Social Influence Flashcards
What is compliance ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
A superficial and temporary type of conformity - “going along” with others in public, no private change in opinions/behaviour. The behaviour stops as soon as pressure from the group stops
What is identification ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
A moderate type of conformity - a person values the group and wants to be part of it – public change in opinions/behaviours to fit in. Might not privately agree with everything the majority does
What is internalisation ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
A deep type of conformity - a person genuinely accepts the group norms – private and public change of opinions/behaviour. Change likely to be permanent and will persist in the absence of the group
What is normative social influence ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
This one is all about ‘norms’ – what is normal
Norms regulate our behaviour due to the need to be liked - we agree for social approval
Emotional process
What is informational social influence ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
The need to be right – we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct - we walso want to be correct
Cognitive process
Asch’s study - Lack ecological validity
Evaluation - Strength - Normative social influence - Research support ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
Point - In Asch’s study, it was found that the naïve participants went along with the incorrect answers given by the confederates because they felt self-conscious about giving the correct answer, they conformed to avoid rejection
Counter - results from Asch’s study may lack ecological validity – possibly due to the effects of demand characteristics – Ps all knew they were part of an experiment and may have “gone along” with what they felt was expected of them
Differences in need to be liked - nomothetic
Evaluation - Limitation - Normative social influence - Doesn’t affect everybody’s behaviour the same way ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
Point - some people care more about being liked than others. McGhee and Teevan found students with a high need to be liked were more likely to conform
I&D - takes a nomothetic approach by attempting to make general laws of behaviour. But the existence of individual differences suggests a more idiographic approach would be preferable
Lucas et al math problems - jeness jelly beans
Evaluation - Strength - Informational social influence - Research support ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
Point - Lucas et al - students asked to give answers to mathematical problems - greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than easy. There was even greater conformity for those rated with poor mathematical ability
Further - Jenness – gave Ps the task where there were no clear answers estimate jellybeans in a jar. Firstly, Ps gave answers privately. They was then asked to work in a group and create a group estimate. Finally, they was given the opportunity to change their answer privately, Jenness found almost all the participants estimates changed because they believed the group estimate to be correct
Types of people - nomothetic
Evaluation - Limitation - Informational social influence - Doesnt effect everyones behaviour in the same way ?
(Types and Explanations of Conformity)
Point - Individual differences show that not all types of people conform. Asch – found that students were less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%)
I&D - takes nomothetic approach by attempting to make general laws of human behaviour whereas individual differences suggest a more idiographic approach preferable
What was the aim and procedures of Asch’s research ?
(Ash’s Research)
Aim:
Investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could make a person to conform
Procedure:
Ps = 123 American, male undergraduates
Shown
Card 1 – Standard line
Card 2 – 3 “comparison lines” – 1 same as standard, 2 clearly wrong
Ps asked which of the 3 lines on card 2 matched the standard
Each naïve P tested individually with a group of 6 – 8 confederates
First 6 trials, Cs gave right answers, then started to make errors on the following 12 “critical trials”
What were the findings and conclusions of Asch’s study ?
(Ash’s Research)
Findings:
Ps gave wrong answer 37% of the time
75% conformed at least once
Conclusion:
When Ps interviewed afterwards, most said they conformed to avoid rejection
How does group size effect conformity ?
(Ash’s Research)
Aim - find out if the size of a group is more important than agreement of group
Findings – with 3 Cs, conformity rose to 32% but addition of further Cs made little difference
Conclusion - no need for a majority more than 3
How does unaniminity effect conformity ?
(Ash’s Research)
Aim – to know if presence of another, non-conforming person would affect P’s conformity
Findings – conformity was reduced by 25% from what it was when the majority was unanimous
Conclusions – presence of dissenter enabled naïve P to behave more independently
How does task difficulty effect conformity ?
(Ash’s Research)
Aim – to find out if conformity increases if task is more difficult
Findings – conformity increased when task was made more difficult
Conclusion – suggests informational social influence plays greater role when task more difficult
Perrin and Spencer Engineer study - lacks ecological validity
Evaluation - Limitation - Lacks Temporal Validity ?
