Social Indluence Flashcards
1
Q
,Normative social influence
A
When people change their behaviour in order to fit in with a group or to be liked
2
Q
Types of conformity
A
Internalisation
Identification
Compliance
3
Q
Informational social influence
A
Type of conformity
Occurs when and individual accepts information from others as evidence of reality
More likely to occur when the situation is ambiguous
4
Q
Variables affecting conformity
A
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty investigated by asch
5
Q
Variables affecting conformity
A
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty investigated by asch
6
Q
What is informational influence motivated by
A
desire to be correct
7
Q
Why people conform
A
To be liked
To be right
8
Q
Informational influence process
A
1)need for certainty
2)subjective uncertainty -way you feel
3)need for information
4)refer to social group
5)internalisation =private beliefs are likely to change along with public behaviour
9
Q
Conformity
A
Process of yielding to the majority influence
Change in a behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure
Myers’s 1999
When a person does what everyone else is doing because they feel a pressure to go along
Some people internalise the idea and genuine,y believe it’s the right thing to do
10
Q
Explanation for conformity
A
Informational social influence
Normative social influence
11
Q
Internalisation
A
Deepest form of conformity where you change your behaviour because you think that the majority is correct where you adopt the groups attitude and leads to public and private acceptance of groups behaviour and the group does not have to be present
Eg.religion
12
Q
Anderson et al 1982
A
Cultural norms eg women body are influenced by availability of food
Scarce women do not care about being heavy body size
Not influenced by society
Diff in western cultures where food is high complying with social norms of western culture
13
Q
Identifications three marks
A
When we identify with a group we value we want to become a part of it
This redu,te in a public change of behaviour
Privately we may not It agree with everything the group
14
Q
Compliance
A
Kelman 1958
When you change your behaviour even though you don’t believe or agree with what majority does
Accepted avoid disapproval
Type of conformity
Superficial type of conformity
Doesn’t tend to happen in private
Doesn’t change underlying attitudes
Weakest type not permanent or internal
15
Q
Normative influence motivated by
A
Need to fit in with group
16
Q
Identification
A
Change behaviour and beliefs min order to fit in and belong with a group
Conforming to a role that u play eg.daughter,job
Certain period o time
Away from group I revert back to old ways
Can be in private so stronger than compliance
17
Q
What’s does informational influence and normative influence lead to. Deutsch and Gerard
A
Compliance
Internalisation
18
Q
What is compliance 3marks
A
Going along with others in public but probately not vhs bing opnions or behaviour
19
Q
Deutsch and Gerard 1955
A
Dual process model of conformity
20
Q
Evidence for normative influence
A
Women’s perceptions of their ideal body size is a major issue in western society, where slim And thin mode,e have a normative influence
21
Q
Deutsch and Gerard 1955
A
Dual process model of conformity
22
Q
Evidence for normative influence
A
Women’s perceptions of their ideal body size is a major issue in western society, where slim And thin mode,e have a normative influence
23
Q
Evidence ISI (ao3)
A
Lucas et al (2006)
Found participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult
24
Q
Evidence for NSI Schultz et al 2008
A
Hotel guests were more likely to reuse their towels of told that other guests reused their towels
25
n Afillstor
People who have a strong need for affiliation
26
Alternative explanations of conformity
Dispositions factors
Personality
Links to n affiliatores
27
Evidence for NSI linkenbach and Perkins 2003
Adolescents exposed to messages suggesting their peers didn’t smoke were likely to start smoking
28
What did asch do in 1951
Set up a situation in which there was an obvious right answer to a simple task
See whether an individual would conform when the other group members gave a clear wrong answer
29
When was asch study
1950
30
What was asch aim
To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform
31
Asch procedure
labexperiment
123 male students task of visual perception’
participants’ were seated in groups around a large table
The experimenter showed them 2 cards:
– One card showed the standard line
– The other card showed 3 comparison line
Repeated 18 times
Always a. Easyznd obvious answer
Used confecerated to give the same wrong answer in 12/18 trials (critical trials)
Participant second to last
32
Replicability
The study van be repeated in order to check if it was reliable
33
Low ecological validity
The findings can’t be generalised to real-life
situations because...
