Social influence

Question 1

Name 3 types of conformity

Answer 1

• Compliance
• Identification
• Internalisation

Question 2

Describe/ give an example of compliance

Answer 2

• Most superficial type of conformity
• change your behaviour to be accepted by the group
• publically conform to the behaviour and views of others but privately you keep your own views so your behaviour/opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops
• e.g. laughing at a joke you don’t find funny because others do, saying a film is good because others do

Question 3

Describe/ give an example of identification

Answer 3

• Intermediate level of conformity
• occurs because we identify with group members
• a temporary change in belief
• you publically and privately take on the norms of the group (behaviour and opinions) because membership of the group is desirable
• Stronger type of conformity than compliance because it involves private acceptance but is weaker than internalisation as it is temporary and is not maintained when individuals leave the group
• e.g soldiers in the army may adopt the behaviour of other soldiers but when they leave the army and return to civilian life, their opinions and behaviours will change because they are no longer with their army friends

Question 4

Describe/ give an example of internalisation

Answer 4

• the deepest level of conformity
• results in a permanent change in belief
• when the views of the group are internalised and you actually take on the new attitudes and behaviours of the group publically and privately
• the change in belief/behaviour persists even in the absence of other group members
• the persons private view changes permanently
• also referred to as conversion- a true conversion will survive even when the person looses contact with the original group
• e.g. a student may become a vegetarian because she has shared a flat with a group of vegetarians. When she returns, see continues to live as a vegetarian- she has permanently had a change of attitude and behaviour as a direct result of the group

Question 5

Name 2 explanations of conformity and which type they explain

Answer 5

• normative social influence- compliance

- informational social influence- internalisation

Question 6

describe normative social influence

Answer 6

• Conform as a result of our desire to be liked
• All social groups have norms which define appropriate behaviour for their members
• in general conforming to group norms brings acceptance and approval, while nonconformity can bring disapproval
• social groups can place considerable pressure on an individual to conform
• changes our behaviour but not our private views
• research- Asch (1951)

Question 7

Describe informational social influence

Answer 7

• we conform (in this case internalise the behaviour of others) because of our desire to be right
• we look to others whom we believe to be correct, to give us information about how to behave, particularly in new and confusing (ambiguous) situations
• leads to a genuine and long-lasting change of beliefs or attitudes
• research- Sherif (1936)

Question 8

What was the aim of Asch’s conformity study (1951)

Answer 8

• to see if participants would conform to the majority by giving incorrect answers even when the correct answers were obvious

Question 9

What was the method of Asch’s conformity study (1951)

Answer 9

• 123 male US undergrad students
• Gave 7 Pp’s a perception task
• had to match a line (standard line) with another (comparison line)
• Pps all sat in a row, the task was to call out in turn which of the three lines was the same length as the test line
• All Pp’s except one were confederates
• The real Pp answered last
• To start with, the confederates gave the correct answered the correct answer, but after 6 trials they started to give a deliberate wrong answer

Question 10

What were the results of Asch’s conformity study (1951)

Answer 10

• Pps conformed to the unanimous incorrect answer 32% of the time despite the answer being unambiguous
• 5% conformed every time
• 74% conformed at least once- 26% never did
• fell to 12.5% when Pp wrote answer down

Question 11

What was the conclusion of Asch’s conformity study (1951)

Answer 11

• even in unambiguous situations, there may be strong group pressure to conform, especially if the group is an unambiguous majority
• as the right answer was obvious, it is thought that the type of conformity was compliance which can be explained by the ideas of normative social influence

Question 12

What was the aim of Sherif’s conformity study

Answer 12

• to see if participants would conform to the majority by giving answers similar to the group norms on an ambiguous task

Question 13

What was the method of Sherif’s conformity study

Answer 13

• lab experiment
• repeated-measures design
• used a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect- when a stationary spot of light viewed in a completely dark room appears to move
• Male Pps falsely told that the experimenter would move the light
• had to estimate how far it had moved
• in the first phase, individual Pps had to repeatedly make estimates
• they were then put into groups of three people, where they each made their estimate with others present
• finally, they were retested induvidually

Question 14

What were the results of Sherif’s conformity study

Answer 14

• when they were alone, Pps developed their own stable estimates (personal norms) that varied widely between PPs
• Once they were in a group, the estimates tended t converge and become more alike
• when the Pps were retested on their own, their estimates were more like the group estimates than their original guesses

Question 15

What was the conclusion of Sherif’s conformity study?

Answer 15

• Pps were influenced by the estimates of others and group norms were developed
• estimates converged as the Pps didn’t know the correct answers- ambiguous task- so used info from others to help them
• affected by informational social influence
• as this was informational, there was evidence of a long-term change in belief as the Pp continued to conform even when alone

Question 16

Describe strengths of NSI/ISI

Answer 16

Research evidence for NSI:

• Asch- 75% at least once- task unambiguous- likely it was NSI
• interviewed after experiment- most PPs didn’t believe the answer they gave but went along with group so they weren’t ridiculed

Research evidence for ISI:

• Sherif- ambiguous task- likely ISI as looked for others for guidance
• Lucas et al (2006)- PP conformed more to answers of harder math problems- PPs looked to others for answers
• however, hard to distinguish between NSI and ISI_ when ashch gave one dissenting PP, conformity dropped- could be as less social pressure, or as more sources of info- likely that in real life they operate together
• Also Lucas et al found less conformed when better at maths- individual differences

Control:

• Asch/Sherif- lab studies- extraneous variables controlled e.g. group size
• means a standardised procedure is use- replicable- can be tested for reliability

Question 17

Describe weaknesses of NSI/ISI

Answer 17

Alternate explanations:

• Social identity theory
• says we identify ourselves as part of sn ‘in group’ , and everyone else who’s different as an ‘out group’
• suggested we are more likely to conform if pressured by members of our ‘in’ group, rather than our ‘out’ group
• suggests NSI/ISI may not be only explanations

Issues with the studies:

• lacks ecological validity- lab experiments- not asked everyday length or distance- people may not act/conform in same way to real life- trivial task- what reason to not conform?
• Fiske (2014)- ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’- not like groups in real life- consequences of nonconformity not same impact
• demand characteristics- knew it was a study- may have gone along with what was expected
• have to be careful when assuming NSI and ISI are the reason people conform as research flawed

