Social Influence Flashcards
1
Q
What is conformity
A
A change in a person’s behavior or opinions as a result of real of imagined pressure from a person or group of people
2
Q
Group size definition
A
Aschoff increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, leveling off when the majority was greater than three
3
Q
Unanimity definition
A
The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch’s studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederated selected the same comparison line. The is produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naive participants
4
Q
Task difficulty definition
A
Asch’s line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increased because naive participants assume that the majority is more likely to be right
5
Q
What is internalization
A
A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behavior, even when the group is absent
6
Q
What is identification
A
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don’t necessarily agree with everything the group/majority believes
7
Q
What is compliance
A
A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but disagree with it. The change in our behavior only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us
8
Q
What is informational social influence (ISI)
A
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalization
9
Q
What is normative social influence (NSI)
A
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance
10
Q
What is the definition of social roles
A
The parts people play as members of various social groups. Everyday examples include parent, child, student, passenger and so on. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behavior in each role, for example caring, obedient, industrious
11
Q
What is obedience
A
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behavior is not forthcoming
12
Q
What are situational variables
A
Features of the immediate physical and social environments which may influyen a person’s behavior (proximity, location, uniform). The alternative is dispositional variables where behavior is explained in terms of personality
13
Q
What is the definition of proximity in obedience
A
The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders to. Also refers to the physical closeness of the teacher to the victim (learner) in Milgram’s study
14
Q
What is the definition of location in obedience
A
The place where an order is issued. The relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location
15
Q
What is the definition of uniform in obedience
A
People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority, for example police officers and judges. This indicates that they are entitled to expect our obedience
16
Q
What is the agentic state
A
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behavior because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. This frees us from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure
17
Q
What is legitimacy of authority
A
An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy
18
Q
What are dispositional explantations for obedience
A
Any explantation of behavior that highlights the importance of the individuals personality. Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations
19
Q
What are authoritarian personalities (AP)
A
A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors
20
Q
What is resistance to social influence
A
Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influence by both situational and dispositional factors
21
Q
What is social support
A
The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influye is possible
22
Q
What is locus of control (LOC)
A
Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control)
23
Q
What is minority influence
A
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades others to adapt their beliefs, attitude or behaviours. Leads to internalization or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours
24
Q
What is consistency
A
Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority. Consistency is effective because it draws to the minority influence
25
what is commitment
Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position: making personal sacrifices
This is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self-interest
26
What is flexibility
Relentless consistency could be counter-predictive if it is seen by the majority as unbending and unreasonable. Therefore minority influye is more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise
27
What is social influence
The process by which individuals and groups change each others attitudes and behaviours.
- conformity, obedience and minority influence
28
What is social change
This occurs when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things
Eg - the earth orbits the sun, women’s suffrage, gay rights and environmental issues
29
What are the differently types of conformity
- internalization
- identification
- compliance
30
Who suggested the three types of conformity
Kelman
- 1958
31
Who suggested the two-process theory
Deutsch and Gerard
- 1955
32
What are the two main reasons people conform
- informational social influence
- normative social influence
33
What was the aim of Asch’s baseline procedure
To see what extent people will conform to the opinions of others
34
When was Asch’s study carried out
1951
35
What were the two tests in Asch’s baseline procedure
- standard and comparison lines
- physical arrangement of the participants in the study
36
What was the procedure for Asch’s baseline procedure: standard and comparison lines
- 123 American men
- two cards: one with standard line and other with comparison lines
