Social Influence

Question 1

Define conformity

Answer 1

Change in individuals beliefs or behaviour due to real or imagined group pressure

Question 2

What is compliance

Answer 2

1. Most superficial and least permanent change in attitudes
2. Individuals publicly change their beliefs and behaviours to be in line with the group and to fit in but in private they revert back to original beliefs and behaviours when group pressure stops
3. Linked to normative social influence

Question 3

What is identification

Answer 3

1. Stronger type of conformity
   2.Private as well as public acceptance
2. Individuals look to the group for guidance and adjust their behaviour and belief. They want to take on a role within the group as it is desirable
3. When group is no longer value able they revert back

Question 4

What is internalisation

Answer 4

1. The most deepest and permanent change in attitudes
2. Individuals publicly and privately change their behaviours and beliefs to go along with the group and we accept their attitudes in to our own cognitions
3. Behaviour last even when majority is no longer present
4. Linked with informational social influence

Question 5

Who researched types of conformity

Answer 5

Kelman

Question 6

Define the term informational social influence

Answer 6

1. ISI is driven by the desire to be right.
2. When an individual is unsure (lacks knowledge) about how to behave, they conform by seeking information from the group about how to behave and assume that it is right. This is a cognitive process.
3. This explanation of conformity leads to internalisation, in which individuals publicly and privately change their views to be in line with a group.

Question 7

Define the term Normative Social Influence (NSI)

Answer 7

1. NSI is driven by our desire to be liked.
2. An individual will ‘go along with’ a group’s behaviour in order to avoid ridicule and gain acceptance from them and fit in. This is an emotional process.
3. This explanation of conformity leads to compliance, in which individuals publicly change their views to be in line with the group, but privately revert back to their original views.

Question 8

AO3 for explanations of conformity: ISI

Answer 8

Research to support ISI as an explanation of conformity was conducted by Jenness, participants were asked to individually estimate the number of jelly beans in a jar, then decide on a group estimate and finally, have a last private, individual guess, Jenness found that participants second private estimate was significantly closer to the groups estimate than their own original estimate. Therefore supporting ISI as an explanation of conformity BECAUSE the task was ambiguous and as the participants were unsure of the answer, they sought information from the group and changed their estimate publicly and privately to be right.

However, the research to support ISI as an explanation for conformity, by Jenness, lacks ecological validity. This is because the study took place in an artificial environment (lab). Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to real life examples of ISI as in real life, people may be less likely to conform to a group as there may be consequences for their actions, unlike in an artificial lab setting. Thus, further reducing the external validity of the research in to ISI and questioning ISI as an explanation of conformity.

Question 9

AO3 for explanations of conformity: NSI

Answer 9

Research to support NSI as an explanation of conformity was conducted by Asch, participants were asked to state which line a, b, or c was closest in length to stimulus line ‘x’. Confederates answered first and gave an incorrect answer. Asch found that participants conformed and said the same wrong answer as the confederates 37% of the time. Therefore supporting NSI as an explanation of conformity BECAUSE the task was unambiguous and the participants later stated they knew the answer but conformed in order to avoid ridicule from the group, which is what NSI suggests.

However, the research to support NSI as an explanation for conformity, conducted by Asch is gender bias, as only males were tested. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to females as it is suggested that females might be more conformist because they are more concerned about social relationships and are more concerned with being liked by their peers than males (Neto,1995). Therefore, this shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people (females) more than it does for others (males). This weakens the external validity of research into NSI as an explanation as to why people conform.

Question 10

Outline Asch’s research

Answer 10

Aim: To investigate the effects of a majority opinion on individuals’ judgements.

Method: Lab experiment.

Sample: 123 American male students

Procedure:
• Participants were individually placed into groups with 7 to 9 confederates.
• They were shown two large white cards at a time. On one card was a standard line ‘x’ and on the other card were three ‘comparison lines’ (A, B, C).
• One of the comparison lines was the same length as the standard line, and the other two were substantially different (clearly wrong).
• Participants were asked to say which line (A, B or C) was the same length as the standard line (X). Participants were always last or second to last to answer.
• On 12/18 trials (‘critical trials’), the confederates gave identical wrong answers.
• A control group of 36 participants were individually tested without confederates.

