Social Influence Flashcards
Outline Asch’s conformity study
- 123 American male university students
- 1 standard line, 3 comparison lines
- Naïve participant either last or second to last
- In a group with 6 - 8 confederates
- Conformed 36.8% of the time
- 25% never conformed, 75% conformed at least once
Outline the Group Size variation in Asch’s conformity study
- Number of confeds varied from 1 - 15
- Conformity rose to 13.6% when 2 confeds were present
- Conformity rose to 31.8% when 3 confeds were present
- Conformity did NOT increase much if there were more than 3 confeds
Outline the Unanimity variation in Asch’s conformity study
- Dissenting confed was added - always DISAGREED with majority
- Conformity levels dropped significantly regardless of whether dissenter gave right or wrong answer
- Dissenter enabled participant to act independently and of their own will
Outline the task difficulty variation in Asch’s conformity study
- Line lengths more similar - situation became AMBIGUOUS
- Conformity increased
- INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE - participants more likely to look to others for the right answer and assume they are experts
Asch’s conformity study used an artificial task. How is this a weakness?
- Demand characteristics - participants knew they were in a research study
- Task was trivial so no reason not to conform
- Fiske argued Asch’s groups were unlike groups in real life
- Findings hard to generalise to everyday life where consequences of conformity are important
Asch’s findings have little application to real life. How is this a weakness?
- Only American men were tested
- USA = individualist and studies in collectivist cultures, e.g. China have found higher conformity rates (Bond and Smith)
- Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures
Asch’s findings have research support. How is this a strength?
- Lucas et al. asked participants to solve easy and hard maths problems
- Conformity increased when problems were harder
- Suggests Asch was correct that task difficulty is one variable affecting conformity
What is a counterpoint to Asch’s research support?
- Conformity = more complex than Asch thought
- Lucas showed conformity was related to confidence (high confidence = less conformity)
- Suggests individual-level factors interact with situational ones, but Asch did not investigate individual factors
Why does Asch’s research have low temporal validity?
- Asch’s study was a “child of its time)
- Higher rates of conformity across America in the 1950s due to fear of Communism, the Red Scare and McCarthyism
- Conformity rates lowered when fear of Communism ended, so findings do not apply outside of its time period
What are Kelman’s 3 types of conformity?
- INTERNALISATION : when a person genuinely accepts group norms. Private and public change of behaviour. Permanent change
- IDENTIFICATION : when a person identifies with a group due to certain beliefs. Public change of behaviour, but not always private. Can be permanent or temporary
- COMPLIANCE : when a person goes along with the majority in public with no private change of behaviour. Superficial and temporary change
Outline the 2 explanations for conformity
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE (ISI)
- Cognitive process
- Occurs in ambiguous situations
- Desire to be right
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (NSI)
- Emotional process
- Occurs in stressful situations where there is a need for social support
- Desire to be liked by a group
Why is research support a strength of NSI?
- Asch found participants conformed because they were afraid of disapproval
- When participants wrote down answers (no social pressure), conformity dropped to 12.5%
- Suggests some conformity is due to not wanting social rejection for disagreeing with the majority
Why is research support for ISI a strength?
- Lucas et al. found participants conformed more when maths problems were difficult
- Situation became ambiguous so they relied on “experts” for correct answers
- Results of Lucas’ study are what ISI would predict
What is a counterpoint to the research support strength of NSI and ISI?
- Unclear if NSI and ISI work in studies and real life
- A dissenter may reduce power of NSI or ISI
- Therefore, ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in most situations
How are individual differences in NSI a weakness?
- nAffiliators (people who need to be liked by others)
- McGhee and Teevan found nAffiliators more likely to conform
- Suggests NSI underlies conformity for some people more than for others - an individual difference NOT explained by a theory of situational pressures
Discuss whether the NSI / ISI distinction is useful
- Lucas et al.’s study shows NSI / ISI distinction may not be useful as it’s impossible to work out which one is operating
- HOWEVER, Asch’s research supports both NSI and ISI
- Therefore, both concepts are useful as they can be identified and used to explain the reasons for conformity in studies and real life
Outline Zimbardo’s prison simulation
- 21 male volunteers participated after a battery of psychological tests proving them to be mentally stable
- Randomly allocated role of guard or prisoner
- Prisoners = strip-searched, given uniforms and numbers which encouraged DE-INDIVIDUATION
- Guards = enforced rules, given uniform with handcuffs, wooden clubs etc.