- one comparison line clearly same as standard line
- had to say out loud which was the same one
37
What was the procedure of Asch’s baseline procedure: physical arrangement of the participants
- pps were tested in groups of 6-8
- only one genuine pps
- always sat last or second to last
- rest were all confederates
- gave the scripted answer each time
- genuine pps didn’t know the others were fake
38
What were the findings of Asch’s baseline
- genuine pps agreed with confederate incorrect answer 37%
- 25% of pps never gave the wrong answer
39
What are the three variables that cause conformity to increase or decrease
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
40
When was the Stanford prison experiment conducted
1973
41
What was the aim of the Stanford prison experiment
Did guards behave brutally or was it because they have sadistic personalities or was it their social role
42
What was the procedure for the Stanford prison experiment
- mock prison
- planned to last two weeks
- 21 ‘emotionally stable’ men (student volunteers)
- pps were randomly assigned to either guards or prisoners
- pps were encouraged to conform to their social roles
- uniform: P had loose smocks, caps and were identified by numbers
G had uniforms to reflect their status, wooden clubs, handcuffs and mirrored glasses
- created a loss of personal identity (de-individualization)
- prisoners were encouraged to identify with their roles by following procedures
- applying for parole instead of leaving
43
What were the findings of the Stanford prison experiment
- guards took up their roles with great enthusiasm
- prisoners rebelled within two days: ripped uniform, swore, retaliated with fire extinguishers
- guards used divide-and-rule tactic: harassed the prisoners; headcount’s, standing in line and answering to number
- after rebellion prisoners became depressed and anxious
- one prisoner released after showing signs of psychological disturbance
- one prisoner went on a hunger strike
- guards identified with their role more closely as time went on
- experiment had to be stopped after 6 days
44
What was the conclusion of the Stanford prison experiment
- social roles appear to have a strong influence on an individuals behaviour
- prisoners became brutal
- guards became submissive
- roles were easily taken on by all pps
- even those who came in to perform roles (chaplain) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison
45
When did Milgram preform his study
1963
46
What was the aim of Milgram’s study
Assess obedience levels
47
What was the procedure of Milgram’s study
- 40 American men (volunteers): advert in the newspaper paying $4.50 ph
- believed it was a study on memory
- pps were introduced to another confederate pps
- drew a rigged lot of wither learner or teacher. Genuine pp always teacher
- another confederate was the experimenter dressed in lab coat
- learner had to remember a pair of words. When error made shock was administered
- shocks from 15-450V
- learner stopped making sound at 315V
48
What were the 4 prompts given to the pps by the experimenter
- please continue
- the experiment requires that you continue
- it is absolutely essential that you continue
- you have no other choice, you must go on
49
When did the experimenter use the prompts
When the teacher refused to give a shock
50
What were the findings of Milgram’s study
- every pps delivered the shock up to 300V
- 12.5% stopped at 300V
- 65% continued to 450V (fully obedient)
- many participants showed signs of extreme tension: stutter, bitting nails, tremble
- 3 pps had full blown uncontrollable seizures
51
What was completed before Milgram’s study
-14 psychology students predicted their behaviour
- no more than 3% would administer the max shock
- the findings were unexpected
52
What percentage of people said they were glad they participated in Milgram’s study
84%
53
What was the conclusion of Milgram’s study
- German people are not different
- American pps were willing to obey orders
- suspected there were certain situational factors that effected obedience
54
What are the different situational variables in Milgram’s study
- proximity
- location
- uniform
55
What happened to the rate of obedience when the teacher and learner were in the same room - Milgram
Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
56
How much did obedience drop when an electroshock plate was introduced - Milgram
- the shock was given to the teacher
- 30%
57
How much did obedience drop by during the remote instruction variation - Milgram
20.5%
58
What is the explanation of proximity in Milgram’s study
People are able to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
59
What happened to obedience when Milgram completed the study in a run down office block
Dropped by 47.5%
60
What is the explanation of location in Milgram’s study for obedience
Prestigious university environment gave the study legitimacy and authority
61
What happened when the experimenter was changed for a member of the public (confederate) - Milgram
Dropped by 20%
62
Explanation of uniform in Milgram’s study
Uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognized as a symbol of authority
63
What is the autonomous state
- opposite to agentic state
- free to behave according to their own principles
- feel responsible for their own actions
64
What is the agentic shift
The transition from the autonomous to agentic state
- when you perceive someone else as an authority figure
65
What are binding factors
Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour
66
Where do authoritarian personalities come from
- result of harsh parenting
- strict discipline, high standards, severe criticism
67
What type of explanation is the authoritarian figure