Findings: ppts gave a wrong answer 37% of the time when a confederate was present.
Post-experiment interviews found that the majority of participants conformed publicly during the experiment, but not privately (thought that the confederates were wrong), as they wanted to avoid ridicule.
Conclusions: This supports NSI as participants conformed publicly, but not privately (as indicated in the post experiment interviews and the unambiguous nature of the task) in order to be accepted by the group.

Question 11

What are the variables that affect conformity

Answer 11

Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty

Question 12

How does group size affect conformity rates

Answer 12

Conformity rates increase as the size of a majority group increases. However, the size of the group stops having an effect on conformity once the group reaches a certain size.

• When there was one real participant and one confederate conformity was 3%
• When there were two confederates and one real participant conformity increased to 13%
• When there were three confederates and one real participant conformity increased to 32%
• However, conformity plateaued after this.

Suggesting that the size of the majority does have an effect on conformity but only to a point (3)

Question 13

How does unanimity affect conformity rates

Answer 13

Unanimity means complete agreement from a group of people about an answer or viewpoint.
• In the original Asch study the confederates all gave the same wrong answer and conformity was 37%
• However when Asch varied his study and had one confederate give the correct answers throughout the research conformity dropped to 5.5%
• Asch then researched whether a ’lone’ confederate who gave an answer that was both different from the majority and different to the correct answer. In this variation it was found that conformity dropped to 9%
• Asch concluded that when a dissenter breaks the group’s unanimous position conformity decreases.

Question 14

How does task difficulty affect conformity

Answer 14

Conformity increases when the difficulty of a task increases.
• In one variation of Asch’s research he made the stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length so that the correct answer was less obvious and therefore the task was harder. When the difficulty of the task increased conformity rates increased.
• This suggests that Informational Social Influence plays a greater role when the task becomes harder. When situations are unclear, we are more likely to look to others for guidance.
• As the right answer becomes less obvious we lose confidence in our own ability and are more likely to conform.

Question 15

AO3 for variables affecting conformity

Answer 15

Research to support the variables affecting conformity was conducted by Lucas et al. He asked students to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Participants were given three other answers from other ‘students’(not actually real). The participants conformed more often (agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were difficult rather than easy. Therefore, supporting Asch’s research into variables affecting conformity BECAUSE it suggests that when the task is harder, conformity increases.

However, Lucas et al’s study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. Participants with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on the hard math’s problems than those with low confidence. This shows that an individual-level factor can influence conformity and interact with situational variables (such as task difficulty). Limiting Asch’s research into variables affecting conformity, as he did not research the roles of individual factors.

Asch’s research into variables affecting conformity can be criticised as it is gender bias, as only males were tested. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to females as it is suggested that females might be more conformist, regardless of the variable affecting conformity, because they are more concerned about social relationships and are more concerned with being liked by their peers (Neto, 1995). This weakens the external validity of research into variables affecting conformity.

Question 16

Define conformity to social roles

Answer 16

Social roles are the parts that people play as members of various social groups e.g. teachers and students. These are accompanied by expectations that we, and others, have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role. We internalise these expectations, so they shape our behaviour.

Question 17

Zimbardo’s research

Answer 17

AIM: To investigate how freely people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that re-created prison life.

SAMPLE: A volunteer sample of 24 ’emotionally stable. US male university students

PROCEDURE:
* The volunteers were randomly allocated each student to the role of prisoner or guard.
* Prisoners – Arrested at their homes, taken to the prison, searched, deloused and dressed in smock uniforms. They were referred to as a number rather than by name.
* Guards – Given uniforms, a ‘night stick’ and mirrored glasses. They were instructed to keep the prisoners under control but to use no physical violence.
* These uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individuation), encouraging participants to conform to their social role.
* The basement of the psychology department at Stanford University was converted into a mock prison.
* Prisoners were placed in cells and a regular routine of shifts, meal times etc. was established, as well as visiting times, a parole and disciplinary board and a prison chaplain. Zimbardo took on the role of prison superintendent. If a ‘prisoner’ wanted to leave, they had to go through a parole process.