- Prisoners told they could not leave but could ask for parole
- Guards had complete power over prisoners
- Guards treated prisoners harshly : prisoners rebelled after 2 days (ripped uniforms, shouted and swore at guards - guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassment)
- Prisoners became subdued, anxious, and depressed after rebellion
- 3 prisoners released early due to psychological breakdowns
- 1 prisoner went on hunger strike - guards force-fed him
- Study stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14
How is high control over variables a strength of the Stanford Prison Simulation?
- Only emotionally stable participants were used
- Random allocation
- Guards and prisoners given roles by chance - behaviour due to situation, not disposition (personality)
- Therefore, study has HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY
The Stanford Prison Simulation lacked realism of a true prison. How is this a weakness?
- Banuazizi and Mohavedi suggested participants were play-acting - behaviour reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave
- One guard based his role on a character from a film, prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what real prisoners do
- Suggests SPS tell us little about conformity to social roles in real prisons
What is a counterpoint of the lack realism evaluation in the Stanford Prison Simulation?
- Participants behaved as if prison was real - 90% of conversations were about prison life
- Prisoner 416 thought it was a real prison run by psychologists
- Suggests SPS replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just as in a real prison, INCREASING INTERNAL VALIDITY
Zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles. How is this a weakness?
- Only a third of guards behaved brutally, the others applied rules fairly
- Other guards supported prisoners, offering cigarattes and reinstating privileges
- Suggests SPS overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences
Explain the alternative explanation as to why Zimbardo’s participants conformed (SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY)
- Zimbardo claimed participants naturally took on their roles
- Doesn’t explain behaviour of non-brutal guards
- SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (Reicher and Haslam) argues only those who identify with the role of guards conform
- Suggests it’s possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role, as long as the individual does not identify with that role
Outline Milgram’s obedience study
- 40 male participants (told they’d be taking part in a memory study)
- Participants “randomly assigned” their role of teacher
- Confed (Mr Wallace) always learner, another confed (Mr Williams) was the Experimenter and wore a grey lab coat
- Teacher gave learner electric shocks increasing in 15V increments whenever they gave an incorrect answer (HIGHEST VOLTAGE = 450V)
- Shocks were fake but participants thought they were real
- If participant wanted to stop, Experimenter gave 1 of 4 verbal prods
- 12.5% stopped at 300
- 65% continued to 450V
- 0% stopped below 300V
- Observations (qualitative data) showed participants displayed signs of extreme tension - 3 had uncontrollable seizures
- Before the study, Milgram asked 14 students to predict results : estimated 3% would continue to 450V (results = very unexpected)
- 84% felt glad to have participated after being debriefed
Replications support Milgram’s findings. How is this a strength?
- Beauvois et al. : in a French game show, contestants paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered to by the presenter to other participants (actors)
- 80% gave maximum 460V to a seemingly unconscious man
- Like Milgram’s participants, many showed signs of anxiety
- This supports Milgram’s findings on obedience to authority
Milgram’s study lacked internal validity. How is this a weakness?
- Orne and Holland argued that participants guessed electric shocks were fake
- This was supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real
- Suggests participants may have been responding to demand characteristics
Sheridan and King’s puppy study found the obedience in Milgram’s study may have been real. How is this a counterpoint to the lack of internal validity argument?
- Sheridan and King’s participants gave real shocks to a puppy
- 54% of males and 100% females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
- Suggests the obedience in Milgram’s study might be genuine
Haslam found the findings of Milgram’s study may not have been due to blind obedience. How is this a weakness?
