Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity
conformity is majority influence
yielding to group pressure
our behaviours and beliefs are influenced by a large group of people
What are the 3 types of Conformity
compliance, identification, internalisation
Compliance
a person who goes along with other peoples behaviour or attitudes but does not believe them to be correct
they comply publicly but their private opinion does not change
they go along with beliefs to keep the peace or gain approval
temporary when in the presence of a group
Identification
individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of the group as membership of the group is desirable
both private and public
often temporary
Internalisation
the individual accepts the groups view and believes that view to be correct
so conforming to other peoples view publicly and privately in the genuine belief they are correct
permanent
What are the explanations for conformity
informational social influence, normative social influence
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
humans have a need for certainty (a need to be right)
when uncertain they look to others
happens in unfamiliar situations or ambiguous situations
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
humans have a need to be liked, social groups
agreeing with the majority group view because we want to be liked and accepted and gain approval
occurs when you fear rejection from a group of strangers
What does NSI explain
compliance, identification
What does ISI explain
internalisation
AO3 on Conformity: Types and Explanations: Strength - Research Support Lucas et al (2006)
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical questions that were easy or more difficult
there was greater conformity to incorrect answers, when they were difficult rather than when they were easier ones this was mostly true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor
people conform in situations where they feel they dont know the answer, which is the outcome predicted by ISI (we look to other people and assume they know better than us and must be correct)
AO3 on Conformity: Types and Explanations: Limitation - Individual Differences in NSI
NSI does not effect everyones behaviour in the same way for example people who are concerned with being liked are less effected by NSI than those who care more about being liked
these people are called nAffiliators they need to be liked and have a greater need for affiliation, being in relationships with others
McGee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform
therefore there are individual differences in the way people respond
AO3 on Conformity: Types and Explanations: Limitation - ISI and NSI work together
both NSI and ISI are involved for example conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting ppt (ASCH)
this dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (social support) or ISI (alternative source of information)
isnt always possible to know if ISI or NSI is at work, this is the case in lab studies but even truer in real life conformity situations
this casts serious doubt as NSI and ISI operating independently
AO3 on Conformity: Types and Explanations: Limitation - Individual Differences in ISI
ISI does not effect everyones behaviour in the same way, Asch (1955) found that the students were less conformist 28% than other ppts 37%
Perrin and Spencer conducted a study involving science and engineering students and found very little conformity
AO3 on Conformity: Types and Explanations: Strength - Research Support for NSI
Asch (1951) - many ppts went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did
he asked why, ppts said they felt self-conscious giving correct answer and were afraid of disapproval
when Asch repeated this study but asked ppts to write down their answers instead of saying them out load, conformity values fell to 12.5%
Asch’s Research Procedure
Solomon Asch (1951, 1955)
tested conformity by showing ppts two large white cards at a time, one card was a standard line and on the other card there were three comparison lines, one of three lines was the same as the standard line and the other two were substantially different
the ppts in this study were 123 american male undergraduates
each naive ppt was tested individually with a group of 6 to 8 confederates
the naive ppt was not aware that the others were confederates
on the first few trials all the confederates gave the right answers but then they started making errors, all the confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer
each ppt to part in 18 trials and on the 12 critical trials the confederates gave the wrong answer
Asch’s Research Findings
the naive ppts gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time
overall 25% did not conform on any trials, which means that 75% conformed at least once
when ppts were interviewed afterwards most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
Asch’s Variations
group size
unanimity
task difficulty
Effect of Group Size on Asch’s Research
wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group
with three confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%, the addition of further confederates made little difference
no need for a majority of more than three
Effect of Unanimity on Asch’s Research
wanted to know if the presence of another, non-conforming person would affect the naive persons conformity
to test this he introduced a confederate who disagreed with others sometimes they agreed and sometimes they disagreed
the presence of this confederate meant that conformity was reduced by a quarter from what it was when the majority was unanimous
this suggest that the influence of the majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous
Effect of Task Difficulty on Asch’s Research
Asch made the line judging task more difficult by making comparison lines more similar to the standard line, he found that conformity increased under these conditions
this suggests that informational social influence plays a greater role when the task becomes harder
this is because the situation is more ambiguous, so we are more likely to look to other people for guidance and to assume that they are right and we are wrong
Asch A03 - Ecological Validity
ecological validity is lacking
in a lab
know you are being studied
conforming to strangers and therefore not realistic to real life conformity
task is meaningless in real life we would not compare lines