(Ash’s Research)
Point - Perrin and Spencer repeated the study with engineering students in UK in 1980s – only 1 out of 396 conformed. This may show that people in 1950s America were particularly conformist as people conformed to social norms
Further – In addition, it lacks ecological validity, not a common task and may not have been viewed as serious by the participants, meaning there was no reason not to conform. They may have experienced Demand Characteristics –knew they were part of experiment, may have “gone along”.
Sample of men and individualist culture - Androcentric / Ethnocentric
Evaluation - Limitation - Lacks population Validity ?
(Ash’s Research)
Point - Asch only tested American men. This doesn’t reveal if women are more or less conformist than men. The study was also in the USA which is a more individualistic culture, studies in collectivist cultures found higher conformity rates
I&D – Asch’s study suffers from Androcentrism; the conclusions were focused on men and we may be unable generalise these to women. Asch’s study also suffers from being Ethnocentric, we may be unable to generalise the findings to more collectivist cultures in which the group is more important than the individual
Ps deceived - Ethical issues
Evaluation - Limitation – Ethical Issues ?
(Ash’s Research)
Point - Asch’s study was unethical the Naïve Ps were deceived and thought confederates were genuine Ps. Bogdonoff et al suggested Ps may have been distressed through not agreeing with others, it is the ethical duty of a psychologist not to cause emotional or physical harm
I&D – The study presents various ethical issues. The issue of deception means there was a lack of informed consent. It is also possible that the research was socially sensitive as it could have had possible negative emotional effects on Ps
What was the aim and procedure of Zimbardo’s research ?
(Zimbardo’s Research)
Aim - he wanted to see if behaviour was determined by social norms and social roles
Procedure - Set up a Mock Prison in basement of Stanford University
Advertised for students willing to volunteer – selected those deemed ‘emotionally stable’
Ps were randomly assigned to be a Prisoner or a guard
What were the findings and conclusions of Zimbardo’s research ?
(Zimbardo’s Research)
Findings:
After a slow start, the guards took up their roles with enthusiasm
Their behaviour became a threat to the health and safety of prisoners, the study was stopped after 6 days
Guards used divide and rule tactics by playing prisoners against each other, harassed them with headcounts in the middle of the night, punished smallest misdemeanours,
Prisoners originally rebelled, but after treatment from guards, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. One prisoner was released on first day because they had symptoms of psychological disturbance
Guards identified more and more closely with their role. They became more brutal and aggressive.
Conclusion:
Study revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviours, it is more important than their personalities
No protection from harm for Ps - Socially sensitive
Evaluation - Limitation - Ethical issues ?
(Zimbardo’s Research)
Point - the study was extremely unethical and Zimbardo did not take care for his participants 1 P wanted to leave the study and spoke to Z. Z responded as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher with responsibilities to protect his participants from harm
I&D – The entire study is socially sensitive research due to potentially far-reaching consequences for Ps. Prisoners suffered from depression and anxiety which may have lasted long after study ended
Failed to replicate - BBC prison recreation study
Evaluation - Limitation – Lack of Research Support ?
(Zimbardo’s Research)
Point – other studies have failed to replicate the same findings as Zimbardo
Explain - BBC Prison Study – Reicher and Haslam – partial replication of study – findings very different to Z’s – prisoners took control and subjected guards to harassment and disobedience
Minimise role of personality - Guards behaviour free will
Evaluation - Limitation – Zimbardo underrates the role of dispositional factors ?
(Zimbardo’s Research)
Point - Fromm – accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour and minimising the role of personality factors. 1/3 guards behaved brutally 1/3 keen on applying rules fairly, 1/3 actively tried to help and support prisoners
I&D – This suggests the behaviour of the guards was not a product of environmental determinism but free will
What is obedience ?
(Milgram’s Research)
Form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority
What was the aim and procedure of Milgram’s study ?