FINDINGS:
* Within a day the prisoners rebelled and ripped off their numbers and the guards responded by locking them in their cells and confiscating their blankets.
* As the experiment continued, the punishments by the guards escalated. Prisoners were humiliated and deprived of sleep by the guards conducting head counts.
* Identification was noticeable by the prisoners referring to each other and themselves by their prison numbers instead of their names.
* The prisoners rapidly became subdued, and depressed, with some showing serious stress-related reactions to the experience. Three prisoners were released early due to showing symptoms of psychological disturbance.
* The role play had been intended to run for two weeks, but was called off after just six days.

CONCLUSIONS:
* Guards, prisoners and researchers conformed to their role within the prison.
* Social roles have an extraordinary power over individuals, making even the most well-adjusted capable of extreme brutality towards others

Question 18

Zimbardo AO3

Answer 18

One criticism of Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles is that it is prone to demand characteristics. This is because within his procedure, Zimbardo took on the role of the prison superintendent. Therefore, Zimbardo could have influenced how the participants acted within the study. For example, they may have conformed to their role because this is what they believed Zimbardo wanted them to do (demand characteristics), rather than because they were actually conforming to their social role of prisoner or guard due to the prison environment. THINK FURTHER: The fact the participants were paid for taking part in this experiment may have influenced this further. Therefore, lowering the internal validity of the research into conformity to social roles.

A further weakness of Zimbardo’s research is that there were major ethical issues. There was a lack of informed consent, as the prisoners did not consent to being arrested at their homes. In addition, there was a lack of the right to withdraw, when one prisoner wanted to leave he spoke to Zimbardo and had to ask to be ‘released’ from the prison, Zimbardo responded as the superintendent, rather than an experimenter with a responsibility to the participant. Finally, the prisoners were not protected from harm as some showed signs of psychological disturbance. Counter argument: However, Zimbardo carried out debriefing sessions with the participants for several years afterwards, and concluded that there were no long lasting negative effects.

Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles has gender bias, as Zimbardo used a male only sample (androcentric), this is a weakness as it is difficult to generalise the findings that people conform to their social roles to women. It could be argued that as the role of guard was a violent one, females would not conform as much due to stereotypically being more caring and concerned for others. Thus reducing the external validity of the research in to conformity to social roles. Supposedly argument: However, when Zimbardo conducted this study, he was interested in explaining brutality within American prison systems, in which the majority of guards were male, which may explain his choice of using a male only sample.

Question 19

Define the term obedience to authority

Answer 19

This is a type of social influence where somebody acts in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority. The person who receives the order may also respond in a way that they would have not done without the order

Question 20

Milgrams research into obedince

Answer 20

Aim: To investigate if individuals would obey the orders of an authority figure even if this led to negative consequences.

Method: Laboratory Experiment at Yale University

Sample: 40 American males aged 20-50

Procedure:
- Milgram placed an advert in a newspaper seeking volunteers for an experiment supposedly researching memory on learning and they were paid $4.50.
- Once the participant arrived at the university, they were introduced to another particpant (who was actually a confederate). They drew lots, which were rigged, and the real participant was assigned the role of the ‘teacher’ and the confederate was always the learner.
- The teacher’s job was to administrate a learning task and deliver ‘electric shocks’ to the learner (in another room) if the learner got a question wrong.
The shocks began at 15 volts and increased in increments of 15 volts to a maximum of 450 volts.
The experimenter used prompts if the ‘teacher’ refused (this tested the obedience to authority):
* “Please continue (or please go on).”
* “The experiment requires that you continue.”
* “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
* “You have no other choice; you must go on.”
Findings: All ppts went to at least 300 volts, with only 12.5% stopping at that point. 65% of ppts continued to the maximum 450 volts, showing high levels of obedience.

Conclusion: Ordinary people are obedient to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way. It is not necessarily evil people who commit evil crimes but ordinary people who are just obeying orders

Question 21

Milgram AO3

Answer 21

Milgram’s research could be argued to be prone to demand characteristics, this is because the method was a lab and the participants knew that they were taking part in an experiment. Therefore, they may have changed their natural behaviour to help the researcher, for example by giving the electric shocks as they believed this is how they were supposed to act in the experiment, rather than because they were being obedient to the authority figure. This could be especially true as the participants were paid for taking part in the research. Thus, reducing the internal validity as Milgram may not have been truly measuring how obedient they were to authority.

