Social Influence Flashcards
What is social psychology
- social psychology looks at the relationship between people and how people affect each other’s behaviour
- social influence
What is conformity
- form of social influence
- person changes behaviour/attitudes/beliefs to be in line with the majority
- occurs from pressure of majority
- pressure can be real/imagined
What are the types of conformity (3)
- compliance
- internalisation
- identification
What is compliance
- individuals adjust their behaviour/attitudes/beliefs that are shown in public to be in line with majority
- no change to private behaviour/attitudes/beliefs
- only lasts when group is present
- superficial and temporary
What is internalisation
- individuals adjust behaviour/beliefs in public and private
- in line with majority
- individual examines own behaviour on what others are saying and decides that majority is correct
- deeper than compliance and more permanent
What is identification
- individual accepts social influence to be associated with a role model or group
- adopting role model/group’s behaviour to feel connected to them
Who developed a theory to explain why people conform
- Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)
What are the reasons to why people conform (2)
- normative social influence
- informational social influence
What is normative social influence (NSI)
- people have a need for social approval and acceptance
- people avoid behaviour which leads to rejection
- leads to copying others to fit in
- therefore associated with compliance
What is informational social influence (ISI)
- people have need to be right and have an accurate perception of reality
- may make objective tests against reality but if not possible they rely on opinions of others
- likely if situation is ambiguous or if others are experts
- leads to internalisation
What are positive evaluation points for normative and informational social influence (3)
- Asch (1951)
- Jenness (1932)
- Sherif (1935)
How is Asch (1951) a positive evaluation point for normative and informational social influence
- asked participants to say which three test lines was same as standard line
- participants were in groups with confederates who gave wrong answers
- 33% of trials led to conformity giving wrong answer
- conformed due to normative social influence
- after study claimed they knew answer but did not want to be ridiculed
How is Jenness (1932) a positive evaluation point for normative and informational social influence
- asked participants to estimate number of beans in a jar
- participants made individual estimate first then another as group
- found when in a group, estimates would be close, even though initially reported different numbers individually
- informational social influence as participants uncertain about number so genuinely influenced by group
How is Sherif (1935) a positive evaluation point for normative and informational social influence
- autokinetic effect
- small spot of light in dark room appears to move but does not
- participants estimated how far light moved (20cm to 80cm)
- participants then put into manipulated groups (2 similar, 1 not) and found group came to common estimate
- informational social influence, ambiguous task
What are negative evaluation points for normative and informational social influence (2)
- McLeod (2007)
- dispositional factors
How is McLeod (2007) a negative evaluation point for normative and informational social influence
- third explanation for conformity, ingratiational conformity
- similar to normative social influence, but group influence does not affect conformity
- instead motivated by need to impress or gain favour instead of fear of rejection
How are dispositional factors a negative evaluation point for normative and informational social influence
- impact whether person conforms
- people with internal locus of control less likely to conform than external locus of control
- NIS and ISI cannot explain this
- person’s locus of control refers to extent which they believe they have control over their own behaviour
What was Asch’s (1951) study
- tested different variables which affected social influence
- three lines study
How did Asch (1951) carry out his study
- naive participant in group with confederates
- group asked to look at standard line and decide individually which of the three test lines was same length as standard
- gave responses one at a time
- answer was obvious (1% chance of genuine mistake)
- confederates purposely gave wrong answer on 12 of 18 trials
- naive participant was last so heard all responses before they gave their own
What were the findings of Asch’s (1951) study
- 1% chance to make a genuine mistake
- 33% of responses incorrect
- 75% of participants conformed at least once
- 5% conformed on all trials
- 25% did not conform at all
- when participants interviewed, they knew answer but said wrong answer to avoid disapproval (NSI)
How did Asch (1956) use group sizes to test social influence
- same study as his 1951 three lines test but varied sizes of groups
What were the findings when Asch (1956) altered group sizes
- 3% conformity rate with one confederate
- 13% conformity rate with two confederates
- 32% conformity rate with three confederates
- little change after three confederates
How did Asch (1956) use task difficulty to test social influence
- adjusted task difficulty so test lines were more similar in length