(Milgram’s Research)
Aim – How far would people go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person
Procedure:
40 male Ps aged 20-50, jobs ranging from unskilled to professional
Recruited through newspaper adverts and flyers by saying he was doing a study on memory
1 Confederate - always Learner, P always “Teacher”, 2nd actor – Experimenter dressed in lab coat
Ps told they could leave at any time
Learner strapped in chair in another room and wired with electrodes. Teacher had to give learner increasingly severe electric shock each time learner made a mistake
Shock level started at 15and went up 30 levels to 450 volts
At 300 volts learner pounded on wall and gave no response to next question
After 315 volts learner pounded on wall but after that no further response from learner
When teacher turned to experimenter for guidance he gave standard “prods” –
1) Please continue
2)The experiment requires that you contine
3) it is absolutely essential that you continue
4) you have no other choice, you must go on
What was the findings and conclusions of Milgram’s study ?
(Milgram’s Research)
Findings
No Ps stopped below 300 volts
12.5% stopped at 300 volts, 65% continued to highest level of 450 volts
Ps showed signs of extreme tension – sweating, stuttering, digging fingernails into hands.
3 had full blown uncontrollable seizures
All Ps debriefed and assured behaviour was normal.
Follow up questionnaire – 84% reports they felt glad to have participated
Conclusion - Ordinary people are obedient even when asked to do something that goes against their own morality. Suggests it is not evil people that commit atrocities
Orne & Holland claim Ps didnt beleive study - Puppy recreation study
Evaluation - Limitation – Low internal validity ?
(Milgram’s Research)
Point - Orne and Holland argued Ps behaved that way because they didn’t really believe the set up, they guessed it wasn’t real electric shocks. Gina Perry – listened to tapes of Milgram’s Ps and reported many of them expressed doubts about the shocks
Counter - However Sheridan and King conducted a similar study where real shocks were given to a puppy. 54% male Ps and 100% female Ps delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
Generalisation of study to nurses - Different nurses study realisitic
Evaluation - Strength – Good ecological validity ?
(Milgram’s Research)
Point -Milgram’s findings can be generalised to other settings and situations. Milgram argued the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. Hofling et al – studied nurses on hospital ward – found levels of obedience to unjustified demands from doctors were very high – 21/22 nurses obeyed
Counter – Rank and Jacobson – replicated Hoflings’s study on nurses altering some unrealistic aspects which would not normally occur in real life - Only 2/18 nurses obeyed
Deception for Ps - Socially sensitive / Unwanted feelings
Evaluation - Limitation - Ethical Issues ?
(Milgram’s Research)
Point – the study suffers from being highly unethical due to deception involved. Ps told that allocation of roles as “teacher” and “learner” were random. Ps also deceived that shocks were real. Diana Baumrind claims deceptions are a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of psychologists and their research
I&D – Deception can cause anxiety and stress for Ps. In addition, the participants cannot give informed consent. The research is socially sensitive research due to potentially far-reaching consequences for Ps
what are the three situational variables effecting obedience ?
(Situational Variables)
Proximity
Location
Uniform
How does proximity effect obedience ?
(Situational Variables)
1st Proximity variation – teacher and learner in same room
Findings – obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
2nd Proximity variation – teacher had to force learner’s hand onto an “electroshock plate”
Findings – obedience dropped to 30%
3rd Proximity variation – experimenter left room and gave instructions to teacher by telephone
Findings – obedience dropped to 20.5%. Ps also often pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones than they were ordered to
Conclusion
Proximity to authority figure increases obedience.
In situations which are having a negative impact on others, proximity to those being harmed decreases our obedience.
How does location effect obedience ?
(Situational Variables)
Location variation – carried out in a run-down building
Findings – obedience fell to 47.5%
Conclusion – A more official or prestigious location increases obedience
How does uniform effect obedience ?