• ...the situation is artificial (lab experiment)
in real-life situations, conformity usually takes place when individuals are in groups with whom they have long-lasting ties e.g. friends, family, colleagues
34
Asch evaluation
Replicable
Lab experiments
Low ecological validity
Informed consent
35
McGhee and teevan 1967
Found that students who were nAfilliators were more likely to conform
So nsi more relevant for some people than others
36
Informed consent
Participants should be given the opportunity to provide their fullyInformed consent
37
Asch findings
Overall conformity rate was 37%
5% of the participants gave the same wrong answer as the confederates on all 12 critical trials
25% of the participants remained independent and gave the correct answer on all 12 critical trials
38
How did the participants explain why they conformed
Said they doubted their own eyes
they knew the other group members were wrong but conformed because they did not want to stand out
Demonstrates compliance to majority influence
39
Size of majority affect
Effect on level of conformity
1 confederate wrong answer 4% conformity rate
3 confederate conforming leads 31.8%
40
Unanamity of majority
More important dissent -disagree with majority which reduces conformity
If someone said correct answer then participant more likely to say correct 33 to 5%
41
Factors affecting asch
Child of its time
Problems Determining affect of group size
Independent behaviour rather than conformity
Unconvincing confederates
Cultural differences in conformity
42
child of it’s time
1956 McCarthyism anti communism
People not going against majority
Less likely to conform
Conformity is more likely if the perceived costs of conforming are high which would have been the case in this era
43
Problems determining effect of group size
Asch concluded that majority size three sufficient for max influence
No other studied than asch have used 9 or more busybody 2-4
Means we know very little about th effect of larger majority sizes on conformity levels
44
Problems determining effect of group size
Asch concluded that majority size three sufficient for max influence
No other studied than asch have used 9 or more busybody 2-4
Means we know very little about th effect of larger majority sizes on conformity levels
45
Independent behaviour rather than cinfomirty
2/3 of the trials the participants stuck to their original judgement despite being faxes with an overwhelming majority expressing a diff view
46
Unconvincing confederate
Pose serious validity to th study
47
Cultural differences
Important cultural differences in cinfomirty and we might therefore expect different results doeendtsn on the culture where the study takes place
Arkuanand kitsya 1991 suggest reason for higher Keble of cinfomirty in collective cultures because it’s favoured to form a social flue to bind communities
48
Results of zimbardo
Pathological prisoners syndrome
The loss of personal identity
Dependency and emasculation
Arbitrary control excersise by guards
One prisoner went on hunger strike as protest
5 prisoners released earlier due to extreme emotional reactions
49
Zimbardo conclusion
The study rejects the dispositional hypothesis.
The behaviour of the ‘normal’ students who had been randomly assigned to each condition was influenced by the role they had been assigned to the extent that they seemed to believe in their assigned position
50
Strengths of zimbardo
Mundane realism-very realistic some people believe it was realistic some didn’t as it was in a basement in a uni and yhrt may have known this
No control
Very scientific. Hr controlled variables and most of his data was qualitative and quantitative and was attained through video ,audio tape and questionnaires
51
Zimbardo criticism
Validity affected as he was a warden so it may have research bias and the sample was non representative as it was only men American students and therefore cannot generalise to others
Has got ecological validity and representative of prisons
52
Banuazizi and Mohavedi 1975
Argued that the prisinirs were okay acting rather than informing to a role
Their performances were said to be based of stereotypes of how prisinorsand guards were supposed to behave
Zimbardo argues this by reporting 90% The behaviour of the ‘normal’ students who had been randomly assigned to each condition was influenced by the role they had been assigned to the extent that they seemed to believe in their assigned position
53
Dispositional vs situational influencEs
• Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour which minimised the role of personality (dispositional factors).