What were the findings when Asch (1956) altered the task difficulty
- conformity increased, due to ISI having an impact
- when uncertain, people look to others for confirmation
- the higher the difficulty, the higher the ISI and conformity
How did Asch (1956) use unanimity to test social influence
- when group had been unanimous (all confederates agreed), conformity increased
- when one confederate gave different answer to other, group was no longer unanimous and conformity dropped
What were the findings when Asch (1956) altered the unanimity
- when confederate gave the right answer, conformity dropped to 5% from 33%
- when confederate gave a different wrong answer (still going against the group), conformity dropped to 9%
What were the evaluation points for Asch’s (1951 and 1956) studies (5)
- temporal validity
- ecological validity
- sample representation
- volunteer sample
- ethical issues
How is temporal validity an evaluation point for Asch’s (1951 and 1956) studies
- negative, does not have temporal validity
- study was 80 years ago, people may have been more conformist
- post war attitudes showing people should work together rather than dissent which may have affected results
How is ecological validity an evaluation point for Asch’s (1951 and 1956) studies
- negative, lacks ecological validity and mundane realism
- task is artificial and unlikely to occur in real life
- conformity takes place in a social context, with people we know and not strangers
How is sample representation an evaluation points for Asch’s (1951 and 1956) studies
- negative
- gender bias as only contains males
- does not represent female behaviour
- culture bias as only white Americans that do not reflect behaviour of all cultures
- positive
- however, study has been repeated with different samples and cultures
- still proven to be reliable
How is the use of a volunteer sample an evaluation point for Asch’s (1951 and 1956) studies
- negative
- used volunteer sample who may not represent behaviour of wider population
- lacks population validity and cannot be generalised
How are ethical issues evaluation points for Asch’s (1951 and 1956) studies
- negative
- deception
- lack of informed consent
- psychological harm
- necessary to deceive participants to prevent demand characteristics
What are social roles
- behaviours expected of an individual who has a certain social position or status
- people conform to social roles assigned to them
What did Zimbardo (1973) investigate
- whether conformity to social roles altered a person’s behaviour or not
How did Zimbardo (1973) carry out his study
- stimulated prison in basement of Stanford University psychology department created
- 24 emotionally available and psychologically stable young men recruited and randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard
- prisoners arrested at home, taken to local police to be booked, photographed, and fingerprinted
- blindfolded and driven down to simulated prison, stripped naked, deloused, given ID numbers
- guards had control over prisoners who were confined to cells
- guards told to maintain order (barring physical violence)
- guards worked in threes for 8 hour shifts
- prisoners were 3 to a cell
What were the findings of Zimbardo’s (1973) study
- on second day, prisoners tried rebelling by ripping off prison numbers and barricading themselves in cells
- guards sprayed them with CO2, stripped them naked, took beds and forced ringleaders into solitary confinement
- guards become increasingly cruel and aggressive
- prisoners became passive and depressed
- guards became so aggressive that study had to be ended after only 6 days (planned for 2 weeks) due to psychological health concerns
What were the evaluation points for Zimbardo’s (1973) study (5)
- ethical issues
- role of Zimbardo
- sample representation
- demand characteristics
- individual differences
How are ethical issues evaluation points for Zimbardo’s (1973) study
- prisoners subjected to psychological harm
- five prionsers released early due to extreme reaction
- however Zimbardo did not expect guards to behave in such a way so harm could not have been anticipated
- negative
How is the role of Zimbardo an evaluation point for Zimbardo’s (1973) study
- took on the role of prison warden
- became too involved in experiment and lost objectivity
- had to be told by a colleague to end experiment due to concerns over distress of prisoners
- validity of findings can be questioned
- negative
How is sample representation an evaluation point for Zimbardo’s (1973) study
- culture bias, all participants white bar one
- gender bias, all participants male
- age bias, all participants young
- status bias, all participants middle class
- negative, unrepresentative
How are demand characteristics an evaluation point for Zimbardo’s (1973) study
- guards may have behaved the way they did due to demand characteristics
- some participants reported afterwards they thought the experimenters wanted them to be aggressive
- validity can be questioned
- negative
How are individual differences an evaluation point for Zimbardo’s (1973) study
- some guards did not conform to role given whereas some were abusive
- suggests individual differences are important in determining extent of conforming to social roles
- shows there must be other dispositional factors contributing to conformity => LoC?