Limited application:

• only men in Asch/Sherif- other research suggests women may be more conformist (Neto, 1995)
• US is individualistic culture- similar studies conducted in collectivistic cultures e.g Bond and Smith 1996, found conformity was higher
• Studies not fully generalisable

Individual differences:

• NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case
• some people greatly concerned with being liked by others- nAffiliators- stong need for affiliation
• McGhee and Teevan- students who were naffilliators more likely to conform
• NSI underlies conformity more for some than others- individual differences in conformity cant be explained by 1 general theory of situational pressures

Ethics:
- PPs in Asch’s study thought all were PP’s- deceived- ethical? however, benefits could outweigh risk

Question 18

What are the variables Asch investigated

Answer 18

Size of the majority, Unaniminity of the majority, difficulty of the task

Question 19

Describe how size of the majority affects conformity

Answer 19

• When only 1 confederate, conformity was 0%
• 2- 14%
• 3/4- 32%
• Curvilinear relationship- conformity increases with group size but only up to a certain point
• suggests many are very sensitive to opinion of others as conformity happened at just 2 people
• supporting research- Campbell and Fairey (1989)- when subjective, size of group makes more likely to conform but when objective, 1 or 2 was enough

Question 20

Describe how unanimity of the majority affects conformity

Answer 20

• Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with others
• 2 variations- either gave a correct answer or a different wrong one
• PP conformed less in the presence of a dissenter- reduced to 5.5%
• suggests conformity due to size of group strongly relies on unanimity

Question 21

Describe the effects of task difficulty on conformity

Answer 21

• made stimulus and comparison lines more similar
• situation becomes more ambiguous- look to others for guidance- ISI
• Supporting research- Lucas et al- more conformity when harder maths tasks but those better at maths conformed less

Question 22

Who investigated conformity to social roles

Answer 22

Zimbardo (1973)- The Stanford Prison experiment

Question 23

Stanford Prison experiment cause/aim

Answer 23

• Many prison riots in america- wanted to know why guards demonstrated brutality- sadistic personality or conforming to social role
• aim to investigate how readily people would conform to a social role in a roleplay situation

Question 24

Stanford Prison experiment procedure

Answer 24

• mock prison in basement of the psychology department at Stanford university
• 21 male student volunteers who tested as ‘emotionally stable’
• randomly assigned prisoner or guard
• guards given uniforms, clubs, whistles, sunglasses
• prisoners strip-searched, given uniform and number (names not used
• uniforms created loss of personal identity (de-individuation) - more likely to conform
• instructions about behaviour- prisoners had to ‘apply for parole’ to leave the study early, guards told they has complete power
• all signed consent form
• intended duration was 2 weeks, stopped after 6 days
• ## Zimbardo took the role of prison superintendent

Question 25

Stanford Prison experiment findings

Answer 25

• guards took role with enthusiasm- treating prisoners harshly
• prisoners rebelled within 2 days-ripped uniforms, shouting/swearing at guards
• guards used ‘divide and rule’- played prisoners off against each other
• harrassed prisoners constantly- reminded them of powerless, headcounts with their numbers in night, created opportunities to create rules and administer punishment (physial- press-ups etc), controlled everything (toilets etc)
• after rebellion was shut down, prisoners became depressed, subdued and anxious
• one released as showed symptoms of psychological disturbance
• two more released on 4th day
• one prisoner went on hunger strike- guards tried to force feed, put him in ‘the hole’ (tiny dark closet)
• guards identified more and more closely with their roles- behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, some enjoying power they had over prisoners

Question 26

Stanford Prison experiment conclusions

Answer 26

• social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals’ behaviour
• guards became brutal and prisoners became aggressive
• such roles easily taken on by all participants
• even volunteers who came in to perform specific roles (e.g. prison chaplain) found themselves behaving as in prison not study

Question 27

Stanford Prison experiment strengths

Answer 27

Control:

• good control over key variables
• selection of participants- emotionally stable chosen, randomly assigned roles- could rule out individual personality differences as explanation for result
• if guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles by chance, then behaviour must have been to role itself
• increased the internal validity of the study- can be more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of roles on conformity

Realism felt by participants:

• McDermott- participants behaved as if prison was real
• 90% of prisoners private discussions about prison life
• discussed how it was impossible to leave before ‘sentences’ were over
• prisoner 416- stated through it was real prison but ran by psychologists not government
• guards too- would work overtime with no pay
• increases internal validity- suggests the SPE depicted the social roles in a real prison

Ethical guidelines:

• led to improved ethical guidelines from the American psychological association
• questionnaire of mental stability
• consent form

Question 28

Stanford prison experiment weaknesses

Answer 28

Lack of realism:

• Banuazizi and Movahedi- argued PPs merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to social role
• PPs performance based on stereotypes of how prisoners/guards supposed to behave
• e.g. one of guards claimed he based role on brutal character from film ‘Cool Hand Luke’
• would also explain why prisoners rioted- thought that was what real prisoners did
• suggest SPE tell us little about conformity in actual prisons
• demand characteristics- may not be generalisable- poor ecological validity

Exaggerates the power of roles:
- Fromm - Zimbardo may have exaggerated power of roles to explain behaviour influence
- only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally
- 1/3 attempted to apply rules fairly
- the rest actively tried to help and support prisoners- sympathised, offered cigarettes, reinstated privilidges (Zimbardo, 2007)- most guards able to resist situational pressures
0 suggests Zimbardo overstated view that SPE PPS were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)

Alternative explanation:

• Zimbardo’s explanation for behaviour was that conforming to social role came naturally and easily - being given role of gards will mean prisoners inevitably behave brutally as that is what is expected of role
• Reicher and Haslam- criticise explain nation as doesn’t account for behaviour of non-brutal guards- used social identity theory to argue that guards had to actively identify with their roles to act as they did

Population validity:

• all male
• USA
• hard to generalise

Ethics:
- PPs not protected from psychological harm

Question 29

Modern study on conformity to social roles

Answer 29

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - BBC Prison study

Question 30

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - BBC Prison study procedure

