Social Change Flashcards
Research has investigated Moscovici’s claims about the role of minority influence in social change
E - Maass and Clark (1983) had participants discuss gay rights with either a consistently pro- or anti-gay minority and then report their stance on the issue publicly or privately. Whilst participants’ public responses aligned with the majority, private responses shifted toward the minority.
E – To some extent, this finding supports Moscovici’s conversion theory of minority influence, as when the participants privately shifted their views towards that of the consistent minority, this indicates they had internalized the minority message. This suggests minority influence can bring about social change as it can cause people to change their social attitudes. Nonetheless, the finding also demonstrates that minority influence may have a limited role in affecting social change, as the public responses always aligned with the majority, meaning social attitudes may change in private but not in public – real social change will require a public change. However, this study’s findings are limited by issues with ecological validity. Participants were responding to a simulated discussion and knew their answers would be seen by others, an artificial scenario that may not capture the full complexity of real-life attitude change.
L – In summary, this study provides some support for Moscovici’s claims that minority influence can bring about a conversion, but we need to be cautious about the extent to which this conversion can translate into genuine social change, especially given the issues with this study’s ecological validity.
Research has investigated the effectiveness of social norms interventions to facilitate social change.
E - Montana’s “MOST of Us Don’t Drink and Drive” campaign identified that while only 20% of young adults in Montana drove after drinking, 92% believed their peers did. The campaign advertised the correct statistic, resulting in a 13.7% decrease in drinking and driving in those counties running the campaign compared to those that didn’t.
E – This campaign shows how social norms interventions use majority influence to drive social change. By correcting the misperception that most young adults drink and drive, the campaign led young people to conform to their newer and more accurate perceived norm, resulting in a social change in drink-driving behaviour. However, social norms interventions have also been criticised as a way of encouraging social change as they are vulnerable to the boomerang effect. If some individuals behave better than the actual norm, they might adjust their behaviour negatively (e.g., a light drinker may drink more if they learn through a social norms intervention that others drink more than they expected).
L – Therefore, although this study demonstrates the overall effectiveness of social norms interventions – and therefore majority influence – for promoting social change, we should also acknowledge the limitations of harnessing this social influence process due to the boomerang effect.
Research into the role of social influence processes for social change has ethical implications.
E - There is obvious value in understanding the role of social influence processes, such as minority and majority influence, in social change, as by understanding these processes, those advocating for important social change (e.g., climate activists) can be more effective advocates for social change. Nonetheless, such research is arguably still socially sensitive as it has the potential for harmful social consequences. It’s possible that those advocating against beneficial social changes or for harmful social changes (e.g., policies that discriminate against minorities) could use an understanding of social influence processes to persuade others of their cause.
L - Therefore, researchers investigating the role of social influence processes on social change need to carefully think about the ethical implications of their research, as tools of persuasion have the potential to help and harm society.