• Only a third of the guards acted in a brutal way. The other guards either treated them fairly or even helped the prisoners by offering them privileges and cigarettes.
• This suggests that Zimbardo’s conclusion that all participants were conforming to social roles as an exaggeration
54
Lack of research support
The BBC Prison Study experiment conducted in 2006 concluded very different findings to the Stanford Prison Experiment.
• It was the prisoners who eventually took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to harassment.
But
• Social Identity theory would argue that this due to the fact that the guards didn’t form a united social identity but the prisoners did. This means that the prisoners saw themselves as a stronger social group who could control the divided guards
55
Was zimbardo unethical
Only deception was the arrest
They signed consent forms
Debriefing were held
He stopped early the info gained was worth it
56
Ethical guidelines
1)does end justify means
2)consent
3)confidentially
4)deception debriefing
5)protection of participants
6)right to withdraw
57
How conformity to social role effect can explain events in abu ghraib
A military prison in Iraq notorious for torture and abuse by us soldiers
Believed that the guards were victims of situation, factors that made abuse more likely
Eg.lack of training ,unrelenting boredom and no accountability to higher authorities
Opportunity to misuse power
58
6 main ethical principles
Informed consent
Protection from harm
Right to withdraw
Protection from harm
Confidentiality
Debriefing
Deception
59
Obedience
Obedience is performing a behaviour ordered from another person. The person who gives the instruction usually has power or authority.
60
Milhram experiment 1963
He wanted to find out whether the idea that the Germans were different and more obedient as a race (the view of many historians) was correct.
Shows situational theory of obedience
61
Was mikgrams exp more disoodtiinwl or situational
Milgram believed that the reasons the Germans committed horrendous acts may have been due to the situation they were placed in (situational hypothesis) ,
62
Dispositional
rather than anything dispositional (innate) about them as a race.
Born with these qualities
63
Before the epxermine began what did he tell them
• Milgram asked a variety of groups, including psychiatrists and students, how many people they thought would obey completely.
• The maximum number of shocks thatcouldbe delivered to the ‘learner’ was 30, starting at 15 volts.
• Therefore, if someone gave 30 shocks this would equate to 450 volts!
– 150v is enough to seriously injure a human – 250v is enough to kill a human
64
What psychiatrist predicted vs what actually happened
Predicted that only 2.6% would continue to administer a shock up to 240 volts but actually 65% did so it seems obedience is stronger than conformity
65
Summary of milgrams experiment
• Hypothesis – German’s are different . Could situational context lead to ordinary people inflicting harm on others?
• Research Method – Laboratory Experiment in liaison with Yale University
• Procedure- 40 male pps (20-50yrs)
• Volunteer sample (deceptive advert)
• Paid
66
Participants believed that they were randomly chosen as either teacher or learner but off they are all teachers and met a confederate “mr Wallace”and the “experimenter”
67
The set up
E: The experimenter. Dressed in a white lab coat works for Yale University
S: The real participant who is labelled as the ‘teacher’.
Volunteer in an experiment on punishment and learning.
A: The confederate labelled as the ‘learner’. A person who is really part of the experimenter
68
Statistics for mikgrwm
65% went up to 450 v
-all gave 300v
Experimenter prodded to continue saying “please continue” “the experiment reuwiree u to continue “
Takes away their agency
Ended after participant walked out or 450v
69
One sweakness for milgram
Low internal validity
Didn’t test what he wanted to test
Reported that 75% of participants said they believed shocks were genuine
However Charles Holland and martinorne agreed that some participants did not believe that the set up was genuine
2/3 were disobedient
Shows that participants were trying to respond to demand characteristic which is to fulfill the study
70
Ethical issue for milgram
The participants in the study were deceived as they believed they had been randomly allocated their roles as learner or teacher but this is not the case as the roles were fixed they also thought the shocks were real but to help this milgram debriefed them after
71
One strength form milgram
It was repeated for a rv show and it shows participant behaviour as anxious as they were biting nails and nervous laughter this shows it was not a one off and results are reliable and it supports his original findings about obedience and authority and demonstrates his findings were not due to special circumstances
72
Deception -milgrams defence
Participants not told the true nature of study.