Asch A03 - Ethical Issues
major ethical issues
deception (confederates) deception is necessary otherwise experiment wouldnt work
protection from harm, shouldnt leave in a worse state then they came (embarrassment)
Asch debriefed them and reassured them that their behaviour was normal
Asch A03 - Temporal Validity
McCarthyism - the 1950s USA was in a strong anti-communist period when people were scared to go against the majority and so more likely to conform (asch’s findings may have been reflective of the specific time and place, not of all people)
Perrin and Spencer (1980) - repeated Asch’s study in the UK, in initial study they obtained 1 conformity response out of 390 trials
however a subsequent study on youths on probation, where they were the ppts and probation officers where the confederates, similar levels of conformity was found to Asch’s study in 1950s, authority may have impact
Asch A03 - Individual Variables
qualities of an individual that influence their level of conformity
they can interact with situational variables
Asch A03 - Gender
women conform more readily (Asch didnt study women) this could be because they are socialised into more submissive roles
Eagly et al - females focus on quality of relationships - more NSI
male gender roles demand more independence
possibly evolutionary - women more nurturing
Jennes (1932) - women conformed more than men
population validity
Social Roles
the parts individuals play as members of a social group, which meet the expectations of that situation
What does conformity to social roles involve
it involves identification (public and private acceptance of behaviours shown)
Dehumanisation
degrading people by lessening human qualities
Deindividualization
individuals have lower sense of personal responsibility for actions - often due to anonymity gained in crowd situation
SPE Procedure
zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University
they advertised to students willing to volunteer and picked those that were emotionally stable after extensive psychological testing
students were randomly assigned to guards or prisoners
to heighten realism prisoners were arrested in their homes by the local police and then delivered to the prison, were proper procedures took place
social roles of prisoners and guards were strictly divided
prisoners daily routines were heavily regulated had to follow 16 rules enforced by the guards
the prisoners names were not used only their numbers, guards had uniform and equipment and were told that they had complete power over the prisoners
SPE Findings
guards behaviour became a threat to the prisoners psychological and physical health and the study was stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14 days
within 2 days the prisoners rebelled against the guards, however guards retaliated
the guards played the prisoners off against each other and harassed them constantly
guards highlighted difference in social roles by creating plenty of opportunities to enforce rules and punish even the smallest misdemeanour
after prisoners rebellion was put down they became subdued, depressed and anxious
the guards identified more and more closely with their role, their behaviour became more and more aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners
SPE Conclusion
situation revealed power of a situation to influence peoples behaviour: guards, prisoners, researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison
SPE A03 - High Control
a strength of the SPE is the control zimbardo and his colleagues had over variables
emotionally stable individuals were selected to take part and randomly assigned to prisoner and guard roles
this is one way in which they tried to control the individual personality differences
having this kind of control increases the internal validity of the study
SPE A03 - Role of Dispositional Factors
Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour and minimising the role of personality
for example only about 1/3 of guards acted in a brutal manner another 1/3 were keen to apply the rules fairly and the rest tried to support the prisoners
this suggests that zimbardos conclusion - that ppts conform to social roles - may be over stated
SPE A03 - Ethics
a major ethical issue arose because zimbardo had two roles in the experiment: the experimenter and the superintendent of the prison, these roles were often in conflict
for example a student who wanted to leave spoke to zimbardo as superintendent worried about running his prison rather than a researcher concerned with the wellbeing of his ppt
SPE A03 - Lack of Research Support
Haslam and Reicher - the BBC replicated zimbardos experiment in 2006 and found it was prisoners who took control of the fake prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment
zimbardos study demonstrates social identity theory more than conformity to social roles, in groups and out groups
the prisoners increasingly identified as a group and worked collectively to challenge the authority of the guards
guards failed to identify with their role, it made them reluctant to impose their authority on the prisoners
milgrams original research what is obedience and what was milgrams aim
obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person, the person who gives this order usually has power or authority
milgrams aim - to discover why such a high proportion of german people supported hitlers regime and why many of the nazi party committed atrocities in the name of following orders
how many ppts did Milgram study and how were they recruited
40, by newspaper adverts and fixers in the post
what sort of study did ppts think they signed up for in Milgram’s study and what type of study was it actually
the ad said he was looking for ppts for a study of memory, the actually study was a lab experiment
procedure of Milgram’s original obedience study
there was an experimenter, teacher and student, the experimenter and student were played by confederates while the teacher was the true ppt, there was a rigged draw for their role the confederate always ended up as the learner, ppts were paid upfront when they arrived and were told they could leave at any time
the learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes, the teacher was required to give the learner increasingly severe electric shocks each time the learner made a mistake on a learning task, the shocks were demonstrated to the teacher thereafter the shocks were not real