Research to support Milgram’s research in to obedience to authority was conducted by Hofling. He conducted a study using nurses on a hospital ward who were ordered by an unknown doctor to give a dangerous dose of a drug (Astroten) to patients via a telephone. 21 out of the 22 nurses agreed to give the medication even though they knew not to take orders over the phone (they were stopped before they actually gave it). Therefore, this supports the idea that we are obedient to authority (doctor) as the majority of nurses obeyed. This strengthens Milgram’s research as it has good external validity and findings can be generalised to other settings

Milgram’s research had major ethical issues. There was a lack of informed consent, as the participants believed that they were taking part in a study of punishment on memory rather than obedience to authority. There was deception, as ppts were led to believe the electric shocks were real. In addition, there was a lack of the right to withdraw, as if they wanted to stop the experiment, they were prompted to continue by the experimenter. Limiting Milgram’s research into obedience

Milgram’s research into obedience has gender bias, as it only uses male participants. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to females, as they may have obeyed differently, for example, some research suggests females may be more obedient because of their gender roles may dictate that they be more submissive. THINK FURHTER: This is demonstrated in Sheridan and King’s similar study whereby participants were ordered to give real electric shocks to a puppy. It was found that 100% of females obeyed, compared to 54% of males. This weakens the external validity of Milgram’s research into obedience to authority.

Question 22

what are Milgrams situational variables

Answer 22

proximity
location
power of uniform

Question 23

Proximity

Answer 23

• This means how near or far (close) the ppt (teacher) is to the victim (learner) or experimenter (authority figure).
• In Milgram’s original experiment the teacher could not see the learner, only hear them and obedience was 65%. When both the teacher and learner were in the same room obedience fell to 40%. This was because the teacher could directly see how their behaviour was having an unpleasant consequence on the learner.
• Furthermore, when the teacher was required to force the learners hand onto the electric shock plate (touch proximity) obedience dropped even further to 30%
• In one proximity variation (remote instruction), the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone. In this variation obedience fell to 20.5%, which suggests that, the closer an authority figure is to an individual, the more obedient that individual will be.

Question 24

location

Answer 24

The original experiment was conducted in a prestigious university (Yale University). Milgram wanted to test what would happen to obedience when the location of the experiment was changed.
* When the location was changed to a run-down office in a run-down part of town obedience fell from 65% at Yale University to 48% in the run down office.
* Milgram argued that this was because when the experiment was conducted in a run-down office the amount of perceived legitimate authority of the experimenter was reduced.

Question 25

power of uniform

Answer 25

The wearing of uniforms can give a perception of added legitimate authority to the individual delivering the orders.
* In Milgram’s experiment the researcher wore a grey lab coat, which gave him an ‘air’ of authority.
* In one variation of Milgram’s study, at the beginning of the study the experimenter in the lab coat was called away from the experiment to answer a phone call. The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ who wore everyday clothes. In this variation obedience dropped to 20%. This suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol and a cue to act in an obedient manner, and that when not in uniform the perceived legitimate authority of the experimenter was reduced.

Question 26

Situational variables AO3

Answer 26

Research to support situational variables affecting obedience was conducted by Bickman in New York. He had confederates dress in three different outfits (a security guard, a milkman and a business man) and ask passers-by to give money to pay for parking or pick up litter. It was found that participants were twice as likely to follow the instructions of the confederate wearing a security guard uniform than the business man. Therefore, supporting the power of uniform as a variable affecting obedience as participants were more likely to follow these orders.

Milgram’s research into obedience has gender bias, as it only uses male participants. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to females, as they may have obeyed differently to the variables affecting obedience, for example, some research suggests females may be more obedient because of their gender roles may dictate that they be more submissive. This weakens the external validity of research into situational variables affecting obedience.