Milgram said this was necessary to create experimental reslism
73
Right to withdraw - milgrams defence
Participants ordered to continue, were not really free to leave
Milgram said that they were told at the start that they could leave and that they would be paid regardless. He also predicted that they would refuse to obey
74
Distress - milgrams defence
Milgram said that the stress was not deliberate. Participants recovered well – 84% said they were glad to have participated.
All participants reunited with the actor-learner and assured no shocks had taken place. Were told their behaviour was completely normal.
1 year later were assessed by an impartial psychologist and no harm was done
75
Ao3 strengths milgram
Real life application - nazi germany,holocaust,millitary
Use of lab conditions and high standardised procedure means high level of control of extraneous variables
Raised reliability of experiment
76
Why milgrams was bad Ao3
Ethics: Deception, Participants were told they were participating in a study on learning. Lead to lack of informed consent. It is not clear if they knew they had the right with withdraw.
Ethics: Protection from Psychological harm. Participants suffered emotional strain.
Individual Differences: Variation between cultures.
Internal Validity: How do we know we were really measuring true obedience? Orne (1968) suggests people may have been going along with it, Demand characteristics may have had an effect.
Ecological Validity/Generalisability: Is the experiment representative of real life situations?
77
Mil gram irl
Hofling et al (1966)
• Field experiment (hospital)
• Nurses were telephoned by Dr Smith who asked them to give a drug to a patient.
• Nurses should not take orders over the phone and the dosage was double.
• 95% did as requested.
• This shows that obedience does take place in real life setting
78
Internal validity
The extent to which you can be confident that a cause and effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors
79
Factors affecting obedience
Proximity
Location
uniform
80
Mil gram and sitsutstion variables
Carried out large number of variations to investigate the SITUATIONAL VARIABLES that might create greater or lesser obedience. For each you need the % of fully obedient participants.
81
Proximity 1)
three different variations – changing the proximity between teacher and learner/teacher and experimenter.
1. Teacher and learner in the same room Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
82
Proximity 2)
three different variations – changing the proximity between teacher and learner/teacher and experimenter.
2. Touch proximity condition: teacher had to force the learners hand down onto an electrocuting plate.
Obedience dropped to 30%
83
Proximity 3)
three different variations – changing the proximity between teacher and learner/teacher and experimenter.
3. Remote instruction condition: experimenter leaves the room and gives the teacher instructions via telephone Obedience reduced to 20.5%
84
Why obedience decreased in milgram
When the teachers is closer to the learner and away from the experimenter, obedience levels drop
85
Locatio. Affecting obedience
The study was moved from the prestigious, Yale University to a run down building.
Obedience dropped to 47.5% - still high, but less than the baseline study.
86
Uniform affecting obedience
The experimenter in the original study wore a white/grey lab coat which represented authority (science).
In the variation, the experimenter is called away suddenly and an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in every day clothes took over.
Obedience drops to 20%
87
Evaluation of mil grams variations
Bickman (1974) carried out a field study where an experimenter approached passers by on a city street and asked them to carry out small, inconvenient tasks.
The experimenter was dressed either in a jacket and tie or a guard’s uniform.
Bickman found that PPs were twice as likely to obey the orders when the experimenter was dressed in a uniform.
Supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of the wearer and is more likely lead to obedience.
