Social Influence

Question 1

Definition of conformity

Answer 1

‘Changes in individuals’ behaviours and/or beliefs as a result of real or imagined group pressure’

Question 2

Compliance

Answer 2

most superficial and least permanent level of conformity. Individuals publicly change their beliefs and behaviours to be in line with a group and to fit in, but in private, revert back to original belief systems and behaviours

Question 3

Identification

Answer 3

private as well as public acceptance. Individuals look to a group for guidance and adjust their behaviour and belief to those of a group. The individual accepts the attitudes and behaviours they are adopting as right but the purpose of them accepting the attitudes and behaviours is to be accepted as a member of the group. When the group is no longer seen as valuable, behaviour may revert back.

Question 4

Internalisation

Answer 4

deepest and most permanent level of conformity. Individuals publicly and privately change their behaviours and belief systems to go along with a group norm, because we internalise them, the behaviour lasts when the majority are no longer present.

Question 5

Explanations of Conformity: INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Answer 5

ISI is driven by the desire to be right. When an individual is unsure 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.
This explanation of conformity leads to internalisation, in which individuals publicly and privately change their views to be in line with a group.

Question 6

Explanations of Conformity: NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Answer 6

NSI is driven by our desire to be liked. 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.
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 7

Evaluation of explanations of conformity: AO3

Answer 7

:) 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.

:) 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.

Question 8

Asch’s conformity research

Answer 8

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.
* 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, the confederates gave identical wrong answers.
* A control group of 36 participants were individually tested without confederates.

Findings: On average, the real participants 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, as they wanted to avoid ridicule.

Conclusions: This supports NSI as participants conformed publicly, but not privately in order to be accepted by the group.

Question 9

Variables affecting conformity: Group Size

Answer 9

Conformity rates increase as the size of a majority group increases, to a certain point

• 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

Question 10

Variables affecting conformity: Unanimity

Answer 10

• 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%
• When a ’lone’ confederate gave a different wrong answer, conformity dropped to 9%
• Asch concluded that when a dissenter breaks the group’s unanimous position conformity decreases.

Question 11

Variables affecting conformity: Task Difficulty

Answer 11

Conformity increases when the difficulty of a task increases.

• When the difficulty of the task increased conformity rates increased.
• As the right answer becomes less obvious we lose confidence in our own ability and are more likely to conform.

Question 12

Variables affecting conformity: AO3

Answer 12

:) 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 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.

:( 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 they may have different conformity rates to males. For example, 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 (Neto, 1995). This weakens the external validity of research into variables affecting conformity.

:( Research variables affecting conformity 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 conformity 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 variables affecting conformity.

Question 13

Conformity to Social roles (Zimbardo)

Answer 13

AIM: To investigate how freely people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a mock prison.

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, 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, encouraging participants to conform to their social role.
* The basement of the psychology department at Stanford University was converted into a mock prison.
* 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
* As the experiment continued, the punishments by the guards escalated.
* Identification was noticeable by the prisoners referring to each other and themselves by their prison numbers instead of their names.
* Three prisoners were released early due to showing symptoms of psychological disturbance.
* 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 14

Zimbardo & Conformity to Social Roles: AO3

Answer 14

:( One criticism of Zimbardo’s research in to 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, rather than because they were actually conforming to their social role of prisoner or guard due to the prison environment. 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, it could be argued that the findings from the research into conformity to social roles outweigh the ethical issues; moreover, 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 has practical applications as it can be used to predict and explain behaviour in the real world. The actions displayed by soldiers in Abu Ghraib military prison in Iraq were found to be similar to Zimbardo’s findings as prisoners were tortured, humiliated and physically abused. Therefore, Zimbardo’s research can be used when developing prevention programmes to be used for training purposes in prisons. This means that it has become an important part of applied psychology and has good external validity.

Question 15

Define the term Obedience to authority

Answer 15

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 16

Milgram’s Research

Answer 16

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 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 to a maximum of 450 volts.
* The experimenter used prompts if the ‘teacher’ refused:
- “Please continue.”
- “The experiment requires that you continue.”
- “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”

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 17

Milgram & Obedience to Authority: AO3

Answer 17

:) 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 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. 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 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. 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 18

Situational Variables affecting Obedience: Proximity

Answer 18

• 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 obedience dropped even further to 30%
• In one proximity variation, 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 19

Situational Variables affecting Obedience: Location

Answer 19

• 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 ‘seedy office’ the amount of perceived legitimate authority of the experimenter was reduced

Question 20

Situational Variables affecting Obedience: Power of Uniform

Answer 20

• 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.

Question 21

Situational factors affecting obedience: AO3

Answer 21

:) 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, for example, some research suggests females may be more obedient because of their gender roles may dictate that they be more submissive. THINK FURTHER: 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 research into situational factors affect obedience.

:( 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, rather than situational factors. Therefore, this suggests that obedience may not just be due to proximity, location and uniform (external factors). This weakens the research into situational factors as factors affecting obedience, as it is not the sole explanation.

Question 22

Explanations for obedience: Agentic State

Answer 22

This is where people may 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 see themselves as carrying out the wishes of a more knowledgeable authority figure. If a person is in an agentic state, they will be more likely to obey.

Question 23

Explanations for obedience: Legitimacy of authority figure

Answer 23

Obedient individuals accept the power and status of authority figures e.g. parents, teachers and police officers, and see them as being in charge. 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.

Question 24

Explanations of Obedience to Authority: AO3

Answer 24

:) Research to support the agentic state as an explanation of obedience to authority was shown in Milgrams’s obedience studies. Most of Milgrams’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 25

Dispositional Explanation for Obedience – Authoritarian Personality

Answer 25

Adorno proposed the dispositional explanation (authoritarian personality) 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.

The authoritarian personality 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 and submission for perceived authority as 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.

The authoritarian personality was assessed using the F-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 26

Dispositional Explanation of Obedience to Authority: AO3

Answer 26

:) 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. 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 27

Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Social Support: AO3

Answer 28

:) 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 29

Define the term Locus of Control

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

Resistance to social influence: Locus of Control

Answer 30

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 31

Locus of Control: AO3

Answer 31

:) 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 32

Minority influence definition

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Minority Influence

Answer 33

Consistency
If the minority keep to the same beliefs, 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.

Commitment
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.

Flexibility
It has suggested that whilst consistency of argument is important, that 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.

Question 34

Research on Consistency and commitment

Answer 34

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 35

Minority Influence: AO3

Answer 35

:) 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 36

Social Change Definition

Answer 36

Social change refers to a change in attitudes, behaviours or laws. These aren’t just with individuals but on a large scale, how societies have changed.

Question 37

Social Influence

Answer 37

When a minority has an idea, they must remain consistent by having the same belief between members of the group, over a long period of time. They must also show commitment 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 38

Social Change AO3:

Answer 38

:( 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.

:) 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.

:) 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.