the shocks started at 15 and went up to 450, when the teacher got to 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question, after 315 volts the learner pounded and gave no further response
when teacher turned to experimenter for guidance the experimenter gave a standard instruction, ‘an absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer, if teacher still felt unsure about continuing the experimenter used a sequence of four standard prods
what were the four prods used in Milgram’s obedience study
prod 1 - please continue or please go on
prod 2 - the experiment requires that you continue
prod 3 - it is absolutely essential that you continue
prod 4 - you have no other choice you must go on
findings of Milgram’s original obedience study
no ppts stopped below 300 volts
12.5% stopped at 300 volts
65% continued to highest voltage
qualitative data was also collected such as observations of extreme tension from ppts, many of them were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips and dig their fingernails into their hands
prior to study milgram asked psychology students to predict ppts behaviours they predicted that only 3% would go to 450 volts, therefore findings were not expected
all ppts were debriefed and assured that behaviour was entirely normal, they were also sent a follow up questionnaire
what is experimental validity also known as internal validity
whether the experiment does actually measure what it intends to measure, if study has internal validity ppts should behave as they would normally do in that situation
evidence for experimental validity
ppts believed task as they were willing to receive strong shocks
70% of ppts believed in the set-up
Milgram said that the experiments do follow similar rules to social situations and so are true
however ppts were paid for taking part - payment = contract, so findings and evidence of obedience in contract rather than in general, but milgram did inform ppts that they could leave and still be paid
what is ecological validity
how much findings apply to a real life setting and other situations
milgram’s study was in a lab setting
evidence for ecological validity
milgram did do variations of his study in other setting (run down office building)
cross cultural studies produce the same findings, Smith and Bond, collected findings from other countries and found the same results. in fact some countries produced even higher levels of obedience
findings have been replicated in more natural settings
milgram - ethical issues
distress - milgram said he did not expect distress before beginning experiments, when he followed ppts one year later they did not appear to have suffered harm, 84% said they were glad to have participated, 15% were neutral, 1.3% sorry and when psychiatrists interviewed 40 ppts one year after study they found it had not caused any harm
deception - milgram did not tell the ppts the true purpose of their role in the study however deception was necessary otherwise task would not have seamed real
lack of informed consent - in milgrams study it is not possible to get informed consent because ppts did not have true knowledge of what was going to happen, milgram got presumptive consent
right to withdraw - coolican said that milgram did not tell ppts that they had the right to stop, experimenter ordered ppt to continue, however milgram said that he informed ppts that they could leave at any time and get their money regardless
low internal validity for milgrams study - orne and holland
argued that ppts behaved the way they did because they didnt believe in the set up - they guessed it wasnt real electric shocks, therefore milgram has not tested what he needed to test therefore study lacked internal validity
good external validity for milgrams study - hofling
studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands of doctors were high (21 out of 22). this suggests that processes of obedience to authority that occurred in milgrams study can be generalised to other studies, this gives his study good external validity
what were milgrams variations
proximity, location, uniform (these are situational variables)
milgrams variation - proximity
when learner and teacher weren’t in the same room - obedience (went to 450 volts) fell from 65% to 40%
highly controlled replication where the only variables changed was the proximity
obedience also fell when experimenter was over the phone and not in the room
milgrams variation - location
changed location to run down office rather than yale university - assuming this gave experimenter less authority, (less legitimate), obedience fell to 47.5%
milgrams variation - uniform
in original study, experimenter wore lab coat (symbol of authority)
milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away right at start of procedure, the role of experimenter was taken over by an ordinary member of the public (confederate) in everyday clothes
obedience dropped to 20%
milgrams variations - A03 control
a strength of milgrams variations is that he systematically changed one variable at a time in each variation to see the effect it would have on obedience
all other variables kept the same
procedure repeated with over 1000ppts in total
milgrams variations - A03 cross - cultural variation
milgrams research applies to original and variation, his findings have been replicated in other cultures, miranda found 90% in spanish students
however only 16% of went to 450 in australia
and 85% in germany
factors like culture, effect obedience levels not just situational variables
milgrams variations - A03 - research support
in NYC, Bickman had 3 confederates dress in 3 outfits: jacket and tie, milkman outfit, security guard
confederates stood in street and asked ppts to pefrom tasks like picking up litter or giving the confederate a coin for parking
people were twice as likely to obey the confederates in the security uniform than the jacket and tie
supports milgrams conclusion that uniform conveys the authority of the wearer and affects obedience
milgrams variations - lack of internal validity
orne and holland same as original study
what are the explanation of obedience: social-psychological factors
agentic state
legitimacy of authority
what do agentic state and LoA concern
the influence of others on individuals behaviour, rather than external factors like situation
what is agentic state who proposed it
Milgrams proposed this, when we act as the agent of someone we find it easy to deny personal responsibility for the consequences