88
Evaluation of milgram
Cross cultural replications
Low internal validity
Ignored dispositional explanations
89
Cross cultural replication
A strength of milgram find8gs have been replicated in other cultures
Meeus and raajimakers used a more rea,Kay procedure than milgram study
Dutch
Pps ordered to say stressful things In an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for job
90% of the participants obeyed
90
Smith and bond 1999
Argues that replications are not very cross cultural
Only two of the replications took place in non western counties (India and Jordan)
Therefore not accurate to say milgram findings apply to all ppl in diff cultures
91
Milgram low internal validity
Ome and Holland 1968
Argued participants were aware that procedure was faked
They point out that this would be the case in variation as well
92
Evidence supporting milgram replications
Reality TV show – Game of Death. Replication of Milgram’s study – a TV show where Ps were asked to give electric shocks to other members of the audience (confederates).
80% of Ps delivered the max shocks (460 volts) to an apparently unconscious man.
Supports Milgram’s findings and conclusions – People will do inhumane things in certain situations.
Audience took responsibility
Less accountable
93
Agentic state
-mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure
-frees us from demand ds of our consciences and allows us to obey a destructive authority
94
autonomous state
-goes to agent state this is an agent shift
-independent or free
opposite of agentic
-milgram suggest that this occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority
-social groups autonomy to agency
95
binding factors
aspects of the situation that allow the individual to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce moral strain they are feeling
-shifting responsibility
-denying damage
96
legitimacy of authority
a position of authority sanctioned by the public
-uniform affects this
97
application of milligram
massacre of my lai
1968 vietnam war
the soldiers were in an agent state as they tookmorders from a high ranking officer lt calley
they could therefore deny personal responsibility because they perceived them selves to be acting as agents
not following orders on their own conscience
not in autonomous state where thy cud behave freely
agent shift when they joined the army
98
legitimacy authority
-structured hierarchy
the solider at my lai accepted tray lieutenant callow was entitled to expect their obedience because of his position in the army and power to punish
commanding attitude
outocme was obedience to destructive level.
99
support for milgram
-blass and schmitt
100
weakness research for milgram
-not all participants obeyed
-agebtic shift doesn't explain howling et all study
nurse handed ver responsibility tp the doctor
did not experience anxiety like in milgram
agent shift can only account for some situations of obedience
101
cultural differences of milhram
kilham and mahn 1974
replicated milligrams procedure in Australia
only 16% went all the way up to 450
mantel 1971-german 85%
increase validity
102
authoritarian personality
a collection of traits developed from rigid parenting
eg.conformists.
obedient
103
authoritarian personality Adorno
-1950
-to investigate whether individuals with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey people of perceived higher status
-2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
used the f scale
104
how adorno developed f scale
adorno developed an attitude questionnaire which became known as f scale
scale measures 1)conventionalism and 2)preoccupation with power
105
findings of the authoritarian personality
people who scored high are identified with strong people and were contemptuous of the weak
showed blind respect to power people
cognitive style where they categories people driven by stereotypes and prejudice
106
Adornos theory of the authoritarian personality type
-blind allegiance to convention beliefs about right and wrong
-respect for submission to acknowledged authority
-preoccupation with violence and sex
-project rage on a segregated group
-strong need for leadership to uphold trad values
107
How authoritarian personality is developed
Harsh parenting
108
How harsh parenting causes authortian personality
Strict discipline
Loyal expectations
High standards
Unconditional love of parents even if they don’t agree with them
Rests hostility and despair in the child who displaces these feelings onto the weak
109
Criticism of the f scale
Measurement relies on self report data which may be invalid due to social desirability bias
Greenstein 1969 the f-scale is a comedy of methologivsl errors
Every item worded in same direction
Rick agree in same side again and again and get a high authoritarian score
110
Acquiescence bias
The tendency to simply agree with everything
111
Research support for f scale
Milgram and elms 1966
Conducted an interview with a small sample of obedient participants who scored highly on the f scale
Results would indicate that the obedience was due to another variable eg.higher level of education
112
Dispositional explanations
Explanation cannot easily account for obedience of entire social groups
Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) found that the Authoritarian Personality is more likely to exist among people who are less well educated and are of low economic social status.
• This may be the third variable!
• But these results are inconsistent with the explanation - these people should surely be considered the subordinates and the rebellious, not the “strict and oppressive!”