Moreover, it could be argued that the participants in the study were displaying demand characteristics. Orne and Holland (1968) made this point for Milgram’s original study and believed it was even more likely in his variation studies due to the extra manipulation of variables. An example of this is in the power of uniform variation when the experimenter left the room and a ‘member of the public’ gave the orders, even Milgram recognised that this situation was very staged and participants may have worked out the truth. This limits the internal validity of Milgram’s research into situational variables affecting obedience as it is unclear whether the findings are due to obedience or because participants saw through the deception and ‘play acted’

Question 27

what are the explanations for obedience

Answer 27

agentic state
legitimacy of authority

Question 28

Agentic state

Answer 28

• where people move from being in a state where they take personal responsibility for their actions (an autonomous state) to a state where they believe they are acting on behalf of an authority figure (agentic state).
• This is known as the agentic shift. When an individual is in the agentic state, they lose sense of personal responsibility and no longer feel guilty for their actions as they see themselves as carrying out the wishes of a more knowledgeable authority figure (implicit or explicit instruction).
• If a person is in an agentic state, they will be more likely to obey.

Question 29

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 29

• Obedient individuals accept the power and status of authority figures e.g. parents, teachers and police officers, and see them as being in charge.
• The authority they have is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society.
• We accept people’s credentials and believe they know what they are doing.
• It is ingrained in us to obey these people- even when we believe the order may be un-ethical or unjust.
• Factors that can affect LOA are uniform and location. This is shown in Milgram’s research as when he changed the experiment and instead conducted his research in a seedy office or gave orders over the telephone, obedience reduced as the experimenter has less legitimate authority. (can use any example from Milgram)

Question 30

Explanations of obedience

Answer 30

Research to support the agentic state as an explanation of obedience to authority was shown in Milgram’s obedience studies. Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter questions such as ‘Who is responsible if the learner is harmed?’. When the experimenter responded ‘I am responsible’ the participant often continued to obey and give the electric shocks. This supports the agentic state as an explanation for obedience as once the participants no longer believed they were responsible for their actions they obeyed the experimenter.

Further research to support the explanations for obedience to authority was conducted by Hofling. He conducted a study using nurses on a hospital ward who were ordered by an unknown doctor to give a dangerous dose of a drug to patients via a telephone. 21 out of the 22 nurses agreed to give the medication even though they knew not to take orders over the phone (they were stopped before hand). Therefore, supports legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience because the doctor had more authority than the nurses, moreover, it could also support the agentic state as the nurses may have felt that the doctors were ultimately responsible as the authority figure, and this is why they obeyed.

An alternative explanation for obedience is dispositional factors (internal factors) e.g. The Authoritarian Personality. This would argue that obedience is due to internal characteristics of the person e.g. their personality, for example having extreme respect for authority due to their upbringing. Therefore, this suggests that obedience may not just be due to legitimacy of authority and the agentic state. This weakens the explanations of obedience, as they are not the sole explanations.

Question 31

Authoritarian personality AO3

Answer 31

• Adorno proposed the dispositional explanation as an explanation of obedience.
• It is an internal explanation for obedience, as the focus is on the idea that certain personality characteristics are associated with higher levels of obedience.
• is a collection of personality traits said to develop from strict parenting during an individual’s childhood e.g. extremely strict discipline, an expectation of loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticisms of failings.
• The personality traits include showing extreme respect for perceived authority and submission to people in perceived authority as they see them as superior.
• People with an authoritarian personality also disapprove of individuals perceived as low status and direct anger towards them as they view them as inferior.
• They have black and white thinking and have strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies.
• assessed using the F-Scale (potential for facism scale) questionnaire by Adorno on a sample of over 2000 American participants.
• Those who scored highly on the questionnaire had the authoritarian personality and displayed the characteristics described above.

Question 32

Authoritarian personality AO3

Answer 32

Research to support the authoritarian personality was conducted by Milgram & Elms, who interviewed participants who had taken part in Milgram’s experiment and asked them to complete the F scale questionnaire to measure their levels of authoritarianism. They found higher levels of authoritarianism among those participants classified as obedient (who gave electric shocks to 450V) compared with those classified as defiant. Therefore, suggesting that the authoritarian personality is associated with obedience. Supporting the dispositional explanation of authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.

To evaluate, the research conducted by Adorno et al. into the authoritarian personality can be criticised for social desirability, as ppts may have lied on the F scale questionnaire to present themselves in the best possible light. For example by trying to minimise any fascist views. Therefore, Adorno may not be measuring what he set out to measure e.g. the authoritarian personality. This reduces the internal validity of research into the authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience.