- negative
What is obedience
- behaving as instructed to by an authority figure
- authority figures have status/power over others
How did Milgram (1963) get participants for his study
- placed advert in newspaper asking for males to take part in study on effect of punishment on learning
- 40 participants invited to psychology department of Yale University and met by experimenter (confederate)
- introduced to Mr Wallace (confederate), old man with weak heart
How did Milgram (1963) assign roles for his study and what did each role do
- participant and Mr Wallace asked to pick paper from hat to determine role
- both pieces of paper had teacher written to ensure naive participant was teacher and Mr Wallace was learner
- teacher had to punish learner if they made a mistake on a memory test through an electric shock
- electric shock increased in voltage each time mistake was made
How was the learner set up in Milgram’s (1963) study
- learner taken to room and hooked to electric shock machine
- teacher saw this then taken to adjoining room with electric shock controls and experimenter
- electric shock machine were fake but convincing
- teacher pressed switches on machine to administer shocks
How was the electric shock machine set up in Milgram’s (1963) study
- each switch labelled with voltage rating
- switches started at 15 volts and rose in increments of 15 to 450 volts
- each group of four switches was labelled with text (slight shock, moderate shock, danger: severe shock)
What was happening during Milgram’s (1963) study
- as shocks became more severe, Mr Wallace demanded to be released from experiment
- Mr Wallace was screaming, kicking the wall, complaining about his weak heart and refusing to answer questions
- finally Mr Wallace went silent
Why did the participants not stop shocking Mr Wallace
- experimenter ensured teacher continued with experiment
- when teacher showed reluctance, experimenter prompted them to continue using one of four statements
- please continue
- the experiment requires that you continue
- it is absolutely essential that you continue
- you have no choice, you must continue
What were the findings of Milgram’s (1963) study
- 100% of participants gave shocks up to 300 volts (when Mr Wallace banged on wall and stopped answering)
- 65% of participants gave shocks until 450 volts
- participants felt high levels of stress and showed symptoms including sweating, trembling, and anxious and hysterical laughter
- most were obedient and willing to inflict lethal shocks to a man with a weak heart
What were the evaluation points for Milgram’s (1963) study (5)
- deception
- psychological harm
- right to withdraw
- sample representation
- cost-benefit analysis
How is deception an evaluation point for Milgram’s (1963) study
- negative
- participants deceived about true nature of experiment
- means no informed consent to take part
- necessary to prevent demand characteristics to prevent a decrease in validity of findings
How is psychological harm an evaluation point for Milgram’s (1963) study
- negative
- participants became extremely distressed
- some thought they had killed Mr Wallace
- Milgram did not expect his participants to obey so this psychological harm could not have been anticipated
How is right to withdraw an evaluation point for Milgram’s (1963) study
- negative
- several participants asked to leave experiment but were told they are not allowed
- violates right to withdraw from experiment
How is sample representation an evaluation point for Milgram’s (1963) study
- negative
- all participants were white American males
- gender and culture bias
- however study has been replicated with women and obedience rates were not significantly different
How is a cost-benefit analysis an evaluation point for Milgram’s (1963) study
- positive
- weighing harm against knowledge provided means study was worthwhile
- participants did not suffer from long-term emotional disturbances
- 84% of participants said they were happy to have taken part and learnt something
What was Milgram’s (1974) study
- Milgram (1974) conducted several variations of his original study in 1963
- wanted to test which situational variables lead to high levels of obedience and which reduced obedience
What were the situational variables Milgram (1974) changed to investigate obedience (3)
- proximity
- location
- uniform
How did Milgram (1974) change proximity to investigate obedience
- three different types of proximity variations
- proximity variation
- touch proximity variation
- absent experimenter variation
How did obedience change in Milgram’s (1974) proximity variation
- both teacher and learner were in the same room
- obedience levels fell to 40%
- teacher was able to experience Mr Wallace’s anguish directly
How did obedience change in Milgram’s (1974) touch proximity variation
- teacher had to actually force learner’s arm down onto metal plate to administer shocks
- obedience dropped to 30%
How did obedience change in Milgram’s (1974) absent experimenter variation
- experimenter left room after giving instructions and gave orders by telephone