- Haslam found every participants given the first 3 prods obeyed the Experimenter, but those given the 4th prod disobeyed
- According to SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY, the first 3 prods required identification with the science of the research, but the 4th prod required blind obedience to the Experimenter
- This suggests that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with the science and not as blind obedience to authority
How are ethical issues a weakness of Milgram’s study?
- Participants were DECEIVED - thoughts shocks were real, Milgram dealt with this by debriefing the participants. However, some weren’t debriefed until up to 12 months after the study ended
- Baumrind felt this deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers (IMPOSSIBLE FOR INFORMED CONSENT TO BE GIVEN)
- Therefore, research can damage reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public
Outline Milgram’s proximity variations (same room, touch, remote)
- Teacher and learner in same room - obedience = 65%
- Touch proximity (teacher forced learner’s hand on shock plate) - obedience = 30%
- Remote instruction (Experimenter gave instructions via phone) - obedience = 20.5% (participants also often pretended to give shocks)
Explain the effects of Milgram’s proximity variations on obedience
Decreased proximity allows people to mentally distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, e.g. when teacher and learner were separated, teacher was less aware of harm being done, so was obedient
Outline Milgram’s location variation
Study conducted at run-down building, rather than Yale (where baseline study was conducted) - obedience = 47.5%
Explain the effects of Milgram’s location variation on obedience
Obedience higher at Yale because setting was legitimate, prestigious and had authority, so obedience was expected
Outline Milgram’s uniform variation
- In baseline study, Experimenter wore grey lab coat
- In uniform variation, Experimenter called away by a phone call at the beginning of the study and was replaced by a “member of the public” (confed in everyday clothes) - obedience = 20%
Explain the effects of Milgram’s uniform variation on obedience
Uniform = symbol of authority. Someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience
There is research support for influence of situational variables. How is this a strength of Milgram’s research?
- Bickman’s confeds dressed in different outfits (suit, milkman and security guard) and asked regular people to pick up litter in NYC
- People twice as likely to obey the security guard than the suit confed
- This suggests that situational variables have an effect on obedience
There have been cross-cultural replications of Milgram’s research. How is this a strength?
- Meeus and Raaijmakers worked with Dutch participants who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees
- 90% obedience but obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present)
- Suggests Milgram’s findings are not limited to American males, but are valid across cultures
Smith and Bond found that Milgram’s variations may not apply across cultures. How is this a weakness?
- Smith and Bond noted most replications took place in Western countries that are culturally similar to the USA
- Therefore, we cannot conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in most cultures
Milgram’s situational variations have low internal validity. How is this a weakness?
- Orne and Holland suggested the variations were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION
- In the uniform variation, even Milgram recognised this was so unrealistic that some participants may have worked it out
- Therefore, it’s unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and were influenced by demand characteristics
There is a danger of the situational perspective. How is this a weakness of Milgram’s situational variables?
- Milgram’s conclusions suggest situational factors determine obedience
- Mandel argues that this offers an alibi for GENOCIDE. Situational explanations hugely oversimplify the causes of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors
- This permits others (e.g. Adolf Eichmann) to excuse destructive behaviour in terms of “I was just following orders”
Outline agentic state theory
- AGENTIC STATE - person acts on behalf of an authority figure as an agent. Agent feels no responsibility for their actions
- AUTONOMOUS STATE - person acts on their own principles and feels responsible for their actions
- AGENTIC SHIFT - shift from autonomy to agent. According to Milgram, this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure because of their position in the social hierarchy
- BINDING FACTORS - aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore the damaging effects of their behaviour and reduce the “moral strain” they feel, e.g. shifting responsibility to the victims or denying damage being done to the victims
Outline legitimacy of authority
- SOCIAL HIERARCHY - people in certain positions hold authority over others, e.g. teachers, police, parents due to their position on the social hierarchy
- LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY - most of us accept that authority figures should exercise power over others to allow society to function properly
- CONTROL - authority figures have the power to punish others. We give up some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly. We learn to accept authority during childhood through parents and teachers
- DESTRUCTIVE AUTHORITY - history has shown that leaders, e.g. Hitler and Pol Pot use legitimate authority destructively, ordering people to behave in cruel ways
Agentic state theory has research support. How is this a strength?
