Section 1 : Social Influence - Minority Influence and Social Change Flashcards
What would happen if everyone went along with the majority
Nothing would change
define social change
occurs when societies adipt new attitudes, beliefs or behaviours eg gay rights
define social influence
process by which individuals and groups change each others attitudes and behaviours eg conformity, obedience and minority influence
define minority influence
a form of social influence, in which one or a small group influences the beliefs or behaviours of the majority
this leads to internalisation or conversion (private attitudes are turned into public beliefs)
name the 2 types of consistency
synchronic consistency - minority do same thing, diachronic consistency - saying same think for a long time
minority influence
minority influence - how one or a small group influences the beliefs or behaviours of others
internalisation - minority influence leads to internalisation, public and private change of beliefs
consistency - doing same thing, minoritys view gains more interest, makes others rethink their views, synchronic consistency - minority do same thing, diachronic consistency - saying same think for a long time
commitment - deep involvement, eg personal sacrifices (shows minority is not acting out of self interest), gains attention eg creating risk to minority, augmentation principle - gains majoritys attention
flexibility - Nemeth stated consistency may be off-putting, person is rigin and dogmatic, so willingness to listen to others, balance consistency and flexibility, means minority are more likely to adapt their view
process of minority influence
think deeply abt minority, deeper processing (important in conversion)
snowball effect converted at an increasing rate
social change occurs minority view becomes majority view
What gains influence and changes the way the majority thinks
Small minorities and even individuals
evaluate minority influence
strength
Research support for consistency
Moscovici
Blue/green slides
Concluded consistent minority was more effective when changing views than an inconsistent minority
Wood et al, meta analysis of 100 similar studies, concluded same
evaluate minority influence
strength
Research support for deeper processing
Martin et al concluded that changing the minority involves deeper processing
Message supporting a viewpoint was presented, after, one group heard minority agree, one group heard majority agree, next listened to a conflicting view, people less willing to change view if listened to minority
Conclude - minority message has been deeply processed, supports minority influence concept
BUT
Real life situations, social influence is more complicated, majorities have more power and status, which is absent in research, Martin et als findings, limited in what they tell us about minority influence in real world situations
evaluate minority influence
weakness
Artificial tasks
Eg Moscovici identifying colour of slide, artificial
No consequences, but real life jury decision making, outcomes more significant
So findings of minority influence studies lack external validity
Limits conclusions about minority influence in real life situations
evaluate minority influence
Power of minority influence
Moscovici
agreement with consistent minority was 8%
suggests that minority influence is rare, not a useful concept
When participants wrote down answer privately, more likely to agree with minority
Nearly internalisation
What type of conformity is involved in minority influence
Internalisation
Minority influence is stronger if the the minority is….
Consistent
Flexible
Committed
Moscovici
Aim - Investigate effects of a consistent minority on the majority
Method - Experiment similar to Asch
BUT
2 confederates, did not agree with majority view
Participants given eye test, reduce EVs
Procedure - Participants 4, 2 confederates
36 slides, different shades of blue, unambiguous blue
Asked to state colour out loud
1- two confederates answered green for all 36 slides
2- two confederates answered green for 24 slides and blue for 12 slides
Results
1- consistent minority had 8.42%
2-inconsistent minority 1.25%
32% of participants judged last slide to be green
Conclusions
Minorities can influence the majority
Not all the time
Only when they behave in a certain way
ie consistently
Moscovici Expanded Conclusions
Consistent minority influence can change opinions: The study showed that when a minority group is consistent with its answers (confederates consistently called the blue slides green), it can significantly influence the majority’s responses. Inconsistency reduces influence: When the minority group was inconsistent (sometimes calling the slides blue and other times green), their influence on the majority decreased, showing that consistency is key for effective minority influence.
Second conclusion: being consistent is not enough for a minority to have an impact and other factors must also be involved because the agreement rate was not 100%, even when they were consistent.
What is Moscovici et al (1969)
Research into minority influence that compared inconsistent minorities with consistent minorities
What type of experiment was Moscovici et al (1969)
Laboratory experiment
What were the characteristics of he participants
192 women
What was the task of Moscovici et al (1969)
In groups of 6, participants judged the colour of 36 slides.
All slides were blue but the brightness of blue varied on each slide.