(Situational Variables)
Uniform variation – experimenter called away on phone-call at the start of the procedure. Role of experimenter taken over by “ordinary member of the public” (confederate) in everyday clothes
Findings – obedience rate dropped to 20%
Conclusion – an official uniform increases obedience
Milkman,Security Guard, Suited study - Police,Business Exec,Beggar study
Evaluation - Strength – Supporting Evidence for Uniform Variation ?
(Situational Variables)
Point - Bickman conducted a field experiment which had 3 confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket and tie, milkman, security guard). They stood in street asking passers-by to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter or giving a coin for the parking meter. The found people were twice as likely to obey security guard than confederate in jacket and tie
Further– Bushman – a female researcher dressed as a police style uniform/as a business executive/ as a beggar. Stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for a parking meter. More people obeyed when in police style uniform.
Orne & Holland Ps didnt believe set up - Sheridan & King Puppy study
Evaluation - Limitation – Lack of Internal Validity ?
(Situational Variables)
Point - Orne and Holland argued Ps behaved that way because they didn’t really believe the set up. Even more likely that Ps in the variation studies would realise because of extra manipulation
Counter - However Sheridan and King conducted a similar study where real shocks were given to a puppy. 54% male Ps and 100% female Ps delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
Deception of Ps - Socially Sensitive - Alibi evil behaviour
Evaluation - Limitation – Ethical Issues ?
(Situational Variables)
Point - Ps told that allocation of roles as “teacher” and “learner” were random. Ps also deceived that shocks were real. Diana Baumrind suggested that deceptions were a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of psychologists and their research
I&D – Deception can cause anxiety and stress for Ps and prevent them from giving informed consent. Socially sensitive research – due to potentially far-reaching consequences for Ps – humiliation and guilt at administering shocks.
Furthermore, Mandel – argues it offers an excuse or “alibi” for evil behaviour
What are social psychological factors ?
(Situational Explanations)
Social Psychological Factors are based on Social Hierarchies and their influences
What was Adolf Eichmann’s defence ?
(Situational Explanations)
Eichmann was charged under law to punish Nazis and their collaborators. He was charged on 15 counts
Since he could not deny the crime, he disowned the responsibility for them. “He was just following orders”
Argued that he was unable to resist carrying out these orders
What are the autonomous and agentic states ?
(Situational Explanations)
‘autonomous state’ – means where we are free to behave and feel a sense of responsibility for our own actions
‘agentic state’ is the opposite – mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting on behalf of an authority figure - frees us from our conscience
We experience an ‘agentic shift’ – Milgram claims this occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority
Why do we stay in the agentic state ?
(Situational Explanations)
binding factors – these are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling
Strategies the individual uses to reduce moral strain:
Shifting responsibility to victim – he was foolish to volunteer
Denying the damage they were doing to victims
Milgram claims quick shift states - Lifton gradual shift Auschwitz docs
Evaluation - Limitation – Contradicting Research ?
(Situational Explanations)
Point – Counterevidence suggests that situations cause a change in the way individuals think and behave
Explain - Milgram - claimed people can shift rapidly back and forth between autonomous and agentic state. However - Lifton – found very gradual and irreversible transition in study of German doctors at Auschwitz - changed from ordinary medical professionals concerned with welfare of their patients into men and women capable of carrying our vile and lethal experiments on the prisoners
Furthermore - Staub suggests that rather than agentic state being responsible for actions of Holocaust perpetrators, it is the experience of carrying out acts of evil over a long time that changes the way individuals think and behave
Dispositional factors - Zimbardo support - obedience free will
Evaluation - Limitation – Milgram’s study doesn’t account for individual differences ?
(Situational Explanations)
Point - Milgram - admitted that there might be other explanations for obedience in his study rather than Agentic Shift – Dispositional Factors - signs of cruelty among Ps who had used the situation to express their sadistic impulses
Explain - Zimbardo Prison Study – supports this – guards inflicted rapidly escalating cruelty despite the fact there was no obvious authority figure instructing them to do so
I&D - suggests obedience is not a product of environmental determinism but free will – we are self determining and free to choose our own actions
What is the legitimacy of authority ?