- Most of Milgram’s participants asked the Experimenter who was responsible if the learner is harmed
- When the Experimenter said he was responsible, the participants went through the procedure with no objections
- This shows participants acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their actions
Rank and Jacobson found that agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings. How is this a weakness?
- Rank and Jacobson found 21 / 22 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s orders to give an excessive dose of Valium
- Doctor = authority figure but nurses remained autonomous, just like some of Milgram’s participants
- This suggests agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations
Kilham and Mann found legitimacy of authority can explain cultural differences. How is this a strength?
- 16% Australian showed 16% in their study, whereas Mantell found 85% of German participants obeyed in their study
- This suggests authority more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting upbringing
Legitimacy of authority can’t explain all (dis)obedience. How is this a weakness?
- 21 / 22 of Rank and Jacobson’s nurses were disobedient, as were some of Milgram’s participants, even though authority figures were legitimate in both studies
- Suggests innate tendencies towards (dis)obedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority
There have been real world crimes of obedience. How is this a strength of legitimacy of authority (destructive authority)?
- My Lai Massacre soldiers obeyed their commanding officer, because he had more power to punish than a doctor
- Therefore, there is some evidence in real-world situations that respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience
Outline the Authoritarian Personality criteria
- People have extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it
- Contempt for “inferiors”
- Originates in childhood - harsh parenting, extremely strict discipline, impossibly high standards, etc.
- Feelings of hostility and resentment towards parents from childhood displaced to others who are weaker
Outline Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality study (F scale)
- 2000 middle class, white Americans
- F-scale used (items included “obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn”)
- Those who scored high on the F-scale identified with the strong and had contempt for the weak
- They were conscious of their own and others’ status, showing excessive respect to those of higher status
- Authoritarian people had a cognitive style, where there was no “fuzziness” between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive prejudices about other groups
Elms and Milgram found authoritarians are obedient. How is this a strength of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
- Elms and Milgram interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgram’s original obedience studies
- They scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants
- This suggests obedient people may share many characteristics of people with an authoritarian personality
Authoritarianism may not be a useful predictor of obedience. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
- Subscales of the F-scale showed obedient participants had characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians, e.g. did not experience high levels of punishment in childhood
- This suggests a complex link and means authoritarianism is not a useful predictor of obedience
Authoritarianism can’t explain a whole country’s behaviour. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
- Millions of people in Germany displayed anti-Semitic behaviour, but can’t have all had an authoritarian personality
- More likely explanation is most Germans identified with the Nazi state
- Therefore, social learning theory may be a better explanation
Christie and Jahoda found that the F-scale is politically biased. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
- Christie and Jahoda suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology
- But right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism (e.g. Chinese Maoism) both insist on complete obedience to political authority
- Therefore, Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation, as it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism, i.e. it’s politically biased
Greenstein found that the F-scale is flawed. How is this a weakness of the dispositional explanation for obedience?