An alternative explanation for obedience is situational factors. This would argue that obedience is due to external factors for example, obedience increases when the authority figure is wearing a uniform. RATHER THAN internal factors such as an authoritarian personality where the individual has extreme respect for authority due to harsh parenting in childhood. Therefore, suggesting that obedience may not just be due to an authoritarian personality (internal factors). This weakens the research into dispositional factors as an explanation for obedience as it is not the sole explanation.

Question 33

what are the two explanations of resistance to social influence

Answer 33

social support
locus of control

Question 34

Social support

Answer 34

• People can resist pressures to conform or obey when they receive social support. (1)
• This is because having an ally gives us confidence (1) and support making it possible to resist the pressures to conform or obey and remain independent in our behaviour. (1)
• Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence (1)

Question 35

Social support AO3

Answer 35

Research to support resistance to conformity comes from Asch. In Asch’s original conformity study the confederates all gave the same wrong answer and conformity was 37%. However, when Asch varied his study and had one confederate give the correct answers throughout the research conformity dropped to 5.5%. Therefore, this supports social support as an explanation for resistance to conformity because it suggests as the confederate provided the real participant with social support, it gave them confidence to remain independent and resist the pressure to conform.

Research to support resisting the pressure to obey comes from Milgram. In one of the variations of Milgram’s study, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates (who also played the role of teachers). The two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, the participants who proceeded to the full 450V dropped to 10% (from 65% in the original). Therefore, this supports social support as an explanation for resistance to obedience because it shows that if the real participant has support they are more likely to resist obedience to the authority figure

Question 36

Locus of control

Answer 36

• Locus of control is a personality trait which refers to a person’s perception of personal control over their behaviour. There is a scale of locus of control, with internal at one end and external at the other.

Internal locus of control: Those with an internal locus of control believe they control what happens to them and their behaviour is caused by their own personal decisions and effort. Individuals with a strong internal locus of control are more likely to remain independent in their behaviour and rely less on the opinions of others, which means they are better able to resist social influence.

WHEREAS

External Locus of Control: Those with an external locus of control believe that what happens to them is determined by external factors such as the influence of others, luck or fate. Individuals with an external locus take less personal responsibility for their actions and are less likely to remain independent in their behaviour so are less able resist social influence.

Question 37

Locus of control AO3

Answer 37

Research to support locus of control was conducted by Milgram & Elms. They interviewed Milgram’s original participants and found that those who had an internal locus of control were significantly more likely to refuse to continue giving shocks, whereas those with an external locus of control were more likely to be within the 65% that gave the full 450v. Therefore, supporting the existence of locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence because those with an internal locus of control were more likely to resist obedience and remain independent in their behaviour.

Research to support the existence of locus of control was carried out by Spector, who measured locus of control and predisposition to NSI and ISI in students. Spector found that students with an external locus of control were more likely to conform to NSI than those with an internal locus of control. However, there was no difference between the two groups for situations of ISI. This supports the idea that individuals with an internal LOC are more likely to resist social influence in certain situations.

Question 38

Define minority influence

Answer 38

Minority influence is a form of social influence where members of the majority group change their beliefs or behaviours because of the minority influencing their decision, this usually leads to internalisation. The minority must be consistent, show commitment and be flexible in their beliefs and behaviours

Question 39

consistency

Answer 39

• If the minority keep repeating the same beliefs to the majority, both over time (diachronic synchrony)
• and between all individuals that form the minority (synchronic consistency), the majority then reassess the situation and consider the minority idea more carefully.

Question 40

Commitment

Answer 40

• This suggests the minority must show dedication and make personal sacrifices when facing a majority.
• Some minorities engage in quite extreme activities to draw attention to their views.
• If these activities present some risk to the minority, this shows greater commitment. Majority groups may then pay even more attention.
• This is known as the augmentation principle.

Question 41

Flexibility

Answer 41

• too much consistency can be seen as dogmatic and rigid and may stop the majority moving over to the minority viewpoint.
• Members of the minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter-arguments.
  -The key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility.