(Situational Explanations)
Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way, meaning there are people who hold authority over the rest of us
Their authority is legitimate – society agrees in their power, it allows for society to function smoothly
We are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately
What is destructive authority ?
(Situational Explanations)
Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive
Charismatic leaders (e.g. Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes
Students blame experimenter - My Lai Massacre
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support ?
(Situational Explanations)
Point - Blass and Schmitt – showed film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner. Students blamed the “experimenter” rather than the P. Students also indicated that responsibility was due to legitimate authority – experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy
Real Life Application – War crimes – Kelman and Hamilton – My Lai Massacre – can be understood in terms of power hierarchy in the US army
I&D and Counter- Mandel – argues it offers an excuse or “alibi” for evil behaviour
What did Adorno want to find ?
(Dispositional Explanations)
Adorno wanted to understand the Holocaust. He argued that a high level of obedience was a psychological disorder, and he tried to locate the cause in the personality of the individual
What was the procedure and findings of Adorno’s study ?
(Dispositional Explanations)
Procedure:
2000 middle class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other groups (especially other racial groups)
They developed a number of scales – one of these is the Fascism Scale
Findings:
People with authoritarian leanings identified with ‘strong’ people and were disapproving and disliking of ‘weak’ people
They are conscious of their own and others status, they show excessive respect and deference to those of higher status
They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes of different groups
Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Conclusion:
Adorno concluded that people with an authoritarian personality are especially obedient to authority
What was the procedure and findings of Adorno’s study ?
(Dispositional Explanations)
Procedure:
2000 middle class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other groups (especially other racial groups)
They developed a number of scales – one of these is the Fascism Scale
Findings:
People with authoritarian leanings identified with ‘strong’ people and were disapproving and disliking of ‘weak’ people
They are conscious of their own and others status, they show excessive respect and deference to those of higher status
They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes of different groups
Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Conclusion:
Adorno concluded that people with an authoritarian personality are especially obedient to authority
Where does an authoritarian personality originate ?
(Dispositional Explanations)
Formed in childhood, result of harsh parenting - expectation of absolute loyalty to parents, strict discipline, high standards, severe criticism of failings, conditional love
Adorno suggested these experiences create resentment and hostility in children
So fear is displaced onto others who are perceived as weaker
F-Scale politically biased - Right and left wing similarities
Evaluation - Limitation – Political Bias of the F-Scale ?
(Dispositional Explanations)
Point – The F-Scale measures tendency towards an extreme form of Right-Wing ideology, but not extreme Left-Wing Ideology
Explain - Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued the F-Scale is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality, they point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism, such as Chinese Maoism, which aimed to overthrow Capitalism in China to install a new Political State
Further – extreme Right-Wing and extreme Left-Wing have much in common – both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to legitimate political authority
F-Scale linked childhood - Correlation authoritarian and obedience
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support ?
(Dispositional Explanations)
Point - Elms and Milgram – used Ps who had previously taken part in Milgram’s experiments. Selected 20 “obedient” and 20 “defiant” Ps. Ps completed F scale to measure levels of authoritarianism and asked questions about their relationships with parents during childhood and their attitude towards the experimenter and learner in the task - Found higher levels of authoritarianism among “obedient” Ps compared to “defiant” Ps
Counter – Hymen and Sheatsley - This is merely a correlation between levels of authoritarianism and obedience and makes it impossible to conclude that the Authoritarian personality causes obedience – could be a third factor
Nazi Germany all obedient despite personality difference - L of A shows
Evaluation - Strength – Limited Explanation ?