autonomous state
individuals direct their own behaviour and take responsibility for the consequences
agentic shift
people move from autonomous state to agentic state via the agentic shift
agentic state
individuals allow someone to direct their behaviour they pass their responsibly to them
moral strain
if we obey an order that goes against our conscience we are likley to experience moral strain, which results when we do something we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority
binding factors
although people may want to stop, they feel unable to do so due to the binding factors - aspects of a situation that allow a person to minimize the damaging effect of their behaviour (essentially a justification of their behaviour)
legitimacy of authority (LoA)
explanation for obedience which suggest that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
this authority is justified by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy
destructive authority
powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes e.g. Hitler
destructive authority was shown in Milgram’s Study when the experimenter used prods to order the ppts to behave in way that went against their conscience
obedience: social-psychological factors - ao3 - research support - LoA and agentic state
blass and schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked who they though was responsible for the harm to the learner, they blamed the experimenter rather than the ppt, the students also indicated that the responsibility was due to LoA but also due to expert authority since he was a scientist
in other words they recognised LoA as the cause of obedience supporting the explanation
obedience: social-psychological factors - ao3 - a limited explanation - LoA and agentic state
does not explain why some ppts in Milgram’s study did not obey (go to 450v), does not explain why Hofling nurses did not show signs of anxiety when potentially giving lethal doses to patients
if someone ordered them to do something harmful they should show moral strain - nurses didnt, additionally nurses didnt even see doctor the order was given other the phone
so explanations can only account for some situations of obedience
obedience: social-psychological factors - ao3 - cultural differences - LoA
Milgram’s study has been replicated in many different countries and cultures and different rates of obedience have been found: australia = 16%, germany = 85% this supports LoA as explanation for obedience levels
it suggest that your culture may have a big impact on how we perceive authority (whether we have blind authority or we question authority)
in some cultures authority is more likely to be perceived as legitimate and others not
explanation has huge variation showing cultural validity
obedience: social-psychological factors - ao3 - real life crimes of obedience - LoA
My lai massacre
ww2 antisemitism
dispositional explanation
not all psychologists accept that obedience can be explained by factors of the situation or social structure
they reason that there must be some importance of the personality (disposition) of the individual as to whether they will obey
what was Adorno (1950) interested in
was interested in investigating why Nazi soldiers were so willing to persecute and kill members of a minority group such as jews during WW2
he claimed a particular personality type is more likely to obey an authority figure, saying that a high level of obedience is basically a psychological disorder
Adorno procedure
Adorno et al (1950) investigated the causes of an obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
they developed an F-scale to measure the relationship between a persons personality type and prejudiced beliefs
F = fascist
some who believe in a dictator rule by a supreme leader
Adorno findings
those who had scored highly on the F scale identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak, they were very conscious of there own and others social status
high scores had a particular cognitive style
no grey areas between categories of people
fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Authoritarian personality
submits to authority of those in higher positions
authoritative towards people of lower status
show excessive and blind obedience to authority
conventional and conformist
suspicious and hostile of strangers
rigid thinkers, strict obedience to social rules and hierarchies
high scores on f scale
high authoritarian personality more likely to obey orders
low scores on f scale
low authoritarian personality less likley to obey orders
what causes the authoritarian personality
strict and harsh upbringing by parents
individual not able to express hostility towards parents
individual then transfers aggression / hostility onto safer targets, namely those who are weaker
obedience - dispositional explanation - a03 - limited explanation
an explanation of obedience in terms of individual personality will find it hard to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s explanation
in pre-war Germany people were obedient, racist, antisemitic
despite the fact that they must have differed in personality
unlikely that all possessed authoritarian personality
therefore a limitation, alternative explanation is that social identity explains obedience
obedience - dispositional explanation - a03 - f scale may be completely biased
measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right wing ideology, study argued that it is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality
extreme right wing and left wing ideologies are actually quite common
both emphasise complete obedience to legitimate political authority
another point for the f scale is that people may simply be ticking without reading acquiescence bias
obedience - dispositional explanation - a03 - research support
Milgram et al (1966) conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient ppts: scored highly on f scale
believing a link between obedience and authoritarian personality however this is merely a correlation, impossible to draw conclusion of causation, may be a third factor that is involved perhaps both obedience and authoritarian personality are associated with a lower level of education and are not directly linked with each other
obedience - dispositional explanation - a03 - correlation not causation and direction of causality is unknown