Answer 30

• 15 men randomly divided into prisoners/guards

- 8 days

Question 31

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - BBC Prison study findings

Answer 31

• PPs didn’t conform automatically to assigned role as it happened in SPE
• Prisoners increasingly identified as a group, worked collectively to challenge the authority of the guards and establish a more egalitarian set of social relations within the prison
• The guards also failed to identify with their roles and so were reluctant to exert their authority on the prisoners- led to a shift of power and the collapse of the prisoner guard system
• ethical guidelines med and considered throughout experiment
• conformity is shift not automatic- contradicts Zimbardo

Question 32

Define obedience

Answer 32

A type of social conformity in which an individual follows a direct order, usually from someone a figure of authority who has the ability to punish if behaviour is not forthcoming

Question 33

Differences between obedience and conformity

Answer 33

• O is in a hierarchy, C is between people of equal status
• O emphasis on power, C emphasis on acceptance
• O behaviour may differ from the behaviour of authority figure, C behaviour adopted is extremely similar, if not the same to that of the group
• O prescription for action is explicit, but C requirement to yield is often implicit and unspoken
• O participants embrace obedience to behaviour, but C PPs deny it

Question 34

Background to obedience research

Answer 34

• Adorno (1950) started research after WWII investigating antisemitism to understand treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany
• Authoritarian personality- more prone to obedience- submissive to those in authority (unquestioned obedience, looked up to superiors, believed in ridgod social structure, prejudiced against minority groups)
• high level of obedience to Hitlers authority not die to direct force- mass willingness to cooperate with Nazi regime and obey Hitlers command ( helping round up Jews and send to Auschwitz, shopping neighbours to Gestapo etc)
• interpreted by allies as being due to German’s ‘national character’, depicted as authoritarian, militaristic and obedient

Question 35

Who investigated obedience

Answer 35

Milgram (1963)

Question 36

Milgram obedience aim

Answer 36

• asses obedience in a situation where an authority figure (experimenter) ordered the PP (teacher) to give increasingly strong shocks tp a learner

Question 37

Milgram obedience baseline procedure

Answer 37

• 40 American males, 25-50 y.o, recruited from newspaper adverts
• False ‘random’ allocation of teacher and learner
• PP saw learner (confederate) strapped up in chair o electrodes, experienced small shock themselves to experience pain, make it seem real
• no other genuine shocks in the procedure
• PP in different room to confederate
• PP ordered to shock learner every time he god wrong answer on wird pair memory teat
• Board of switches for chicks from 30-450V, labelled ‘slight shock to ‘danger-severe sock’
• heard PP struggle, protest/ pounding on wall up to 315V, then silent
• told they must go on
• all PP’s debriefed after, told behaviour was normal
• in a questionnaire, 84% glad to have participated
• asked 14 psychology students to predict- on average, thought no more than 3% would go to 450V- unexpected results

Question 38

Milgram obedience baseline results + conclusions

Answer 38

• Every PP delivered up to 300V
• 5 (12.5%) stopped there
• 65% continued to highest (450V)
• also qualitative observations- many seemed to sweat, tremble- intense distress- 3 even had seizures
• concluded that Germans weren’t different- Americans also extremely obedience to authority- normal people willing to obey even in believing its hurtig others

Question 39

Milgram obedience baseline strengths

Answer 39

Control:

• Lab experiment- high levels of control
• ensured each PP had exactly same experience e.g. verbal instructions from experimenter, noises from confederate, same names etc
• allows to be repeated and checked for reliability
• makes possible for cause and effect to be established as lack of extraneous variables- can be confident people obeyed due to presence of authority figure

Research support:

• french documentary- Beauvois et al
• PPs ordered to give shocks by presenter as part of ‘game’
• 80% gave max 460V to apparently unconscious man- almost identical behaviour shown as in Milgram’s
• supports original findings- not due to special circumstances

Genuine effects:

• Sheridan and King- PPs given real shock to puppies from orders from experiment
• Despite real distress of animal, 54% of men and all women gave what they thought was fatal shock
• suggests effects in Milgram’s were genuine as people behaved obediently even when shocks were real

Practical application:

• Helps us understand why Nazi soldiers blindly obeyed to carrying out atrocities
• However, Madel suggests it is offensive to say the Nazi’s themselves were victims of authority figures

Question 40

Milgram obedience baseline weaknesses

Answer 40

Low internal validity;

• Milgram reported 75% of PPs said they believed shocks were genuine
• Orne and Holland- believed PPss believed in way the did as didn’t believe shocks were real, so were play acting
• Perry- listened to tapes of Milgrams PPs- reported only half believed they were real, 2 thirds were disobedient
• suggests PPs may have been responding to demand characteristics
• counter- Sheridan and king

Alternative explanation to findings:

• Haslam et al- showed PPs obeyed when experimenter delivered first 3 verbal prods (please go on, experiment requires you to continue, absolutely essential)
• however, every PP given 4th ( you have no other choice, you must go on), disobeyed
• Social identity theory- PPs only obeyed when they identified with scientific aims of research (‘experiment requires’)- wen ordered to blindly obey authority figure, they refused
• Shows SIT may be more valid interpretation of findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that ‘identifying with the science is a reason for obedience

Ethics:

• PPs were deceived- e.g. false random allocation of roles, thought shocks were real- Milgram debriefed but Baumrind objected as believes deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for PPs and researchers
• also protection from psychological harm broken- 3 suffered seizures, lots f distress- makes it hard to replicate and test for reliability, Pps shouldn’t be negatively affected

Question 41

Define situational variables

Answer 41

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour (alternative to dispositional variables- explained in terms of personality)

Question 42

Variables Milgram investigated

Answer 42

Situational variables:

• proximity x 3
• Location
• Uniform
• Number of teachers

Question 43

Milgram obedience variables: Proximity

Answer 43

T + L in same room:

• in baseline, T could hear but not see L
• when in same room dropped from 65-40%

Touch proximity:

• T had to force L’s hand on electroshock plate if refused to himself after giving wrong answer
• dropped further to 30%

Remote instructor:

• E gave orders to T over phone rather than being in same room
• Dropped to 20.5%, also frequently pretended to give shocks

Conclusion/explanation:

• decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of actiobs- hen physically separated, T ess aware of harm caused to another person- more obedient
• less obedience when cat see E- depersonalised- easier to disobey

Question 44

Milgram obedience variables: Location

Answer 44

• changed location to run down office block (experiment ran by advertising agency) rather than prestigious Yale university, (researcher wears jeans and t-shirt)
• Obedience fell to 47.5%