Psychodynamic
68
When did Adorno completed their research
1950
69
What was the procedure for Adorno’s research into obedience
- >2000 middle-class white Americans: unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
- created the F-scale (tested fascism)
- asked questions to assess the 9 dimensions of the authoritarian personality
- had to agree on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree)
70
What were the findings of Adorno’s study into obedience
- those with high scores (authoritarian leaning) identified with strong people and were conscious of the status
- showed extreme respect for those with a higher status: traits for the basis of obedience
- authoritarian personalities had certain cognitive styles: they were fixed into distinct stereotypes
- strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
71
What does social support allow the minority party to do
- resist conformity
- resist obedience
72
What happened to the rate of obedience when a pps was joined by a confederate
Obedience dropped from 65% to 10%
73
Who proposed the locus of control and when
- Rotter
- 1966
74
What is the locus of control continuum
A scale that an individual falls on between high internal and high external
75
What does it mean if someone has a high internal LOC
More able to resist pressures to conform or obey
76
What type of locus of control is likely to resist social influence
High internal LOC
77
What is the study completed looking at minority influence
Blue-green slides
78
Who completed the blue-green slide test - minority influence
Moscovici
79
When did Moscovici complete his investigation
1969
80
What are the three main processes in minority influence
- consistency
- commitment
- flexibility
81
what are the different types of consistency- minority influence
- synchronic consistency
- diachronic consistency
82
What is synchronic consistency
Everyone is saying the same thing
83
What is diachronic synchrony
Everyone has been saying the same thing for an extended period of time
84
What are the aims of consistency, commitment and flexibility
Make people think about the minorities view or cause
85
What are the 6 stages of social change
- drawing attention
- consistency
- deeper processing
- augmentation principle
- snowball effect
- social cryptomnesia
86
What is drawing attention in social change
Provides social proof of the situation
87
What is consistency in social change
The minorities position remains consistent
88
What is deeper processing in social change
Makes others think deeply about the issue
89
what is the augmentation principe in social change
Risking their lives multiple times
- personal risk indicates a strong belief and reinforces the message
90
What is the snowball effect in social change
Activists
- making a change from minority to majority support
91
What is social cryptomnesia in social change
Having a memory of change but don’t remember how it happened
92
What are the different evaluation points for Asch’s study - conformity
- artificial situation and task
- limited application
- research support
- ethical issues
93
PEEL for artificial situation and task - conformity
- limitation
- task and situation were artificial
- pps knew they were in a research study
- demand characteristics
- task was trivial
- no reason not to conform
- ‘don’t resemble groups you see in everyday life’
- findings cannot be generalised to real-world situations
94
PEEL for limited application - conformity
- limitation
- all of Asch’s pps were American males
- women may conform more
- may be concerned about social relationships and being accepted
- completed in an individualist country
- in collectivist countries conformity rates were higher
- findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from different cultures
95
PEEL for research support - conformity
- strength
- support from other studies (task difficulty)
- Lucas et al (2006)
- solve easy and hard maths problems
- conformed more often with harder problems
- task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity
COUNTERPOINT
- conformity is more complex than Asch suggests
- highly confident pps conform less
- individual level factors can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables
- Asch didn’t investigated the role of individual factors
96
PEEL for ethical issues - conformity
- limitation
- genuine pps were deceived
- believed the confederate pps were real
- pps may not agree with being deceived
- would have to weigh the benefits to the consequences
97
Evaluation points for types and explanations of conformity
- research support for NSI
- research support for ISI
- counterpoint
- individual differences in NSI
98
PEEL point for research support for NSI - types of conformity
- strength
- evidence support it as an explanation for conformity
- Asch
- pps conformed because they felt self conscious to give the wrong answer
- afraid of disapproval
- when answers were written conformity dropped to 12.5%
- then no normative group pressure
- some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected
99
PEEL point for research support for ISI - types of conformity
- strength
- research evidence supports ISI
- Lucas et al
- pps conformed more to the incorrect answer if the question was hard
- when problem became hard the situation became ambiguous
- pps did not want to be wrong
- ISI is a valid explanation to conformity
- results are what ISI would predict
100
PEEL point for counterpoint to research support for ISI - types of conformity
- limitation
- often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work
- Asch found that conformity reduced with one more dissenting pps (said correct answer)