adorno and his colleagues found that authoritarianism correlated with measures of prejudice against minority groups no matter how strong a correlation between variables, it does not mean one causes the others
therefore adorno could not claim that a harsh parenting style causes the authoritarian personality
Locus of Control (Julian Rotter 1966)
a persons perception of personal control over their own behaviour, personal explanation
internal locus of control
individual who believes their life is determined by their own decisions and efforts
external locus of control
individual who believes their life is determined by fate, luck and external factors
internal locus of control characteristics and relation to social influence
high level of control over lives and behaviours, take personal responsibility for their actions
likely to resist social influence they actively seek out info which will help them personally and less likely to rely on others
external locus of control characteristics and relation to social influence
belief that life is determined by external and environmental factors such as luck
more likely to be influence by others as they dont believe they exercise personal control over their lives
social support - conformity
social support can help people resist conformity, if there are people present who are not conforming the pressure to conform decreases, that person does not have to be giving the right answer simply having someone who doesn’t follow the majority enables a person to be free and follow their own conscience
however if this non conforming person starts conforming again so does the ppt
social support - obedience
social support can also help people resist obedience, the pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey
in one of milgrams variations obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ppt was joined by a disobedient confederate, the ppt wont follow the confederates behaviour but there disobedience acts as model for the ppts to copy the frees him to act from his own conscience
resistance to social influence - a03 - social support - research support - resistance to conformity
allen and levine found independence increased with one dissenter in an asch type study, even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had problems with his vision
resistance is not motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressure from the group
this is a strength since it supports the theory however not realistic since it is a controlled lab study
resistance to social influence - a03 - locus of control - research support
holland (1967) repeated milgrams tusdy and measured whether ppts were internal or externals
37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level, only 23% of externals did not continue
as internals showed greater resistance this support increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance
strength, internals conform less to social influence however majority of internals did go to highest shock level
resistance to social influence - a03 - locus of control - contradictory research
twenge et al (2004) analysed data from american obedience studies over a 40 year period
the data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but more external
if resistance were linked to an internal LOC then we would expect people to have become more internal
this challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance
however the results may be due to a changing society where many things are increasingly outside personal control
limitation since research contradicts theory, poor explanation power
resistance to social influence - a03 - social support - research support - resistance to obedience
gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than milgram, this was probably because they were in groups
they had to produce evidence to help an oil company run a smear campaign
20 out of 33 groups of ppts rebelled
this shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance
strength of social support since resistance increases
resistance to social influence - a03 - locus of control - role of LOC may be exaggerated
rotter et al (1982) found LOC is only important in new situations - it has little influence in familiar situation where previous experiences are always more important
this does suggest that locus of control can explain only a limited range of situations in which people might resist social influence
this means that locus of control is not as important a factor in resistance as some have suggested
limitation LOC only plays important role in new situations
resistance to social influence - a03 - social support - real world examples
in 1943, a group of german women protested in berlin where the nazi secret police were holding 2000 men, called the rosentrasse protest, the women banded together despite being threatened with being shot
strength, presence of others resisting social support allows for more resistance, real life application
could use any protest e.g. BLM
minority influence
minority influence creates a conversion whereby people consider the message itself and people want to understand why the minority holds this position
with majority influence, people identify with the majority and try to fit in with their opinions, perhaps without scrutinising the message
as a result, minority influence is more likely to lead to internalisation
consistency
keeping same beliefs both over time and in between all individuals in minority
commitment
sticking to an argument, dedication to their position can be shown by personal sacrifices, shows that the minority is not acting out of self interest
flexibility
being able to take on and hear other people opinions and flexibility in compromising, relentless consistency can be seen be counter productive seen by majority as unbending and unreasonable
process of change
over time, increasing numbers of people switch from a majority positions to the minority position they have become converted, the more this happens that faster the rate of conversion called the snowball effect
moscovici et al (1969) blue-green study of consistency
he wanted to see if minority could influence majority
group of 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether the slides were blue or green, in each group there were three confederates who consistently said the slides were green on the 2/3 of the trails
the ppts gave the same wrong answer on 8.42% of trails, 32% gave same answer as the minority on at least one trial