- majority of participants missed out shocks or gave lower voltages than meant to
- obedience dropped to 20%
How did Milgram (1974) change location to investigate obedience
- alternative setting variation
- experiment carried out in rundown office by experimenter wearing casual clothes
- other variations carried out at Yale University
- obedience rate was 48%
- participants reported location of Yale as having confidence in integrity of experimenter
- lower status of office changed participant’s perception of legitimacy of authority of experimenter
How does uniform affect obedience rates
- uniforms are visible symbol of authority and can show power/status or lack of
- Bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passerbys to pick litter off street or move from bus stop
- confederates dressed as either guard, milkman or in smart clothes
- 80% obeyed guard but 40% obeyed milkman
What are the situational explanations for obedience (2)
- agentic state
- legitimate authority
What is the agentic state
- Milgram (1974) argued people obey horrific orders due to the situation they are in and not their own personalities
- people go from an autonomous state into an agentic state (agentic shift)
- once in state, people carry out orders and perceive themselves as merely the instruments of authority
- believe authority figure is responsible for actions (diffusion of responsibility) so do not feel guilty for their own actions
Why does the agentic state occur
- those in authority are trustworthy
- orders first seem reasonable and then becomes aggressive (gradual commitment)
- people psychologically protected from consequences of their actions (buffers)
- maintain a positive self-image (not responsible for their own actions)
- once in state, they stay to not break commitment to authority seeming arrogant and rude
How has the agentic state developed
- Milgram (1974) thought it developed during human evolution and is necessary for hierarchies to function in society
- prevents chaos
- living in societies where we submit ourselves to authority
- obedience is essential in society
What are the evaluation points for the agentic state (2)
- Milgram (1974)
- Mandel (1998)
How is Milgram’s (1974) study an evaluation point for the agentic state
- positive, supports agentic state
- participants less likely to shock Mr Wallace when in same room
- could see consequences of own actions (no buffers)
- close proximity to Mr Wallace and seeing pain prevents participants going into agentic state
How is Mandel’s (1998) research an evaluation point for the agentic state
- negative, disproves agentic state
- without buffers, people should not go into agentic state and obey order to harm someone in theory
- case of Major Wilhem Trapp was reported by Mandel
- Major Trapp given orders to kill a group of Jewish people in 1942
- members of battalion were given chance to say no, most accepted and massacre occurred
- this happened despite being in close proximity to victims
What is legitimate authority
- claims we recognise our own and other people’s positions in social hierarchy
- we obey those in a higher position than us
- we do not obey those in an equal or lower position than us
What are features of legitimate authority
- increased by visible symbols of authority
- dependent on setting, order, system and location, especially if commands are harmful or destructive
What are the evaluation points for legitimate authority (3)
- Hofling (1966)
- Bickman (1974)
- Milgram (1963)
How is Hofling’s (1966) study an evaluation point for legitimate authority
- positive, supports legitimate authority
- nurses obey dangerous order from doctor due to hospital location
- nurses receive call from unknown doctor and are asking to administer 20 milligrams of a drug (Astroten) to patients
- broke hospital rules as it was twice the maximum dose written on the bottle
- 95% of nurses carried out instructions
How is Bickman’s (1974) study an evaluation point for legitimate authority
- positive, supports legitimate authority
- asked confederates to order passerbys to pick litter off street or move from bus stop
- confederates dressed as either guard, milkman or in smart clothes
- 80% obeyed guard but 40% obeyed milkman
How is Milgram’s (1963) study an evaluation point for legitimate authority
- negative, disproves legitimate authority
- 35% of participants disobeyed experimenter even though he had legitimate authority in that situation
- legitimate authority does not explain why some people are able to resist order of authority figures
What dispositional explanation of obedience was proposed
- Adorno (1950)
- those with authoritarian personalities are more likely to obey authority figures
- authoritarian personalities have a collection of traits making them more obedient
What are dispositional explanations
- claims that individual’s personality characteristics determine their behaviour instead of situational influences in environment
What are the traits that authoritarian personalities have (7)