- dissenter may reduce the power of NSI or ISI
- could be either
- hard to separate ISI and NSI
- both proceses operate together in real-world situations
101
PEEL point for individual differences in NSI - types of conformity
- limitation
- NSI does not predict conformity in every case
- some people really want to be liked by others
- called naffiliators
- McGhee & Teevan found students who were naffiliators were more likely to conform
- NSI underlines conformity for some people more than others
- individual differences in conformity that cannot be explained fully by one general theory
102
Evaluation points for conformity to social roles - Zimbardo
- control
- lack of realism
- exaggerates the power of roles
- alternative explanation
103
PEEL point for control - Zimbardo social roles
- strength
- had control over key variables
- selection of pps
- emotionally stable and randomly assigned to roles
- ruled out individual personality differences
- pps behaviour had to be due to the role itself
- increased internal validity
104
PEEL point for lack of realism - Zimbardo social roles
- limitation
- did not have the realism of a true prison
- pps were ‘play activity rather than actually conformity to a role’
- following stereotypes
- one guard said he based his role on a brutal character
- tells us little into conformity in actual prisons
COUNTERPOINT
- pps did behave as though the prison was real
- 90% of prisoners conversations were about prison
- one pps later explained how he believed the prison was real
- the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a prison
- high internal validity
105
PEEL point for exaggerates the power of roles - Zimbardo social roles
- limitation
- exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
- 1/3 guards behaved brutally
- 1/3 guards applied rules fairly
- 1/3 guards tried to help and support prisoners
- most guards resisted situational pressures to conform to brutal role
- Zimbardo overstated his view that the pps were conforming to social roles
106
PEEL point for alternative explanation - Zimbardo social roles
- limitation
- Z said pps behaviour was that conforming to a social role comes naturally and easily
- guards will inevitably behave brutally
- it was the behaviour expected of that role
- Reicher and Hallam
- criticize Zimbardo’s explanation
- does not account for the behaviour of non-brutal guards
- used social identity theory (SIT)
- guards had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did
107
Evaluation points for obedience
- research support
- low internal validity
- alternative interpretation of findings
- ethical issues
108
PEEL point for research support - obedience
- strength
- replicated in a French documentary
- focused on a game show made for the documentary
- le jeu de la mort (the game of death)
- pps were paid to give a fake shock
- 80% of pps delivered the max shock of 460 V
- behaviour was almost identical to Milgram’s
- supports the original findings
- findings were not due to special circumstances
109
PEEL for low internal validity - obedience
- limitation
- may not have tested what he wanted to
- 75% believed the shocks were real
- Oren & Holland said the pps didnt believe in the set up
- play acting
- when listening to tapes only half though the shocks were real
- 2/3 were disobedient
- responding to demand characterisitcs
COUNTERPOINT
- King & Sheridan conducted a study using Milgram’s procedure
- pps gave real shocks to puppies
- 54% men & 100% women gave ‘fatal’ shock
- Milgram’s study was genuine as pps behaved obediently even when the shocks were fatal
110
PEEL for alternative interpretation of findings - obedience
- limitation
- the conclusion about blind obedience may not be justified
- Haslam said pps obeyed for first three verbal prods
- stoped obeying with fourth prod
- only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research
- refused when ordered to blindly obey
- SIT may provide a more valid interpretation for the findings
111
PEEL for ethical issues - obedience
- limitation
- pps were deceived
- thought the allocation was random when fixed
- thought shocks were real
- Milgram debriefed the pps
- criticisms for deceiving the pps
- deception is psychological studies can have serious consequences
112
Evaluation points for situational variable of obedience
- research support
- cross-cultural replication
- low internal validity
- danger of the situational perspective
113
PEEL point for research support - situational variables of obedience
- strength
- other studies have shown the influence of situational variables of obedience
- Bickman conducted a field experiment
- three confederated dress in three outfits: milkman, security, suit
- asked public to perform tasks like picking up rubbish or given a coin
- 2x more likely to obey with confederate dressed as security or in suit
- situational variables have a powerful effect on obedience
114
PEEL point for cross-cultural replications - situational variables in obedience
- strength
- findings have been replicated in other cultures
- Meeus & Raaijmakers used a more realistic procedure (Dutch)
- pps had to say stressful things to an interviewee
- 90% of pps obeyed
- also looked at proximity
- obeyed more when the person was present
- findings aren’t limited to Americans or men
- valid across other countries and to women
COUNTERPOINT
- not very cross cultural
- only two replications done in india and Jordan
- culturally different to US
- countries involved were more culturally similar to US
- may not be appropriate to conclude his findings to people in all other cultures
115
PEEL point for low internal validity - situational variables in obedience
- limitation
