through extended hunger strikes and thereby making
their influence even more powerful. Over time their minority influence influenced people to consider the
issue, leading to social change and all adults gaining the right to vote.
Key Terms for social change:
CONSISTENCY -
DEEPER PROCESSING -
DRAWING ATTENTION -
AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE -
SNOWBALL EFFECT -
SOCIAL CYPRTOMANMESIA -
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLEUNCE -
GRADUAL COMMITMENT -
Consistency –
displaying consistency of viewpoint and intended outcome is beneficial in bringing about social change, as a consistent message appears more credible and can help to convince a majority.
Deeper Processing –
the more people think about the issue at hand, rather than blindly accepting it,
the more they will, in turn, be able to challenge the existing social norms to bring about change.
Drawing attention –
in order for a social change to occur, the majority must first of all be made aware
of the need for the change.
The Augmentation Principle –
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.
The Snowball Effect – 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
momentum, much like a snowball growing in size when rolled along a snowy field.
Social Crypto amnesia – the 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 crypto amnesia and they do not recall how it has happened.
Normative Social Influence –
social change can be encouraged by reporting the behaviour or attitudes
of the majority, to urge others to follow suit for normative reasons (e.g. to fit in with the majority).
Gradual Commitment –
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.