- servile towards people of perceived higher status
- hostile towards people of lower status
- preoccupied with power
- inflexible in their beliefs and values
- conformist and conventional (rule following)
- likely to categories people as ‘us’ or ‘them’
- dogmatic (intolerant of ambiguity)
How do people develop authoritarian personalities according to Adorno (1950)
- receiving extremely strict/rigid parenting, usually involving physical punishment
- creates feelings of hostility which are displaced onto weaker others that cannot fight back and therefore are safe
- cannot take out anger on parents due to fear
- repress anger and act submissive to parents
- submissive behaviour is extended to all authority
How can authoritarian personalities be identified
- Adorno (1950) developed questionnaire to measure authoritarian personalities
- F (fascism) scale
- participants asked to rate how much they agree with statements
What are evaluation points for the dispositional explanation of authoritarian personality for obedience (5)
- Miller (1975)
- Altemeyer (1981)
- situational factors (Milgram, 1974)
- dispositional explanations (Milgram, 1963)
- Middendorp and Meleon (1990), and Milgram (1974)
How is Miller’s (1975) study an evaluation point for authoritarian personality
- positive, supports authoritarian personality
- found people who scored high on F Scale were more likely to obey order to hold onto electric wiring while working on an arithmetic problem compared to people who scored low on F Scale
How is Altemeyer’s (1981) study an evaluation point for authoritarian personality
- positive, supports authoritarian personalities
- ordered participants to give themselves increasing levels of electric shocks when mistake is made on learning task
- correlation between those willing to shock themselves and high scores on F Scale
How are situational variables such as Milgram’s (1974) study an evaluation point for authoritarian personality
- negative, disproves authoritarian personality
- situational variables may be more important than dispositional ones
- Milgram (1974) conducted several variations with vastly different results
- obedience was 100% when Mr Wallace made no noise
- obedience rate was 0% when there were two authority figures disagreeing with each other
How are dispositional explanations such as Milgram’s (1963) study an evaluation point for authoritarian personality
- dispositional explanations cannot explain obedience in entire societies as authoritarian personalities are not common
- fewer than 65% of people have authoritarian personalities
- cannot be the only reason for level of obedience found in original Milgram (1963) study
How are Middendorp and Meleon’s (1990) and Milgram’s (1974) studies evaluation points for authoritarian personality
- possible that rather than authoritarian personality causing obedience, lack of education causes authoritarian personalities and obedience
- Middendorp and Meleon (1990) found less educated people are more likely to have authoritarian personality
- Milgram (1974) found participants with lower levels of education were more obedient
What is resistance to social influence and provide a situational example
- pressure to conform/obey can exert powerful influences over behaviour (Milgram 1963 had 65% obey and Asch 1951 had 75% conform)
- in both studies, people managed to resist pressure to conform or obey (35% disobeyed Milgram and 25% did not conform to Asch)
- social support theory
What is the social support theory
- situational explanation of resistance to social influence
- argues when one person refuses to conform/obey, makes it likely for others to also resist social influence
How does the social support theory make it likely for people to not conform
- ally who also resists social influence
- refuses unanimity of group
- groups are more influential if they are unanimous
- when unanimity is broken, people think about other ways of responding
- presence of ally gives them independent assessment of reality, making them more confident in decision and better able to stand up to majority
How does the social support theory make it likely for people to not obey
- people more likely to defy authority figure if they see a disobedient role model refusing to obey
- when a person rejects instructions of authority, it challenges authority figure’s legitimate authority
What are the evaluation points for the social support theory (3)
- Milgram (1974)
- Asch (1956)
- individual differences
How is Milgram’s (1974) study an evaluation point for the social support theory
- asked participants to deliver electric shocks to confederate when he answered question wrong
- shocks not real but participants believed they were and 65% shocked Mr Wallace
- in another variation when another confederate acted as a disobedient role model and refused to shock Mr Wallace, only 10% obeyed to shock Mr Wallace
- positive, supports social support theory
How is Asch’s (1956) study an evaluation point for the social support theory
- asked participants to say which of three test lines was same as standard