Were there confederates
Yes
How many confederates were there in each group
2 out of 6
What were the confederates job
In one condition, confederates called all 36 slides ‘green’ (consistent)
In another condition, confederates called 24 of the slides ‘green’ and 12 ‘blue’ (inconsistent)
Was there a control group
Yes, it contained no confederates
What were the results in the control group of Moscovici (1969)
Participants called the slides ‘green’ 0.25% of the time
What were the results in the consistent condition
8.4% of the time participants adopted the minority position and called the slides ‘green’
32% of participants called slides ‘green’ at least once
What were the results of the inconsistent condition
The participants moved to the minority position of calling the slides green only 1.25% of the time
What is the conclusion of Moscovici et al
The confederates were in the minority but their views appear to have been influenced the real participants. The use of the two conditions illustrates that the minority had more influence when they were consistent in calling the slides ‘green”
What is the evaluation of Moscovici et al (1969)
-Lacks ecological validity due to it being a lab experiment because task was artificial
-Participants may have felt that judging the colour of was trivial may have acted differently if principles were involved
-Study was carried out on women - results cannot be generalised to men
-We know that participants were actually influenced by the minority rather than being independently unsure of the colour slide - this is the significance of control group
What was Nemeth et al (1974)
A repeated Moscovici experiment but instructed participants to answer with all of the colours they saw in the slide, rather than a single colour. For example, they could answer ‘green-blue’ rather than ‘green’
What were the three variation Nemeth (1974)
Where confederates:
1) said all of the slides were green
2) said the slides were ‘green’ or ‘green-blue’ at random
3) said the brighter slides were ‘green-blue’ and the duller slides were ‘green’ or vice versa
What happened when the confederates said ‘green’ or varied their response (inconsistent)
They had no effect on the participants responses.
What happened when where the confederates responses varied with a feature of the slide (brightness)
It had a significant effect on the participants responses
What was the conclusion of Nemeth et al (1974)
The confederates had most influence when they were consistent but flexible- Nemeth proposed that rigid consistency wasn’t effective because it seemed unrealistic when more subtle responses were allowed
What does Moscovici’s conversion theory suggest
That majority and minority influence are different processes
What is the process of majority influence
-People compare behaviour to majority and change behaviour to fit in without considering majority views in detail
-So majority influence involves compliance - it doesn’t always cause people to change their private feelings just their behaviour
What is the process of Minority influence
-When a minority is consistent people may examine the minority’s belief in detail because they want to understand why the minority sees things differently
-Can lead people to privately accept the minority view - they convert to the minority position
-social pressure to conform may mean their behaviour doesn’t actually change at least at first
Minority Influence
Strength
Research Supporting consistency
Moscovici et al
consistent minority has greater effect than inconsistent
Wood et al - metanalysis of 100 similar studies, found consistent minorities are more influential
cosisstency is a major factor in minority influence
Minority Influence
Strength
Research showing role of deeper processing
Martin et al - participants a message supporting a viewpoint, measured attitudes, heard supporting view from minority or majority, and then confliciting view
less willing to change view when listened to minority
minority message was more deeply processed
BUT
in Martin et al, numbers affect majoirty and minority
more factors influence eg power, status, commitment studies ar limited about real world minority influence
Minority Influence
Weakness
MI research often involves artificial tasks
Eg Moscovici - identifying colour of a slide, dosen’t relate to real world majority influence
eg. jury decisions, outcomes life or death decision
lack external validity, limited to what they tell us abt minority influence in real life situations
Minority Influence
Strength
Is powerful
Moscovici
participants agreed with minority when writing privately
those who conformed out loud internalised new views
minority influence is valid, can change peoples views powerfully and permanently (conversion)
what does consistency show according to Moscovici and the factors that enable minority influence to occur
consistentcy shows commitement
what can minority views initially be seen as
wrong, because they don’t match with what is considered the norms
what is effect of consistency on minority influence
consistency shows commitment and the minority isnt willing to compromise, this creates a conflict - when your faced with a consistent majority you consider whether they might be right and if you should change your view
what does Moscovici call the validation process
process when you are faced with a consistent majority and you seriously consider whether they may be right and if you should change your view
what happens if there’s no reason to dismiss minority views