- pps may have realized the procedure was fake
- Oren & Holland criticized Milgram’s baseline study
- there was extra manipulation of variables
- when experimenter was replaced by a ‘member of the public’ some pps may have worked out the truth
- unclear if the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the pps saw through the deception
- demand characteristics
116
PEEL for danger of situational perspective - situational variables of obedience
- limitation
- findings support a situational explanation of obedience
- Mandel criticized his study
-offers an excuse for evil behaviour
- offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest the Nazis were just obeying
- ignores the role of dispositional factors
- Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control
117
Evaluation points for the agentic state as situational explanations for obedience
- research support
- limited explanation
118
Evaluation points for legitimacy of authority for situation explanations for obedience
- explains cultural differences
- cannot explain all disobedience
119
PPEL for research support - agentic state in obedience
- strength
- studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience
- pps resisted giving the shock at some point
- when asked who is responsible
- answered ‘i am’
- continued with no other questions
- once pps pervived they were no longer responsible for their actions
- acted more easily as the experimenters agent
120
PEEL for limited explanation for agentic state in obedience
- limitation
- agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience
- doesn’t explain Rank and Jacobson’s study
- 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders
- told to administer an excessive drug dose to a patron by doctor
- doctor was authority figure
- most nurses remained autonomous
- agentic shift only accounts for some situations of obedience
121
PEEL for cultural differences - legitimacy of authority in obedience
- strength
- useful account of cultural differences in obedience
- countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority
- 16% of Australian women went to 450V
- 85% of german women administered 450V
- some cultures look at authoritarian figures in different way
- more likely to accept them
122
PEEL for can’t explain all disobedience - legitimacy of authority in obedience
- limitation
- can’t explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy
- legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
- most of the nurses were disobedience despite working in a clear hierarchical authority structure
- M pps disobeyed despite recognizing the authority figure (scientist)
- people may be more or less obedient than others
- innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure
123
Evaluation points for the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience
- research support
- limited application
- political bias
- flawed evidence
124
PEEL for research support - dispositional explanation for obedience
- strength
- supports the authoritarian personality
- M interviewed a small sample of people who participated and had been fully obedient
- completed the F-scale
- significantly higher score than control group
- obedient people may show similar characteristics to people who have an authoritarian personality
COUNTERPOINT
- researchers analyzed the scores
- number of characteristics unusual for authoritarians
- did not glorify their fathers
- did not experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood
- did not have particular hostile attitudes towards their mothers
- link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex
- obedient pps were not like authoritarians in many ways
125
PEEL for limited explanation for dispositional explanations for obedience
- limitation
- cannot explain obedience behaviour in the majority o fa countries population
- pre war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-semantic behaviour
- unlikely they all possess an authoritarian personality
- a majority of Germans identified with the anti-semantic nazi state
- Adorno’s theory is limited
- alternative explanation is more realistic
126
PEEL for political bias - dispositional explanation for obedience
- limitation
- the F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme right-wing ideology
- Jahoda said the F-scale is a politically based interpretation for the authoritarian personality
- extreme right and left wing ideologies have a lot in common
- both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority
- not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to all authority
127
PEEL for flawed evidence - dispositional explanation in obedience
- limitation
- research in f-scale has provided a basic explanation of obedience based on authoritarian personality
- ‘comedy of methodological errors’
- seriously flawed scale
- can get a high score by just selecting agree
- someone with response bias is assessed as having an authoritarian personality
128
Evaluation points for social support - resistance to social influence
- real world research support
- research support for dissenting peers
129
Evaluation points for locus of control - resisting social influence
- research support
- contradictory evidence
130
PEEL for real world research support - social support in resistance to social influence
- strength
- positive effects of social support
- Albrecht evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA
- help pregnant teens (14-19) to resist peer pressure to smoke
- social support given with older buddies
- those with buddies were significantly less likely to smoke than control group
- social support can help young people resist social influence