• So perhaps personality is NOT needed to explain obedience
113
Outline the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
Obedience is acting on behalf of an authority figure so someone with an authoritarian personality would obey the authority’s orders with no question about it it is due to strict rigid parenting.
114
Outline how milgram investigated the effect of two situational factors on obedience
115
internal locus of control
you make things happen
less conforming
less obedient
feel responsible for their actions
116
external locuc of control
things happen to you
out of their control
luck, circumstances,other people
117
who investigated locus of control
rotter 1966
a scale/continuom of I control the consequences of my behaviour to the consequences of my behaviour are outside of my control
118
internal characterisitcs
-better academic
-better interpersonal relations
-lower cigs
greater effort to learn
119
what locus of control refers to
how much control person feels they have in their own behaviour
120
research support for locus of control
Theo avtgis 1998
found high externals more persuadable and conformist
mKE EXTERNALS MORE VULNERABLE to risk factors for addiction
more influenced by smoking
121
milgram and locus of control
Charles holland
repeated baseline
found 37% of internals did not continue to highest level
whereas 23% of externals did not continue
122
contradictory research for locus of control
Jean Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a a 40-year period (from 1960 to 2002). The data showed that, over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external.
123
social support and conformity
social support can help people to resist conformity.
124
obedience and social support
Social support can help people resist obedience.
In one of Milgram’s variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
125
albrechtt et al 2006
evaluated eight week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged between 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Adolescents who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a ‘buddy’.
126
research support resistance to conformity
Allen & Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study
127
minority social influence
a form of social influence where a minority of people persuades the majority group to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours this leads to internalisation
this is not conformity
128
serge moscovici
investigated the power of minority influence and conducted a famous study research suggests that there are three`in processes in minority influence
129
processes in minority influence
consistency
commitment
flexibility
130
consistency
the minority views must be consistent in their opposite. to the majority
consistency is recognised as resolution ,certainty clarity of definition and coherence
131
diachronic
where a person maintains a consistent position over time
132
synchronic
where there is greatest among members of the minority groups
133
commitment
minority is more powerful if they demonstrate their dedication to a cause eg. perhaps through personal sacrifice
134
augmentation principle
if someone performs an action when there are known constraints his or her motive for acting are considered to be stronger the will to act with consequences
135
balance between consistency and flexibility
being completely consistent all the time may actually give the impression that the minority is rigid and unbending which is undesirable
members of the minority group need to be prepared to ament their views and accept reasonable counterarguments
136
the snowbell effect
the majority is influenced by the. minority radually – the original opinion is new and different. Following consistency, commitment and flexibility the individual becomes ‘converted’ – the more that are converted, the faster the rate of conversion.
137
moscovivi et al 1968
group 1
group 1 - so people asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether the slides were blue or green
138
moscovivi et al 1968 group 2
exposed to an inconsistent minority in this case agreement with the answer green fell to 1.25%
139
moscovivi et al 1968 group 3
no confederate all participants had to was identify the colour of each slide they got this wrong on just 0.25 % of the trials
140
moscovivi et al 1968 conclusion
a consistent minority opinions had a greater effect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent opinion
141
research support for moscoviv et all
woods et al 1994 meta analysis of 100 similar studies all showed more minority influence if the opinions were consistent
strong scientific support for the important role of consistent in minority influence
142
robin Martin et al 2003
presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured participants agreement
one group of participant then heard a minority group agree with initial view while another group heard a majority group agree with it
Participants were finally exposed to a conflicting view and measured again.
People were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group.
This suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect, supporting the central argument about how minority influence works.
143
example of commitment and flexibility
nelson
Jesus
greta
malala
144
Jenny question
Jenny should sty consistent stick with her view and so its unwavering which shows others around her that she is serious and committed to this idea she should also highlight the fact that she has a risk of doing this and holding this view for example maybe getting fired and this also shows her commitment to her view
overtime this may snowballl and other members of the department may also hold the same view as her due to perhaps her class getting Bette grades and her view/ opinion seems more valid now
144
role of minority influence
through social proof – the civil rights marches drew attention to the social problem by providing social proof.