2nd group were exposed to an inconsistent minority and agreement fell to 1,25%, for a third control there were no confederates and they had to identify the colour they got it wrong on 0.25% of the trials
minority influence - ao3 - research support for consistency
wood et al carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies to Moscovici and found that minorities who were seen as consistent were the most influential
this suggests that consistency is a major factor in successful minority influence
minority influence - ao3 - artificial tasks
moscovicis colour of the slide task is just as artificial as Aschs line judgement task
in cases like political campaigning or jury decision making, the outcomes are vastly important, sometimes a matter of life and death, this means that many studies into minority influence lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real life situations
research is therefore not representative of how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life
minority influence - ao3 - research support for internalisation
in a variations of moscovicis study, ppts were allowed to write answers down, so their responses were private, rather than stated aloud, private agreement with the minority position was greater in these circumstances
it appears that members of the majority were being convinced by the minority argument but were reluctant to reveal this publicly, moscovici suggested this is because they didnt want to be associated with the minority position for fear of being considered radical or awkward
minority influence - ao3 - limited real world application
research studies usually make a clear distinction between the majority and minority groups, and being able to this is a strength of much minority influence research
however real world social influence situations are much more complicated than this, for example majorities often have more power and status than minorities, minorities are very committed to their cause they have to be because they often face hostile situations
the steps of minority influence
drawing attention
consistency
deeper processing
the augmentation principle
the snowball effect
social cryptomnesia
drawing attention
drawing attention through social proof, minority makes majority aware by doing something to make them aware
e.g. civil marches draw attention by social proof
consistency
consistency of message and intent and belief’s over time and between group members
e.g. civil rights activists displayed consistency of message and intent
deeper processing
attention to issue made people (majority) rethink why they had simply accepted
e.g. simply accepted status quo of racial inequality
the augmentation principle
act out against oppression by standing up against things that are given and social norms (can be dangerous and risky like making sacrifices of life but can also be sacrificing your time)
e.g. individuals risked their lives by sitting on the white seats on the bus when they werent allowed they were beaten (mob violence)
the snowball effect
getting attention of powerful people/ public figures through consistency, change from minority to majority support, can change laws etc.
e.g. civil rights act was passed gave equal treatment
social cryptomnesia
people have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened
e.g. south is different to how it was but people have no memory of the vents that led to that change
social influence and social change - lessons from conformity research
asch in his study highlighted the importance of dissent in one of his variations, in which one confederate gave correct answers throughout the procedure. this broke the power of the majority encouraging the others to dissent, this dissent has the potential to become social change
environmental and health campaigns exploit conforming processes by appealing to NSI, they do this by providing information about what other people are doing e.g. bin it others do
in other words social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing
social influence and social change - lessons from obedience research
milgrams research clearly demonstrates the importance of disobedient role models, in the variation where the confederate teacher refuses to give the shocks to the leaner the rate of obedience in the genuine ppts plummeted
zimbardo suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment, once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one, people essentially drift into a new a new kind of behaviour
social influence and social change - ao3 - research support for normative influences
nolan et al investigated whether social influences led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community, they hung messages on the front doors of houses in america every week for one month, they key message being that most residents were trying to reduce their energy consumption
as a control some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy making no reference to what others were doing
they found significant decreases in energy usage in the first group
this is a strength because it shows that conformity can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence
social influence and social change - ao3 - minority influence is only indirectly effective
social changes happen slowly when they happen at all
a researcher argued that the effects of the minority influence are likely to be mostly indirect and delayed, they are indirect because the majority is influenced on matters only related to the issue at hand, and not the central issue itself, they are delayed because their effects may not be seen for some time
this could be considered a limitation of using minority influence to explain social change because it shows that its effects are fragile and its role in social influence is very limited
social influence and social change - ao3 - role of deeper processing
moscovicis explanation of minority and majority influence involve different cognitive processes, that is minority influence causes individual to think more deeply about an issue than majority influence
diane mackie disagrees and presents evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you do not share their views and think in the same way, when we find that the majority believes something different, we are forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning
this means that a central element of the process of minority influence has been challenged and ,ay be incorrect, casting doubt on the validity of moscovicis theory