Explanation/conclusions:

• prestigious university- gave legitimacy and authority- more obedient as perceived E had legitimacy so though obedience was expected
• Still quite high in office blocks due to perceived scientific nature of the study

Question 45

Milgram obedience variables: Uniform

Answer 45

• in baseline, E worse gery lab coat as symbol of authority
• Variation: E called away because of inconvenient telephone call at the start of procedure- role taken over by ‘ordinary member of public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes
• obedience dropped to 20%

Conclusion/explanation:

• uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised symbols of authority
• we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (granted by society)
• someone without uniform has less right to expect our obedience

Question 46

Milgram obedience variables: 2 teachers

Answer 46

• PPs could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches
• rose to 92.5%

Explanation/conclusion:
- less personal responsibility - obedience increases- relates to his Agency theory

Question 47

Strengths of Milgrams situational variables research (obedience)

Answer 47

Research Support:

• Bickmen
• field experiment in NYC
• 3 confederates dressed in different outfits- jacket and tie, milkmans, security guards uniform
• individually stood in street and ask passers by to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter or handing over coin for parking meter
• people 2x more likely to obey to security guard uniform to jacket and tie
• supports Milgram- situational variables like uniform doesn’t have powerful effect on obedience

Cross Cultural replications:
- findings have been replicated in other cultures
- Meeus and Raajmakers- used more realistic procedure than Milgrams to study obedience in Deutch PPs- PP ordered to say stressful thins to someone in an interview (confederate) desperate for a job- 90% obeyed
- when person giving orders wasn’t present (proximity), obedience decreased dramatically
- suggests findings not just relevant to American men, but also to other cultures and women
COUNTER:
- Smith and Bond- identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jorda (culturally different from USA), however other countries involved (spain, Australia, Scotland etc) more similar (similar notions about role of authority)
- may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgrams findings (including variations) are generalisable to most/all cultures

Control:

• Lab experiment- high levels of control
• ensured each PP had exactly same experience e.g. verbal instructions from experimenter, noises from confederate, same names etc
• allows to be repeated and checked for reliability
• makes possible for cause and effect to be established as lack of extraneous variables- can be confident people obeyed due to presence of authority figure, and obeyedience changed due to variations

Question 48

Weaknesses of Milgram’s situational variables research (obedience)

Answer 48

Low internal validity:

• Orne and Holland
• PP even more likely to realise procedure was faked in variations due to extra manipulation of variables
• When E replaced by member of public (uniform), even Milgram recognised this situation was so contrived that some PPs may well have worked out truth
• Unclear whether findings are genuinely due to operation of obedience and variations or whether PPs saw through deception and just play acted- demand characteristics

The danger of the situational perspective:

• finding support a situational explanation of obedience
• Mandel- suggests it is offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest Nazi’s were simply obeying orders- offers an excuse/alibi for evil behaviour
• also ignores role of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)- implying Nazi’s were victims of situational factors beyond their control

Question 49

social-psychological explanations for obedience

Answer 49

• agentic state

- legitimate authority

Question 50

autonomous state

Answer 50

• when we are responsible for our own behaviour- free to behave according to own principles

Question 51

Agentic state

Answer 51

• when we act as ‘agents’ for authority figure
• hand over responsibility for actions to them
• feel no personal responsibility for behaviour- frees us from demands of our conscience

Question 52

Shift from agentic to autonomous state

Answer 52

• agentic shift
• authority has greater power as higher in social hierachy- believe they are responsible for actions so don’t think they’ll be blamed for consequences of behaviours- more likely to obey
• can cause moral strain- when someone feels uncomfortable going against their morals in order to obey- knows what they are ding is wrong but feels pressure to obey

Question 53

Binding factors

Answer 53

• aspects of the situation that allow someone to ignore the effect of their behaviour to avoid moral strain
• use strategies such as shifting responsibility to the victim (e.g. he was foolish to volunteer) to help us cope

Question 54

Strengths of agentic state

Answer 54

Research support:

• Milgrams research supports this theory
• PPs demonstrated moral strain when deciding whether to continue- seizures, laughing fits etc
• those who decided to disobey no longer showed these emotions- suggesting they weren’t experiencing moral strain as in autonomous state
• supports agentic state as although people may feel uncomfortable obeying, they will do so when in agentic state
• many asked questions e.g. ‘who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed’ - when experimenter responded ‘I am’, PPS often continued with no objection- acting as experimenters agent

Real-life application:

• The actions of Nazi war criminals were defended in court using the defence that they were simply following orders- felt as though they weren’t responsible for actions
• strength as theory can make people aware of the dangers of igniting feelings of moral strain

Question 55

Weaknesses of agentic state

Answer 55

Limited explanation:

• agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience
• Rank and Jacobson in repeat of hoffling study using mame of real rather than fake drug - found 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient
• doctor was obvious authority figure but almost all nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgrams PPS
• suggests that at best, agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
• Mandel- WWII- German Reserve police battalion 101- shot many civilians in small Poland Town- didn’t have direct orders too- challenges agentic shift as behaved autonomously

Alternative explanations:

• French and Raven proposed 5 different types of power- legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent
• social power held by Milgram may have caused obedience not agentic shift- limited or inaccurate theory

Describes rather than explains obedience:

• theory states that people obey because they are agents of authority
• but doesn’t actually state how the agentic shift takes place and what the processes involved are or how it could be measured
• makes it hard to carry out research to test the theory- weakens its validity

Cruelty rather than agentic shift:

• plain human cruelty may explain obedience better than agentic shift
• Milgrams PPs may have used the situation to express their sadistic tendencies- stanford prison experiment supports this
• guards inflicted rapidly escalating cruelty on prisoners even though no authority figure telling them to do this
• shows it may not be agentic control, which causes obedience
• instead, it may be a certain aspect of human nature

Question 56

Legitimate authority explanation

Answer 56

• most societies structured in a hierarchail way- means people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us (e.g. parents, teachers, police officers, security guards/bouncers)
• the authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society
• most accept that authority figures can exercise social power for society to function smoothly
• some are granted power to punish- e.g. we generally agree that police officers and courts can punish wrongdoers- means we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately
• learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood- parents initially then teachers and adults generally

Question 57

Negative consequences of legitimate authority

Answer 57

Destructive authority:

• legitimate authority can become destructive
• history often shows charismatic and powerful leaders (e.g. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) using their legitimate powers for destructive purposes- ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous
• evident in Milgram’s study- when the experimenter used prods to order PPs to act in a way that went against their consciences

Question 58

Legitimate authority in Milgram’s experiment

Answer 58

• experimenter had legitimate authority- coat was uniform- symbol of legitimate authority
• suggests that obedience is more likely when the individual believes the authority to be legitimate and credible
• variations- when in Yale with a lab coat, full obedience was 65%
• when no uniform, obedience fell to 20%, and to 48% when in office blocks
• shows obedience is more likey when authority seems legitimate

Question 59

Strengths of legitimate authority explanation

Answer 59

Explains cultural differences:

• Kilham and Mann- only 16% of Australian women fully obeyed in Milgram style experiment
• Mantell found very different result with German PPs- 85%
• shows in some countries, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
• reflects the way that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

Research evidence to support the impact of legitimacy of authority on obedience:

• Tarnow (2000)
• provided support for explanation through the study of aviation accidents
• Studied data where black box was available and where flight crew actions were a contributory factor in the crash
• found there was excessive dependence on the captains authority and expertise with one second officer claiming that although he noticed the captain taking a particularly risky approach, he said nothing as he assumed ‘the captain knew what he was doing
• the safety board concluded that these errors were found in 19 of the 37 accidents investigated

Legitimacy of authority can explain real life obedience:

• Keman and Hamilton suggest the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war is explained by the power hierarchy of the US army
• the army has authority recognised by the US government and law
• soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal- even orders to kill, rape and destroy villages
• the legitimacy explanation is able to give reasons what destructive obedience is committed

Question 60

Weaknesses of legitimate authority explanation

Answer 60

Can’t explain all disobedience:

• Rank and Jacobson
• most nurses still disobedient despite working in rigidly hierarchical structure
• also, significant minority of Milgrams study disobeyed despite recognising experimenters legitimate scientific authority
• suggests that some people might just be more or less obedient than others- possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater impact on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure

Alternative explanations more effective:

• Gradual commitment (also known as ‘foot in the door technique’) suggests that once people obey to a trivial, seemingly harmless request, then they find it more difficult to refuse to carry out more serious escalating requests
• therefor, we can’t assume that having a legitimate authority figure is the only reason people obey

Legitimate authority may be used to justify harming others:

• when directed by a legitimate authority figure to engage in immoral actions, people are willing to do so and this can happen regardless of how destructive the orders called for are
• this implies that when people authorise another person to make judgements for them about appropriate conduct, they no longer feel that their own moral values are relevant to that conduct

Question 61

who investigated dispositional factors in obedience

Answer 61

Adorno et al (1950)- prompted by anti Semitism in WWII

Question 62

What personality type did Adorno Propose

Answer 62

The authoritarian personality

Question 63

describe the characteristics/ traits of the authoritarian personality

Answer 63

• extreme respect for/submissiveness to authority
• view society as ‘weaker’ than it once was, and so feel need for powerful leaders to enforce traditional values e.g. love and country
• more likely to obey orders from source of authority
• inflexible outlook on the world- rigid in opinions and beliefs- no grey areas
• everything is either right or wrong- uncomfortable with uncertainty
• more likely to view minority groups as ‘other’- can be hostile to those with inferior status- can blame minorities for all the ‘ills’ of society
• minorities convenient targets for authoritarians who are obeying destructive orders from those in positions of authority- e.g. Nazi Germany

Question 64

Describe the origins of the authoritarian personality

Answer 64

• Adorno- forms in childhood, mostly as result of harsh parenting
• typically features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticisms of pericieved failings
• conditional love from parents
• Adorno argues these childhood experiences create resentment and and hostility in a child, but cant express these feelings directly to a parent in fear of punishment so fears are displaced on those they perceive to be weaker- scapegoating- psychodynamic explanation

Question 65

Adorno procedure (dispositonal factor in obedience)

Answer 65

• more than 2000 middle-class white American’s
• potential for fascism scale (F-scale)- used to measure authoritarian personality (e.g. obedience and respect for authority are the 2 most important virtues for children to learn’)
• studied unconscious a
  attitudes to other ethnic groups

Question 66

Adorno findings (dispositonal factor in obedience)

Answer 66

• people with authoritarian leanings (scored higher on F-scale) identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptuous of the weak
• very conscious of status and showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status- these traits are the basis of obedience
• had certain cognitive style- no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people (black and white thinking)- had fixed stereotypes about other groups
• strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Question 67

Who investigated dispositional factors as well as Adorno

Answer 67

Elms and Milgram

Question 68

Elms and Milgram (dispositional factors) procedure

Answer 68

• follow up to Milgrams original obedience study
• 20 ‘obedient’ PP’s (gave 450 V) and 20 defiant PP’s who refused to continue at some point
• All PP’s completed MMPI scale (measuring range of personality variables) and the Californian F scale to specifically measure authoritarianism
• also asked a series of open questions about their relationships wth their parents during school and their attitudes to the teacher and learner in the original study

Question 69

Elms and Milgram (dispositional factors) findings

Answer 69

• higher levels of authoritarianism in PPs who has been classed as obedient than defiant
• obedient PPs reported having less close relationships with their fathers during childhood
• saw the authority figure in the study clearly more admirable, and the learner less so
• not the case in defiant PPs

Question 70

Elms and Milgram (dispositional factors) strengths

Answer 70

Research support:

• Dambrun & Vatine (2010) using an immersive virtual environment.
• They demonstrated that there was a clear correlation between participants’ RWA score and maximum voltage shock administered to the victim
• Those with the highest RWA obeyed the most

Question 71

Elms and Milgram (dispositional factors) weaknesses

Answer 71

Education may determine authoritarianism and obedience:

• Those who are less educated are consistently more obedient than those with higher levels of education
• suggests that instead of authoritarianism causing obedience, lack of education may be responsible for both obedience and authoritarianism

Social context more important:

• Milgram still maintains that social context may explain obedience better than disposition
• based on his many studies where the social context was varied (proximity to victim, location and presence of disobedient peers)

Not all obedient PPs showed all the features of an authoritarian personality:

• Not all had difficult relationships with father
• generally didn’t glorify father
• didn’t experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood
• didn’t have particularly hostile attitudes towards mothers
• suggests complex link between obedience and authoritarianism- the obedient PPs were so unlike authoritarians in so many ways that authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful predictor of authority

Question 72

Strengths of the dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 72

Research evidence to support:

• Elms and Milgram (as per previous cards)
• COUNTER- differences in PPs as on weaknesses of E&M card
• Dambrun and Vatine (see strengths of E&M)

Question 73

Weaknesses of the dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 73

Limited explanation:

• authoritarianism can’t be used to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population
• for example, in pre-war Nazi Germany, millions of induviduals displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour
• this was despite fact they must have differed in their personalities in many ways
• seems extremely unlikely that they could all possess authoritarian personality (all caused by similar factors)
• alternative explanation- social identity theory- could be that majority of German people identified with anti-semitic Nazi state and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of Jews
• means Adorno’s explanation is limited as there is a much more realistic alternative explanation

Political bias:

• F scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology
• Christie and Jahoda- argued F-scale is politically based interpretation of authoritarian personality
• point out reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism
• extreme left and right wing ideologies have a lot in common e.g both emphasise importance of complete obedience to political authority
• means Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience across the whole political spectrum

F-scale provides flawed evidence:

• Greenstein (1969)- calls the F-scale a ‘comedy of methodological errors’ as it is a severely flawed scale
• Acquiescence bias (bias to agree)– possible to get high score from just selecting agree answers
• Response bias- demand characteristics- in interview, PPs may know what survey was asking for
• interviewer bias- Adorno may have been looking for certain childhood events t match his theory- may have influenced answers given

Question 74

Name 2 explanations for resistance t social influence

Answer 74

• Social support

- Locus of controll

Question 75

Describe how social support works in resiting social influence

Answer 75

• The presence of people who resist pressures to conform/obey can help others to do the same
• these people act as model to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

Question 76

Describe the role of social support in resisting conformity

Answer 76

• Asch- the person not conforming didn’t have to be giving the right answer- they just had to be disagreeing with the majority- allowed the participant to follow their own conscience and answer as they wished
• Their dissent gives rise to more dissent because it shows the majority is no longer unanimous
• The research found that if the confederate dissenter started to conform again the participant also conformed- social support must be continuous and long lasting

Question 77

Describe the role of social support in resisting obedience

Answer 77

• In one of Milgrams variations, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate
• having a model allows PP to follow own conscience- even if not just copying him
• the disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure- makes it easier for others to disobey

Question 78

Who proposed the locus of control

Answer 78

Rotter (1966)

Question 79

Describe the locus of controll

Answer 79

Dispisitional explanation as personality- Refers to the extent that people believe they have control over the events that happen in their own life- there is a LOC continuum- not just either internal or external LOC- high internal and high external at either ends of spectrum- low of both lie in-between

Question 80

Describe an internal locus of controll

Answer 80

• believe what happens to them is largely down to own behaviour
• hold belief that one can control much of one’s life and succeed in dissficult and stressful situations as they can control these events
• more likely to be independent
• active seekers of information that is useful to them- less likely to rely on the opinions of others
• feel that they control their own lives so they don’t need to be influenced by others
• less likely to conform and obey

Question 81

Describe an external locus of controll

Answer 81

• believe that what happens to them is largely controlled y external factors
• jold the belief that things are largely uncontrollable and that luck or fate are important factors
• less likely to be independent- rely on instructions from other peiple- more likely to rely on the opinions of others
• fee they don’t control their own lives so need information from others
• more likely to conform and obey

Question 82

Strengths of locus of controll

Answer 82

Avtgis (1998)- research support:

• meta-analysis of studies- considered both LOC and conformity
• found those who scored higher on external LOC were more easily persuaded and likely to conform that those with higher internal LOC
• average correlation was 0.37
• suggest significantly higher conformity in external than internal- supports idea that LOC can explain induvidal’s independent behaviour
• SEE COUNTER ON WEAKNESSES OF LOC

Elms and Milgram- supporting:

• found dissobedient PPs had higher internal LOC than those who obeyed
• suggests the personality trait impacted on their decision to resist pressure to obey

Oliner and Oliner- supporting research:

• interviewed groups of 2 non-jewish people who lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Germany
• compared 406 who HAD rescued Jews to 126 who didn’t
• found that rescuers had a higher internal LOC- suggests it is a facto that helps people resist pressures to obey authority
• SEE COUNTER ON WEAKNESSES OF LOC

Holland- supporting research:

• repeated Milgrams baseline study and measured whether PPs were internals or externals
• found 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock levels (showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of internals didn’t continue- inetrnals showed greater resistance
• shows resistance is at least partly related to LOC- increases explanations validity

Practical application:

• if we know who has which type of LOC, we could use these to assign people to jobs
• e.g. if you have a high external LOC, you might be a good soldier but a poor nurse as soldiers need to follow orders unquestionably in wartime for the safety of colleagues but nurses should always question a doctors order of they don’t think it is correct for the safety of the patient)
• COUNTER- could result in social controll- removes free will in society and is therefore not beneficial

Question 83

Weaknesses of locus of control

Answer 83

Issues wit Atgis’ reserach:

• used correlational method to analyse the results
• hard to see which factor caused the other- can’t be sure that internal LOC caused non-conformity or if it was other way round/something else
• means results of study may not be true representation of link between LOC and conformity

Issues with Oliner and Oliner:

• lack of control
• real life situation- no control of extraneous variables
• e.g. situational factors likely to be important
• people may have rebelled more if they had social support or disobedient model- this wasn’t measured
• difficult to establish cause and effect between LOC and independent behaviour- other variables may have caused the behaviour

Contradictory research:

• `Twenge et al
• analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 year period
• data showed that over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external- surprising outcome
• if resistance is linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal
• suggests the LOC is not a valid explanation for how people resist social influence

Limited role of LOC:

• Many studies have shown having high internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence
• however, Rotter (1982) points out LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence
• LOC’s role depends on teh situation
• a persons LOC significantly affects behaviour in new situations
• if you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are you will do so again in that situation whether you have high inetrnal/external LOC

Question 84

Strengths of social support explanation

Answer 84

Real-world research support/ application:

• Albrecht et al
• evaluated teen fresh start USA- 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke
• social support was provided by slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’
• and the end, adolescents who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of PPs with no buddy
• shows social support can help young people as part of an intervention in the real world

Research support for dissenting peers (obedience) :

• Gamson et al
• PPs told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign
• researchers found higher levels of resistance in his study than milgram did in his
• probably because PPs were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do
• 29 out of 33 (88%) of groups disobeyed
• shows how peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure
• COUUNTER- could just be that PPs didn’t like big oil companies trying to put other companies out of business

Further research support:

• Mullen
• found PPs more likely to break the law and jay-walk when it was demonstrated by disobedient models
• support SS as explanation for SI as it is an every day example of how we will break the law if we see others doing so- we have social support to do whatever we want rather than feeling we have to obey laws we may not really agree with

Question 85

weaknesses of social support explanation

Answer 85

Limited explanation:

• Allen and Levine
• Asch type task
• found when dissenting confederate had seemingly good eyesight, 64% of confederates refused to conform- only 3% when no one- supports
• however, when had glasses with thick lenses (appeared to have bad eyesight) resistance was only 36%- social support not always equally effective- could also be element of legitimacy

Timing of social support:

• Asch found SS in the form of dissent must be given early in process
• if a dissenter answers correctly from start of study then conformity drops from 32% to 5.5% whereas if teh confederate starts to dissent later then conformity only drops to 8.5%
• suggests that social support alone isn’t a sufficient explanation- may also be dependent on when SS is given and if it is consistent

Non-consistent application (??- weak point)

• in real life, even if someone dissent, this doesn’t mean you’ll do what they do
• if people around you droplitter but you feel strongly that this is wrong, you wont do it- it can often be a matter of free-will

Question 86

Describe minority influence

Answer 86

• when the minority influences the belief of the majority
• most likely to lead to internalisation
• conversion to different minority viewpoint- the more people who convert, the faster the rate of conversion- the snowball effect - gradually the minority become the majority- change occurs
• not conformity as not majority

Question 87

What 3 characteristics will make minority influence the most effective

Answer 87

• Consistency
• Commitment
• Flexibility

Question 88

Minority influence- describe Consistency

Answer 88

• minority must be consistent in their views
• increases the amount of interest from others
• consistency can ake form of agreement between people (synchronic consistency) or consistency over time (diachronic consistency)
• consistency makes people start to reconsider their own views
  RESEARCH SUPPORT
• Wood et al (1994)- meta-anaysis of 97 studies
• found those minorities perceived as being most consistent in expressing their position were the most influential
• also supported by Moscovici (1969)

Question 89

Minority influence- describe commitment

Answer 89

• minority must be committed to their cause
• could use extreme activities which show commitment- the augmentation principle
• also allows confidence in the face of a hostile majority - more likely to take them seriously

Question 90

Minority influence- describe flexibility

Answer 90

• someone who is extremely consistent may seem rigid, unbending and dogmatic- unlikely to gain converts to the minority
• cant be too willing to compromise though- then will seem inconsistent- need balance between consistency and flexibility
• accept reasonable counterarguments
  RESEARCH SUPPORT:
• Nemeth et al (1987)
• stimulated jury situation
• when the confederate put forward an alternative point of view had no effect on the majority
• when compromised and showed some shift to the majority they had a greater influence- but only happened when shifted late in negotiations rather than early on (perceived as ‘caving in’)- shows acting out of goodness not self interest

Question 91

Main researcher of minority influence

Answer 91

Moscovici (1969)

Question 92

Moscovici aim, procedure and findings

Answer 92

Aim:
- to compare the effect of s consistent and inconsistent minority on influencing PPs to give an incorrect answer on a colour perception task

procedure:
- only females (no colour blind)
- asked to describe colour of 36 slides
- 6 PPS- including 2 confederates
- slides all blue but varying brightness
- consistent condition- 2 confederates called all slides green
- inconsistent - called 12 bue and rest green
- measured percentage of PPs who called slide green

Findings:

• consistent- PPs called slides green 8.42% of time, 32% at least once
• inconsitent- called green 1.25% of the time

Question 93

Strengths of Minority influences

Answer 93

research support:

• Moscovoci- high controll as lab, eyesight tested- cause and effect can be established- high internal validity od support for consistency
• Nemeth- also lab- high control
• Wood et al- Minority can have impact- meta-analysis- provides reliability
• Martin et al- presented message supporting particular viewpoint- measured PPs agreement- one group heard minority agree and another heard majority agree- PPs then exposed to conflicting view- less willing to change views if they had listened to minority views- minority message more deeply processed and more enduring effect

Practical application:

• minority influence can bring about social change
• e.g. suffragettes
• evidence of psychology at work in everyday life

Question 94

Weaknesses of minority influence

Answer 94

Research limitations:

• Moscovici- lab- lacks ecological validity and mundane realism- also know part of experiment- hard to generalise to real life- low external validity as not how minority influence worse in real life
• Martin et al- clear distinction between minority and majority- in real life its more complex, different levels of social power and hostility- not seen in research where minority is just smallest group- hard to generalise to real life situations

Opposing theory:

• Turner (1991)
• suggests people generally move towards members of their ‘in-group’ (those who are similar to them) and move away from theri ‘out-group’
• as well as flexibility commitment and consistency we may also need to feel some kind of membership with the minority in order for it to make an influence

Limited impact:

• Moscovici- only 8% with consistent minority- minority influence is quite rare- not useful concept- more influenced when wrote answers down, suggests more complex relationship- different private and public view
• Real-life example- Tony Benn in about minority used classic Moscovici influence strategies but majority members (Neil Kinnock) showed no movement to minority view - shows minority influence cant always bring about social change- sometimes majority will hold viewpoint

Question 95

Describe social change

Answer 95

• occurs when a society as a whole adopts a new belief/way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the ‘norm’
• often the result of a minority challenging the majority view and is eventually accepted as the majority view
• takes time for the minority to become the majority and bring about social change
• minority influence- form of SI in which a minority persuades others into adopting their views/beliefs, attitudes or behaviours- leads to internalisation of views in which private attitudes are changed as well as as public behaviours