145
role of minority influence exAMPLE
1)
all black neighbourhoods, all white schools and restaurants, segregation on buses and other public places.
146
consistency of the minority influence
the motive and message transmitted from this minority group was resolute, certain and coherent. There was diachronic and synchronic consistency throughout their campaign.
147
deeper processing of minority influence
The attention meant that people who have simply accepted the status quo began to think about the injustice of it. There was a realisation that the situation was unfair.
148
role of minority influence - the augmentation principle
there were many circumstances where people risked their lives for this cause.
E.G. The ‘Freedom Riders’ (mixed racial groups) would sit on buses (anywhere) to challenge the segregation. Many were beaten and there were incidents of mob violence following these campaigns.
149
SNOWBALLING
the civil rights reform can be divided into several; phases each beginning with isolated small scale protests and ultimately resulting in th emergence of new more militant movements leaders and organisations
150
social cryptomnesia
people have changed their opinion but they cannot remember how or when it happened
n other words, the content (the message) and the source (where it came from) become dissociated.
151
lessons from conformity
studies hy Asch have found that a dissenter in the majority group will likely lead to a drop in conformity
environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI and by providing info on what other people are doing.
E.G. Advertising recycling by showing others doing it correctly. Or advertising a “walk to work” day – everyone is doing it! Promotes physical activity.
152
ball et al 2010
women who observe many others engaging in particular physical activity or eating behaviours may come to view these behaviours are 'normative' or socially desirable, and may adopt the same behaviours due either to a positive attitude about the behaviours, a shared belief in their value, and/or a strong social urge to confirm and 'fit in' to society.”
153
lessons from obedience research
destructive authority figures can have a terrible impact on human behaviour with people doing inhumane things to follow orders
eg the holocaust
started with the order of some verbal abuse and ended with the death of millions
154
lessons from obedience research
Hofling et al
21 out of 22 nurses obeyed doctor’s instructions.
Blind obedience!
Impact: The education of doctors and nurses now includes courses in psychology. More rigorous signing off procedures for administering drugs should have changed practice for the better.
155
supporting evidence for hofling et al social change
Nolan et al (2008)
“Ever since the foundational work of social psychologists Asch (1987) and Milgram (1974) there has been a great deal of interest in the influence on behaviour of perceptions of ‘normal’. In social marketing, this has led to the development of the social norms approach; a marketing technique that attempts to influence behaviour by changing perceptions of what is normal.”
156
results of Nolan et al
found a significant decrease in energy consumption in group 1 which shows that NSI can influence social change.
157
schults et al
Schultz et al 2008 also found that when a hotel advertised the following message, the guests were much more likely to reuse their bath towels:
158
evidence for schults et al
Nearly 75% of our guests chose to reuse their towels everyday. To support our guests who want to conserve, we have initiated a conservation program”.
159
nemeth 1986
the effects of minority influence are indirect and delayed.
It has taken a long time to shift attitudes about smoking and drink driving. Do minorities really have that much of an influence?
The effects are fragile and sometimes, the effects are not seen for a long time. Limits the role of minority influence in social change
160
barriers to social chnge
Basir et al (2013)- why do so many people resist social change? Even when they know the change is probably for the best?
People may avoid influence of minority groups as they are associated with the stereotypical “radical” groups e.g. environmentalists and feminists.
Lessons for minority groups – do not behave in ways that reinforce the stereotype as this will be off putting.
161
One reason you would not obey is because the nurse is most likely not wearing her u form as she is outside of the hospital , this takes a way her symbol of legitimacy of authority and loses her credibility and trust so people will not obey.
Location affects obedience. The nurse is in a shop not a hospital and is not in a notable institution which also loses her credibility therefore people are less likely to obey her as they may not truly believe she is a nurse.