- participants in group with confederates who purposefully gave wrong answer
- in 33% of trials, participants conformed
- conformity dropped to 5% when one confederate acted as an ally to participant and gave right answer
- positive, supports social support theory
How are individual differences an evaluation point for the social support theory
- in both of the original studies (Asch 1951 and Milgram 1963), some participants were obey to resist social influence and not conform/obey even though there was no social support
- means social support is not a complete explanation of resistance to social influence
- other factors play a part, such as personality traits
What is a dispositional explanation to resistance to social influence
- locus of control
- Rotter (1966) argued person’s personality determines whether they conform/obey or resist social influence
What is locus of control
- extent to which an individual believes they have control over their own behaviour
- measured on a dimension from internal to external
How does a person with an internal locus of control think
- believe what occurs in their life is a result of their own behaviour and actions
- can alter what happens to them
- if they do bad on a test, they consider it their own fault for not revising enough
How does a person with an external locus of control think
- believes what happens in their lives is outside their control
- what occurs is determined by chance or other people
- no ability to alter what happens in their life
- if they do badly on a test, it’s due to bad luck or inadequate teachers
Why are people with a high internal locus of control less likely to conform/obey
- more likely to be leaders rather than followers
- less concerned with social approval
- more self confident
- believe they control their own circumstances
What are evaluation points for locus of control (3)
- Oliner and Oliner (1988)
- Milgram (1974)
- Williams and Warchal (1981)
How is Oliner and Oliner’s (1988) research an evaluation point for locus of control
- interviewed 406 German people who sheltered Jewish people from Nazis during 1930s and 1940s
- these Germans had internal locus of control allowing them to disobey Nazis
- positive, supports locus of control
How is Milgram’s (1963) study an evaluation point for locus of control
- asked participants to deliver shocks to confederate when he got questions wrong
- shocks not real but believed to be
- 65% obeyed and shocked confederate and 35% disobeyed
- provided questionnaire to participants to measure locus of control
- found 35% that disobeyed were more likely to have an internal locus of control
- positive, supports locus of control
How is Williams and Warchal’s (1981) research an evaluation point for locus of control
- found conformers less assertive than non-conformers
- done a Asch style conformity task
- two groups did not score differently on a test to determine locus of control
- suggests assertiveness more important than locus of control in determining whether or not someone will refuse to conform/obey
- negative, disproves locus of control
What is minority influence
- small groups or individuals change the way the majority behaves and thinks
- Moscivici (1985) considered minority influence leads to conversion
What is conversion
- when individuals change their private beliefs and views because of minority influence
When is minority influence likely to occur (3)
- when the minority stays committed
- when the minority stays consistent
- when the minority stays flexible
How does staying committed lead to minority influence
- commitment shown when members of minority demonstrates dedication to belief
- also occurs if minority makes sacrifices (augmentation principle), take risks or are inconvenienced themselves in some way
- shows minority is not acting out of self interest
How does staying consistent lead to minority influence
- occurs when minority repeatedly gives same message over time
- makes a majority reassess their belief and consider the issue more carefully
How does staying flexible lead to minority influence
- flexibility/being non-dogmatic is when a minority shows they are willing to listen to other viewpoints
- majority will then listen to minority view/take their argument more seriously
How does minority influence occur
- initially has a small effect
- spreads as more people consider the issue being raised and are converted to the minority viewpoint
- eventually it reaches a tipping point where the minority becomes the majority
- snowball effect
How fast is minority influence
- slow process and may even be unconscious
- sometimes individual is not even aware of where the near idea originated from (social crypto-amnesia)
What are key studies for minority influence and what aspect of minority influence do they investigate (3)
- Moscivici (1969) => consistency
- Xie et al. (2011) => committed
- Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) => flexibility
Explain the Moscivici (1969) study into consistency for minority influence
- told 172 female participants they were taking part in a colour perception task