(Dispositional Explanations)
Point – It is Hard to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s population. In pre-war Germany – millions of individuals all displayed obedient, racist and anti-Semitic behaviour despite the fact they would have differed in their personalities but its unlikely they would all be authoritarian
Further – Social Psychological Factors such as the Legitimacy of authority – may be a better explanation of how entire population were obedient
What is resistance to social influence ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey to authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors
What is social support and how does it help resistance to social influence ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same
Social Support and Conformity:
Pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people who aren’t conforming
Asch showed this with ‘unanimity’ as a variable affecting conformity
Dissenter doesn’t have to give the right answer – simply not conforming is enough to allow a person to be free to follow their own conscience
Social Support and Obedience:
Pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person seen not to obey
In 1 of Milgram’s Variations – obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate
Participant might not follow disobedient person to the point, but their disobedience acts as a model for the participant to copy that allows them to free themselves from their own conscience
Dissenter support didnt need to be valid - social support
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support for Resisting Conformity ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
Point - Allen and Levine – found conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study. This occurred even if dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision – so his support was not particularly valid as he was not in the best position to judge lines
I&D – social support is a situational explanation of resistance to conformity and is an example of environmental determinism, stating we have no personal free will over the extent to which we conform/obey or resist. Our ability to resist conformity and obeying is dependent on whether somebody else within the environment resists
Gamson higher resistance levels oil smear campaighn - Gestapo vs Jews
Evaluation - Strength – Research Support for Resisting Obedience ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
Point - Gamson et al – found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram. Ps were in groups and were instructed to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign – 88% of Ps rebelled
Real Life Application – Rosenstrasse Protest – Gestapo (Nazi police) were holding 2000 Jewish men captive. Relatives of the Jewish captives protested against with the Gestapo agents who threatened to open fire if they didn’t disperse, and demanded their release. Despite the threats the men were eventually set free
What is the locus of control ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
Concept proposed by Julian Rotter
Internal LOC – believe things that happen to them are controlled by themselves
External LOC believe things happen without their control
Continuum – somewhere inbetween
what characteristics come with the locuse’s of control ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
People with Internal LOC more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey
People with High Internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, have higher intelligence and less need for social approval
Internals vs Externals - Positive correlation LOC social influence
Evaluation - Strength - Research Support for LOC and resistance to obedience ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
Point - Holland – repeated Milgram’s first study – measured whether Ps were internals or externals. 37% of internals didn’t continue to the highest shock level compared to only 23% externals – internals showed greater resistance to authority
Further – Avtgis – carried out meta-analysis of studies on relationship between LOC and social influence. Showed significant positive correlation – those who scored higher on external LOC tend to be more easily persuaded and influenced and more likely to conform than internals
Chane over time - temporal validity
Evaluation - Limitation – Contradictory Research ?
(Resistance to Social Influence)
Point - Twenge et al – analysed data from American LOC studies over a 40 year period – data showed that people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external. If resistance were linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal
Further – research into locus of control may lack temporal validity and cannot be generalised to how and why people resist obedience today
what is minority influence and how is it different to conformity ?
(Minority Influence)
a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours
which is usually a majority doing the influencing
How does consistency effect minority influence ?
(Minority Influence)
consistency of a minorities view increases the amount of interest from other people
Synchronic Consistency - agreement between people in the minority group – all saying the same thing
Diachronic Consistency – consistency over time – they’ve been saying the same thing for some time
Being consistent makes others start to rethink their own views
How does commitment effect minority influence ?
(Minority Influence)
Remaining committed suggests certainty, confidence and courage in the face of a hostile majority and catches there attention
may take the form of extreme activities or personal sacrifice
Augmentation Principle - Commitment and sacrifices may persuade the majority to take them more seriously or convert to the minority position
How does flexibility effect minority influence ?
(Minority Influence)
Too much consistency – repeating the same arguments and behaviours – can be seen as rigid, unbending and inflexible – can be off-putting to the majority
Minority is less powerful than majority so can’t enforce their view, must negotiate - need to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter-arguments
Need to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility
What is the snowball effect ?
(Minority Influence)
Over time increasing numbers of people switch from the majority view to the minority view
The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion
Gradually the minority view becomes the majority view
Consistent minorities - Minorities influential
Evaluation - Strength – Research support demonstrating importance of consistency ?