Question 96

Give real life examples of the roe of minority influence in social change

Answer 96

• Martin Luther King- In 1995. Rosa Parks arrested for not giving up seat on bus- MLK led bus boycott- civil rights campaign- eventually led to more equality/ less racial prejudice- Barac Obama first black president
• Sir Rchard Doll- Smoking used to be glamorous- published first link between smoking and lung cancer- in 2007, UK banned smoking in public places- since Doll’s publishing, no. of people smoking dropped from 80- 26%
• Charles Darwin- evolution idas in stark contrast yo majority view that man was created by God- widely unacceoted at time in 1859, however now majority believe in theory of evolution
• The Sufragettes- campaigned for women rights to vote- carried out protests and often arrested- in 1928, women over 21 could vote and in 1970 the equal pay act was introduced
• Gay rights movement- gay marriage not made legal till 2013- marches in 2012

Question 97

Describe the social impact theory

Answer 97

Latane- the amount of influence depends on:

1) strength- power or social status
2) immediacy- physical or psychological distance
3) Number of sources- number of people in group exerting the social influence

Question 98

Name processes which bring about social change

Answer 98

• drawing attention through social proof
• consistency/ flexibility/ commitment
• deeper processing
• the augmentation principle
• snowball effect
• social cryptomnesia

Question 99

Describe drawing attention (social change)- give 2x examples

Answer 99

• provide social proof of a problem
• civil rights marches- Gay rights march in 2012
• American Black civil rights marches- attention to segregation
• draws attention- provides social proof

Question 100

Describe consistency/flexibility/ commitment (social change)- give 2x examples

Answer 100

• consistency- civil rights in America/gay rights- message/intent remained consistent- millions of people took part in protests
• flexibility- initially gay right movement accepted civil partnerships in lieu of marriage in 2005- seen as flexible
• commitment- gay people remained committed to achieving rights regardless of prejudice shown towards them in numerous hate crimes

Question 101

Describe deeper processing (social change)- give 2x examples

Answer 101

• activism makes many people who had simply accepted status quo began to think deeply about the unjustness of systematic racism/homophobia

Question 102

Describe the augmentation principle (social change)- give 2x examples

Answer 102

• induviduals in civil rights movements risked lives several times
• e.g. freedom riders- mixed ethnic groups who boarded busses in the south challenging transport segregation- many physically beaten
• personal risk indicates strong sense of belief and reinforces (augments) their message

Question 103

Describe the snowball effect (social change)- give 2x examples

Answer 103

• as ideas of minority began to take effect, members of the majority slowly move towards the minority
• minority gradually grows in size and picks up momentum more and more till social change occurs
• e.g. gay marriage allowed from 2014, US civil rights act in 1964 prohibited discrimination

Question 104

Describe social cryptomnesia (social change)- give 2x examples

Answer 104

• when social change has occurred in society and attitude has become an integral part of societies culture, the source of the minority influence is often forgotten
• people know that change has occurred but don’t know how it happened
• younger generations according to research are more accepting of gay marriage
• some have no memory of the American civil rights movement
  many don’t remember women (suffragettes) dying/protesting to give women the vote- very few think of suffragettes while voting

Question 105

Describe lessons about social change through conformity

Answer 105

• majority can bring about social change through normative/information SI- people either want to do what everyone else is doing because they want to be the same as others it think everyone else is right- conformity
• Asch- when one confederate gave right answer this stopped the power of the majority- conformity dropped
• use normative social influence- e.g. environmental campaigns saying ‘bin it-others do’ to prevent litter or saying most young people don’t smoke - social changed encouraged to drawing attention to what the majority is actually doing

Question 106

Describe lessons about social change through obedience

Answer 106

• dictators such as Hitler can bring about change through power and obedience- Nazi soldiers were agents of Hitler (Milgram’s agency theory)- therefore obeyed orders without taking responsibility for own behaviour
• Milgram also showed that a disobedient model caused obedience levels to drop to 10%
• Zimbardo- suggested obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment- once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes harder to resist a bigger instruction- known as the ‘foot in the door technique’

Question 107

Describe barriers to social change

Answer 107

Bashir Et al :

• investigated why people often resist social change even when they agree its necessary
• found people don’t behave in environmentally friendly way as they don’t want to be associated with ‘tree huggers’
• minorities should avoid behaving in ways that reinforce stereotypes because this is off-putting to the majority they are trying to influence

Question 108

Strengths of social change explanations

Answer 108

Research evidence to support normative influences:

• Nolan et al
• hung messages on front doors of houses in San Diego every week for a month
• key message that most residents trying to reduce energy usage
• controll- signs just saying to save energy but no reference to others behaviour
• significant decreases in energy in first group to control

Minority influence explains change:

• Nemeth
• claims social change is due to type of thinking minority inspires
• when people consider minoity arguments, they engage in divergent thinking- broad rather than narrow, thinker actively searches for information and weighs up more options
• nemeth argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues
• shows why dissenting minorities are valuable - stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way majorities cant

Seen in real life:

• many examples of minority influence achieving social change
• the suffragettes
• the African-Amerian civil rights movement
• the gay rights movement
• Darwin
• strengths as evidence of psychology at work in every day life

Question 109

Weaknesses of social change explanations

Answer 109

Weaknesses of studies supporting explanations:

• asch, Milgram, moscovici- weaknesses in methodology (e.g. lack of ecological validity)
• raises doubts of validity of explanations- if methodology isn’t valid, findings may not be applicable to real life

Deeper processing may not play role:

• Mackie
• presents evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you don’t share their views
• because we like to believe others share our views and think in the same way as us
• when we find out majority believes something different, we are forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning
• means central element of minority influence has been challenged- casts doubt on validity as explanation for social change

Counter evidence to normative influence in social change:

• Foxcroft et al
• reviewed social interventions as part of the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane collaboration
• reviewed 70 studies where the social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use
• researchers found only small reduction in drinking quantity and no reduction in drinking frequency
• seems normative influence doesn’t always produce long term social change

Social change happens slowly and sometimes not at all:

• Nemeth
• argues effects of minority influence are likely to be incorrect and delayed
• weakness as it shows minorty influence effects are fragile and may be limited
• e.g. smoking banned in public places in 2007 but was this due to social influence or more scientific evidence about lung cancer and need to attempt to save NHS

Barriers to social change:

• Bashir- see previous card (people dot want to be associated with certain groups)
• suggests people want to be liked by their in-group as social identity theory suggests- may be stronger than desire to support a minority who they believe are right but are the out group