- F-scale has been used in many studies that have led to an explanation of obedience based on the authoritarian personality
- HOWEVER, according to Greenstein, the F-scale is flawed, e.g. people who tend to agree with the statements (response bias) are scored as authoritarian
- Therefore, explanations of obedience based on research with the F-scale may not be valid
Outline the role of social support in resistance to social influence
- Pressure to conform is reduced if a DISSENTER is present
- Asch’s research showed dissenter doesn’t have to give right answer
- Someone else not following majority frees others to follow their own conscience - dissenter acts as a “model”
- Dissenter shows the majority is no longer UNANIMOUS
- Pressure to obey is reduced if another person disobeys
- Milgram’s research showed obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10% in the TWO PEERS REBEL variation
- Participants may not follow the disobedient peer but disobedience allows participants to act on their own principles
- A disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure
Outline the role of locus of control in resistance to social influence
- Rotter described INTERNAL vs EXTERNAL LOC
- Internals believe they control what happens to them (exam performance depends on amount of revision they did)
- Externals believe things happen out of their control (exam performance depends on question difficulty)
- LOC is not just external and internal, there is a CONTINUUM
- Internals are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey
- High internals are more confident, more achievement oriented and have higher intelligence (trait of leaders who have less need for social approval)
Albrecht provided evidence for social support in resisting conformity. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
- In Albrecht’s study, social support was given to pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke by an older “buddy”
- Those adolescents were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who did not have a buddy
- This suggests social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world situations
Gamson provided evidence for social support for dissenting peers. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
- Gamson et al. asked groups to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign
- 29 / 33 groups rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram’s studies
- Shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience
Allen and Levine showed the social support explanation is valid. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
- Only 3% of Allen and Levine’s participants resisted conformity when there was no supporter, but 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform
- HOWEVER, 36% resisted when the dissenter clearly had poor eyesight and could not be relied on to judge the lines
- This suggests the explanation is valid because we would expect less resistance when participants believed social support was not helpful
Holland replicated Milgram’s study and provided evidence for locus of control in resisting obedience. How is this a strength of resistance to social influence?
- Holland repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals
- 37% of internals did NOT continue to highest shock level (showed greater resistance, only 23% of externals did not continue)
- Therefore, resistance is partly related to LOC, increasing the validity of this explanation of disobedience
Twenge’s meta-analysis suggests not all research supports LOC in resistance to social influence. How is this a weakness?
- Twenge analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years (1960-2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more EXTERNAL
- This is interesting because if resistance was linked to INTERNAL LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal
- Therefore, LOC may not be a valid explanation for resistance to social influence
LOC has a limited role in resistance to social influence. How is this a weakness?
- A lot of studies (e.g. Holland) show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence
- HOWEVER, Rotter pointed out the LOC only significantly influences behaviour in NEW SITUATIONS. In familiar situations, our previous responses are always more important
- Therefore, the validity of the LOC explanation is limited because it can predict resistance in some situations but not in others
Outline minority influence
- Minority influence refers to how one person or small group influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people
- This leads to INTERNALISATION - both public and private beliefs are changed
Outline consistency in relation to minority influence
- Consistency makes others rethink their own views, since minority keeps saying the same thing
- SYNCHRONIC CONSISTENCY - minority all saying the same thing
- DIACHRONIC CONSISTENCY - they’ve been saying the same thing for a long time
Outline commitment in relation to minority influence (including augmentation principle)
- Activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause
- AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE - majority pay even more attention to minority (if people see extreme activities and recognise the risk, it makes them think more about minority’s commitment, so more likely to change their views)
Outline flexibility in relation to minority influence
- Minority should balance consistency and flexibility so they don’t appear DOGMATIC
- Nemeth argues bein consistent and repeating arguments can be off-putting to majority, so minority should adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter-arguments
Outline the snowball effect in relation to minority influence
- Over time, people become “converted” - there is a switch from minority to majority
- The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion, so gradually minority view becomes majority view and social change has occurred
There is research support from Moscovici and Wood for consistency. How is this a strength of minority influence?
- Moscovici found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion
- Wood conducted a meta-analysis of 100 similar studies and found that minorities seen as being consistent were most influential
- This suggests that consistency is a major factor in minority influence
Martin provided research support for deeper processing. How is this a strength of minority influence?
- Martin gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint, and measured attitudes
- Then they heard an endorsement of the view from either a minority or majority
- Finally they heard a conflicting view, attitudes measured again
- Participants were less willing to change their opinions to the conflicting view if they had originally listened to a minority group than a majority group
- This suggests the minority message had been more deeply processed and had been more deeply processed and had an enduring effect
Research studies are limited in what they tell us about real-world minority influence. How is this a weakness?
- In research studies, majority and minority groups are distinguished in terms of numbers
- But there is more to majorities and minorities than just numbers (e.g. power or commitment)
- This means research studies are limited in what they tell us about real-world minority influence
Minority influence research often involves artificial tasks. How is this a weakness?