then you begin to see things as the minority does
who created the social impact theory
Latane and Wolf
what did latane and wolf argue
they argued that social influence occurs when the combined effect of three factors are significant enough
what were the three factors discussed in the social impact theory
Strength
Numbers
Immediacy
what does strength refer to
how powerful, knowledgeable and consistent the group appear to be
what does numbers refer to
how many people are in the group
what does immediacy refer to
how close the source of influence is to you (physically or relationship)
how does minority influence happen according to latane and wolf
through the same process as majority influence - its just the balance of factors that create the social influence that’s different
how can a minority exert social influence
the numbers may be small
but the minority strength and immediacy
how does a majority iexert social infleunce
the numbers are big
so strength and immediacy isnt needed as much as minority influence
how do minorities become majorities
through the snowball effect
what is the snowball effect
people need to go from privately accepting the minority to publicly accepting it
what is social cryptoamnesia
the public opinion changes gradually over time until the minority view is accepted as the norm, but people forget where the view originally came from
Minority Influence Process
Drawing Attention - Segregatopm eg schools, Civil Rights Marches, provided social proof of the problem
Consistency - took part in marches long term, displays consistency of event
Deeper processing - activism, people who accepted status quo began thinking deeply abt unjustness
Augmentation principle - freedom riders, mixed bus segregation, were beaten, personal risk augmented (strengthened) the message
Snowball Effect - Cicil rights activists eg Luther King, caught attention of US governmebt, Civil rights act was passed,
Social Cryptomnesia - social change occuted but some have no memory (cryptomnesia) of the events leading to change
give examples of minorities changing them public opinion
Martin Luther King Jr.
Gay Rights Movements
Lessons from conformity research
Dissenters make social cahnge more likely - asch dissenter broke unanimity, lead to social change
NSI - environmental and heallth campaigns appeal to NSI
Lessons from obedience research
Dissobedient models make change more likely - Milgram when confederate refused, rate of obedience reduced
Gradual commitment leads to drift - Zimbardo, once a small instruction is obeyed, more difficult to resist bigger ones, drift into new kind of behaviour
Social Influence and Social Change
Strength
Support for NSI in Social Change
Nolan et al - messages on doors, reduce energy usage, decrease in energy usage compared to control group whos message had no referance to other peoples behaviour
conformity can lead to social change via NSI
BUT
exposing people to social norms does not always change behaviour, Foxcroft,reviewed 70 studies os programms using social norms to reduce alcohol intake, only small effect on drinking, no effect on frequency
NSI - does not always lead to social change
Social Influence and Social Change
Strength
Minority Influence Explains social change
Nemeth - minority arguments causes people to engage in divergent thinking
leads to better decisions and creative solutions to problems
showms minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas and open peoples minds
Social Influence and Social Change
Weakness
Deeper processing may apply to majority influence
Mackie says majority influence does not cause individuals to think deeply abt an issue
Majority influence creates deeper processing, believe others think like we do
when majority thinks differently creates pressure
minority influence has been challenged, doubts on validity, explanation for social change
Social Influence and Social Change
Barriers to social change
Bashir et al
People resist social change
Participants less likely to behave in favour of the environment, as they did not want to be associated with minority of stereotypical ‘environmentalists’
Described environmentalists in negative ways, extreme
BUT
researchers showed minorities were able to overcome barriers to social change, by focusing on positive message, percieved positively by majority, more succesful social change
- Nemeth (1986) – The Role of Flexibility in Minority Influence
Nemeth argued that minorities are more persuasive when they appear open-minded and flexible rather than rigid or extreme.
Bashir et al. support this by showing that environmentalists were more effective when they avoided negative stereotypes and presented their cause in a positive and relatable way. - The Social Norms Approach (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986)
This theory suggests that emphasizing positive behaviors (e.g., “most people are recycling”) is more effective than focusing on negative behaviors (e.g., “people are destroying the planet”).
Bashir et al.’s findings align with this because people were more likely to support environmentalism when it was framed positively, rather than being associated with an extreme minority. - The Augmentation Principle (Minority Influence – Moscovici, 1969)
When minorities demonstrate commitment but also maintain a positive image, they are more likely to gain support.
Bashir et al. show that environmentalists can overcome resistance by shifting their message to be more engaging and mainstream.