(Minority Influence)
Point - there is research support for the importance of consistency. Moscovici et al – showed that consistent minorities have a greater effect than an inconsistent opinion
Further Research – Wood et al – meta analysis – almost 100 similar studies – found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential
What was the aim and procedure of Moscovi Et Al’s study ?
(Minority Influence)
Aim - To study the effects of consistency on minority influence
Procedure:
Each group – 4 naïve Ps and 2 confederates
Asked to view 36 blue slides that varied in intensity and state whether they were blue or green
“Consistent” condition – confederates said slides were green every time
“Inconsistent” condition – confederates said slides were green 2/3 of the time and blue 1/3 of the time
What was the findings and conclusion of Moscovi Et Al’s study ?
(Minority Influence)
Findings:
“Consistent” condition – naïve Ps said green over 8% of trials
“Inconsistent” condition – naïve Ps said green on 1.25% of trials
Conclusion - The consistent minority had more influence
Majority vs Minority conflicting view - Understanding majority view
Evaluation - Strength – Research support for ‘Depth of Thought’ ?
(Minority Influence)
Point – there is research evidence to show that change to a minority position does involve deeper processing of ideas
Explain - Martin et al – gave participants a message supporting a view point. Group 1 heard a minority agree with the message, Group 2 heard a majority agree. Participants were then exposed to a conflicting view and their attitudes were measured. They found participants were less willing to change their opinions and agree with the conflicting view if they had listened to the minority group.
Counterargument – Mackie – argues majority influence creates deeper information processing. We believe majority share similar beliefs to us, so if they express a different one we must consider it carefully to understand why
Lack mundane realism - Real life factors
Evaluation - Limitation – Research studies have limited real world application ?
(Minority Influence)
Point – The studies that support minority influence have limited real world application.
Explain - Tasks involved in research are artificial and don’t reflect how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life – low mundane realism
Real- life Applications – in real-life situations there is more involved in the difference between a minority and majority than just numbers – majorities usually have lot more power and status than minorities. Most studies do not capture the commitment that minorities show towards their causes, including the social support that members give each other when they face hostile opposition.
How does social change through conformity occur ?
(Social Influence & Social Change)
By drawing attention to what the maority are doing
Campaigners can carry out ‘Social Norms Interventions’ - correcting any misperceptions of what the majority do/think
How does social change through obedience occur ?
(Social Influence & Social Change)
Zimbardo - claims obedeince can create social change through gradual commitment
Once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes more diffficult to disobey bigger ones
occurs slowly/minority indirect -
Evaluation - Limitation – Social Influence through minority influence is indirect and delayed ?
(Social Influence & Social Change)
Point - Nemeth - Social change happens slowly, if at all and the influence of a minority is more indirect and may not be seen for some time
Further – Mackie –majority influence creates deeper processing which in turn means If an opinion is held by the minority, we may disregard it and assume it is wrong because the majority do not share it
Nolan et al energy usage = normative - Dejong students drinking
Evaluation - Strength – Research support for effect of Majority influence on social change ?
(Social Influence & Social Change)
Point - Nolan et al – hung messages on front doors of houses. First group – message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. Second group – just asked them to save energy. Found significant decreases in energy usage in first group compared to second group, this shows conformity being caused by normative social influence
Counter – Dejong et al – tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to drive down alcohol use among students. Despite receiving information correcting misperceptions of drinking norms, students did not show lower perceptions of student drinking levels or report lower alcohol consumption
Negative perceptions of deviants - Bashir stereotypical tree huggers
Evaluation - Limitation – Research support for effect of Majority influence on social change ?
(Social Influence & Social Change)
Point - Being perceived as “deviant” limits the influence of minorities. Members of the majority may avoid aligning themselves with the minority position because they don’t want to be seen as deviant themselves
Ex. Protests that turn violent
Further– Bashir et al – found that Ps were less likely to be environmentally friendly because they didn’t want to be associated with stereotypical environmentalists which they perceived as “tree huggers”