If the minority remain consistent, committed and flexible, the majority listen to their ideas, internalise them and move over to the minority’s viewpoint. This starts slowly but builds momentum with more and more people moving over to the minority view point (snowball effect). Until

Question 42

Research into consistency and commitment

Answer 42

• The importance of both consistency and commitment were shown in Moscovici ‘s study.
• He conducted research on 172 female participants in a laboratory experiment. There were two conditions.
• In condition one a minority group of two people inconsistently called a set of blue slides “green” this shows little commitment. This had little effect on the majority (only 1% changed their minds) the rest continued to call them blue.
• In the second condition, the minority group called all of the blue slides green. In this condition where the minority were consistent and committed, 8% of the majority changed their answers to be in line with the minority.
• This shows the importance of showing a consistent and committed argument when a minority is trying to influence a majority.

Question 43

Minority influence AO3

Answer 43

Research to support consistency from a minority influence was conducted by Moscovici et al. Two confederates sat with a majority group of six participants, they were shown blue slides that differed in intensity and had to state the colour. When the minority consistently called the blue slides green, participants gave the same wrong answer 8% of the time; however when the minority group inconsistently called the blue slides green, agreement fell to 1%. This therefore supports the notion that consistency is important when a minority is influencing a majority.

The research by Moscovici to support the role of consistency in minority influence lacks mundane realism, as it used an unrealistic task of stating the colour of a slide. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to explain how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life social situations where the outcomes are more important, for example if a jury is deciding on a verdict. Thus, lowering the external validity of the research into minority influence.

There is real life evidence to support how a minority can influence a majority using consistency, commitment and flexibility from the suffragette movement. The women showed consistency by having the same belief that women should have equal rights between all members, over a long period of time. They showed dedication by going on hunger strike and they were flexible as they accepted women having a vote at the age of 30 (men were 21) and then continued to campaign, finally winning the right for women to vote. Thus showing how a minority can influence a majority in the real world.

Question 44

Define social change

Answer 44

Social change refers to a change in attitudes, behaviours or laws. These aren’t just with individuals but on a large scale, how societies (social norms) have changed. An historical example of Social change is increased rights for women- The suffragette movement in the UK won the campaign for women’s right to vote in the 1920’s.

Question 45

social change process

Answer 45

When a minority has an idea, they must remain consistent (Moscovici et al.) by having the same belief between members of the group, over a long period of time. They must also show commitment (Xie et al.) by showing dedication and making personal sacrifices. However, the minority also must be flexible and not completely rigid, by showing compromise if they want to change the majority opinion.
If the minority remain consistent, committed and are flexible they can change the beliefs of the majority publicly and privately (Internalisation). Once a few members of the majority start to move towards the minority, the influence of the minority begins to gather momentum as more people pay attention until eventually the minority idea eventually becomes a majority idea (Snowball effect).
When the majority remembers the minority idea, but not that the idea came from the minority group the two become separated (Social crypto-amnesia).
Social change has occurred, where there is a change in society’s attitudes, behaviours and laws.

Question 46

social change AO3

Answer 46

 To evaluate, some critics argue that social change through minority influence may be limited as social change does not occur quickly. This is because there is a tendency for human beings to conform to the majority position and maintain status quo, rather than engage in social change. Therefore, this suggests that a minority often creates the potential for social change, rather than a social change itself.
Moreover,

Critics also argue that social change through minority influence may be limited as they can be seen as ‘deviant’ in the eyes of the majority. Therefore, the majority may not want to change their views to be in line with them as they may be seen as deviant themselves. Moreover, the message from the minority may then be forgotten whilst people focus on the ‘deviant’ behaviour instead. Thus limiting minority influence as a social influence process in social change.
Despite these criticisms…

There is real life evidence to support the role of minority influence in social influence processes in social change from the suffragette movement. The minority group of women showed consistency by having the same belief that women should have equal rights between all members, over a long period of time. They showed dedication by going on hunger strike and they were flexible as they accepted women having a vote at the age of 30 (men were 21) and then continued to campaign. The majority internalised the idea that women should have equal rights and now society’s attitudes, behaviours and laws have changed, thus demonstrating the role of social influence process in social change in the real world.
Further…

Research to support the role of minority influence in social influence processes involved in social change is research from Moscovici. Two confederates sat with a majority group of six participants, they were shown blue slides and had to state the colour. When the minority consistently called the blue slides green, participants gave the same wrong answer 8% of the time; however when the minority group inconsistently called the blue slides green, agreement fell to 1%.Therefore, this shows the importance of a minority showing a consistent argument to create social change