- Moscovici’s task was identifying the colour of a slide, far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in the real world
- In jury decision-making, outcomes are vastly more important, and sometimes a matter of life and death
- Findings of studies lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real world situations
Moscovici’s colour slide study showed the power of minority influence. How is this a strength?
- Agreement with the minority was only 8% in Moscovici’s study - minority influence must be quite rare so not a useful concept
- HOWEVER, more participants agreed with the minority when writing their answers privately. So those who do publicly change their views must be the “tip of the iceberg” and hold their new views strongly (internalisation)
- Therefore, minority influence is valid - it is an unusual form of social influence but can change people’s views powerfully and permanently (conversion)
Outline the 6 lessons from minority influence research
- DRAWING ATTENTION - segregation in 1950s America (schools, restaurants, etc. in the southern states were exclusive to white people). CIVIL RIGHTS MARCHES drew attention to the situation by providing social proof of the problem
- CONSISTENCY - people took part in the marches on a large scale. Even though it was a minority of the American population, they displayed consistency of message and intent
- DEEPER PROCESSING - this activism meant that many people who had accepted the status quo began thinking deeply about the unjustness of it
- AUGMENTATION - FREEDOM RIDERS were mixed racial groups who got on buses in the South to challenge separate seating for black people. Many were beaten and the personal risk strengthened their message
- SNOWBALL EFFECT - civil rights activists, e.g. Martin Luther King gradually got the attention of the US government. The Civil Rights Act 1964 was passed. Change happens bit by bit just as a rolling snowball grows as it gathers more snow
- SOCIAL CRYPTOMNESIA - social change came about but some people have no memory (cryptomnesia) of the events leading to that change
Outline the 2 lessons from conformity research
- DISSENTERS MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE MORE LIKELY - Asch’s research : variation where one confed ALWAYS gave correct answers. This broke the power of the majority, encouraging others to dissent. This demonstrates potential for social change
- NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE - environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI. They provide information about what other people are doing, e.g. reducing litter by printing normative messages on bins (“bin it - others do”)
Outline the 2 lessons from obedience research
- DISOBEDIENT MODELS MAKE CHANGE MORE LIKELY - Milgram’s research : disobedient models in the TWO PEERS REBEL variation. The rate of obedience in naïve participants plummeted (65% → 10%)
- GRADUAL COMMITMENT LEADS TO “DRIFT” - Zimbardo found that once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People “drift” into a new kind of behaviour
Nolan’s research has support for NSI in social change. How is this a strength?
- Nolan hung messages on the front doors of houses. The key message was most residents are trying to reduce energy usage
- Significant decreases in energy use compared to a control group who saw messages to save energy with no reference to other people’s behaviour
- Shows conformity can lead to social change through NSI
Foxcroft’s meta-analysis suggests NSI doesn’t always lead to social change. How is this a weakness of social influence and social change?
- Exposing people to social norms doesn’t always change behaviour
- Foxcroft reviewed 70 studies of programmes using social norms to reduce alcohol intake
- There was only a small effect on drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency
- This suggests that NSI doesn’t always produce long-term social change
According to Nemeth, minority influence explains social change. How is this a strength of social influence and social change?
- Nemeth says minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking (broad, active information search, more options)
- This thinking leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems
- Suggests that minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open people’s minds
Deeper processing may apply to majority influence. How is this a weakness of social influence and social change?
- Mackie disagrees with the view that minority influence caused individuals in the majority to think deeply about an issue
- Majority influence creates deeper processing because we believe others think as we do. When a majority thinks differently, this creates pressure to think about their views
- Therefore, a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting our doubt on its validity as an explanation for social change
There are practical applications to social influence and social change. How is this a strength?
- The steps involved in the process of social change provide practical advice for minorities wanting to influence a majority (e.g. be consistent)
- Even so, majorities still often resist change because they find the minority unappealing (environmental activists = “tree-huggers”). But according to Bashir, even this can be counteracted
- This suggests that minority influence research does provide applications that eventually influence majorities to change