- participants placed in groups of 6 (2 confederates) and shown 36 slides, showing shades of blue
- participants stated out loud colour of each slide
- consistent condition, confederates said green in all trials
- inconsistent condition, confederates said 24 were green and 12 were blue
- consistent condition, participants swayed by minority 8.2% of the time
- inconsistent condition, participants swayed 1.25%
- shows consistent minority is effective
Explain the Xie et al. (2011) study into commitment for minority influence
- discovered a tipping point where the number of people holding a minority position is sufficient to change majority opinion
- in fact, Xie found that you need about 10% of the minority population to influence the majority
Explain the Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) study into flexibility for minority influence
- participants in groups of 4 had to agree on amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski lift accident
- one participant was confederate
- first condition, confederate stayed inflexible with low rate
- second condition, confederate was flexible with low rate and compromised
- found in inflexible condition, minority had little or no effect on majority
- in flexible condition, majority were more likely to compromise and change view
What are the evaluation points for minority influence (4)
- Moscivici (1969)
- sample bias
- ecological validity
- ethical issues
How is sample bias an evaluation point for minority influence
- gender bias
=> only women
=> cannot conclude males would response to minority influence in the same way
=> research suggests women are more likely to conform than men - culture bias
=> all participants were American
=> cannot generalise to other populations or cultures
How is Moscovici (1969) an evaluation point for minority influence
- showed a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing views than minority with inconsistent views
- Wood carried out meta analysis of 100 similar studies
- found minorities who were consistent were more influential
How is ecological validity an evaluation point for minority influence
- most studies into minority influence are based on experiments in labs
- raises question of ecological validity
- does not reflect real life scenarios
- participants in lab experiments usually do not know each other
- negative, disproves minority influence
How are ethical issues an evaluation point for minority influence
- studies criticised for deceiving participants
- Moscovici told participants they were taking part in a colour perception test
- means no informed consent was received
- seems unethical but needed to obtain valid results
- if participants knew of true aim, they may have displayed demand characteristics
What is social change
- change that occurs in a society and not at an individual level
- occurs when minority view challenges majority view and is eventually accepted by the majority
What happens when majority accepts minority viewpoint
- once majority accepts minority viewpoint, people may conform to this viewpoint due to normative social influence (compliance) or informational social influence (internalisation)
How can governments/lawmakers bring about social change
- through power and obedience
- for example, changing law to allow gay marriage means people are more accepting of homosexual rights due to changes in law making a behaviour a social norm which others adopt
How can dictators bring about social change
- obedience
- leads to groups of people changing behaviour because of fear of punishment/consequences of not obeying
What are the steps in how minority influence creates social change (6)
- drawing attention to the issue
- consistency of position
- deeper processing
- augmentation principle
- snowball effect
- social cryptoamnesia
Explain the step of drawing attention to the issue in social change
- minorities can bring about social change by drawing the majority’s attention to an issue
Explain the step of consistency of position in social change
- minority groups are more influential when they express arguments consistently, over time and with each other
Explain the step of deeper processing in social change
- other people not part of the minority start to pay attention to the minority by thinking about what the status quo is and perhaps the unjustness of it
Explain the step of the augmentation principle in social change
- if a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and are taken more seriously
Explain the step of the snowball effect in social change
- minority influence initially has a relatively small effect
- spreads more widely as more and more people consider the issue being raised until it reaches a tipping point where the minority becomes the majority
- this is when conformity occurs through either NSI or ISI
Explain the step of social cryptoamnesia in social change
- majority knows a social change has occurred
- but source of change and message has been disassociated through the process of social cryptoamnesia