131
PEEL for research support for dissenting peers - social support in resisting social influence
- strength
- supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
- pps were told to give evidence to help an oil company with their campaign
- higher levels of resistance
- pps were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do
- 88% rebelled against the orders
- peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure
132
PEEL for research rapport - LOC in resisting social influence
- strength
- supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience
- Holland repeated Milgram’s study
- looked if pps were internals or externals
- 37% of internals did not give highest shock
- 23% of externals did not give highest shock
- internals showed greater resistance to authority
- resistance is at least partially related to LOC
- increases the validity of LOC as an explanation
133
PEEL for contradictory research - LOC in resistance to social influence
- limitation
- challenges the link between LOC and resistance
- analyses the data from American LOC studies over 40 years
- people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external
- if resistance was linked to LOC
- would expect people to become more internal
- LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence
134
Evaluation points for minority influence
- research support for consistency
- research support for deeper processing
- artificial tasks
- power of minority influence
135
PEEL for research support for consistency - minority influence
- strength
- demonstrating the importance of consistency
- a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the view of others than an inconsistent opinion
- meta-analysis on 100 studies
- consistent were most influential
- consistent view was a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority
136
PEEL for research support for deeper processing - minority influence
- strength
- involves deeper processing of the minorities ideas
- Martin measured participants agreement
- one group heard a minority group agree with the initial view
- other group heard a majority group agree
- both exposed to a conflicting view with attitudes measured again
- less willing to change view if listened to minority group
- minority message was more deeply processed
COUNTERPOINT
- Martin made clear distinctions between the majority and minority
- a strength of minority influence research
- real world social influence situations are mush more complicated
- majorities have more power than minorities
- minorities are committed to their cause
- findings are limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in the real world
137
PEEL for artificial tasks - minority influence
- limitation
- tasks involved are often artificial
- research can be far removed from how minorities attend to change behaviours in real life
- their outcomes are very important, matter of life and death
- lack external validity
- limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works
138
PEEL for power of minority influence - minority influence
- strength
- Moscovici’s study
- figure for agreement with a consistent minority was very low (8%)
- suggests minority influence is rare and not a useful concept
- when pps wrote down their answers
- more likely to agree with the minority view
- behaviour expressed was just for show
139
Evaluation points for social influence and social change
- research support for normative influences
- minority influence explains change
- role of deeper processing
- barriers to social change
140
PEEL for research support for normative influences - social influence and social change
- strength
- social influence processes based on psychological research do work
- Nolan wanted to see if you could change peoples energy use a habits
- hung messages on people house doors
- some had message about others trying to save energy
- others had message about how they should save energy
- those that heard about others significantly decreased their energy use
- conformity can lead to social change
COUNTERPOINT
- peoples behaviour is not always chanced though exposing them to social norms
- reviews 70 studies when social norms were used to reduce alcohol use
- only a small reduction in drinking quality and no effect on frequency
- normative influence doesn’t always produce long term social change
141
PEEL for minority influence explains change - social influence and social change
- strength
- psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change
- social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire
- engage divergent thinking
- broad rather than narrow
- thinker actively searches for information and weights up more options
- better decisions and more creative solutions
- dissenting minorities are valuable
- stimulate new ideas and open minds
142
PEEL for role of deeper processing - social influence and social change
- limitation
- deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change
- some are supposedly converted because they think more deeply of the minorities views
- evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you do not share their views
- like to believe that others share the same view
- a central element of minority influence has been challenged
- doubt on its validity
143
PEEL for barriers to social change - social influence and social change
- limitation
- practical advice
- people still resist social change
- pps were less likely to behave environmentally friendly
- they did not want to be associated with the stereotypes of environmentalists
- seen in a negative way
- still able to suggest ways in which minorities can overcome barriers of social change
