Social Influence

Question 1

What is conformity

Answer 1

Change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group

Question 2

What are the 3 types of conformity

Answer 2

Compliance
Internalisation
Identification

Question 3

What is compliance

Answer 3

Compliance is a type of conformity and is when individuals adjust/change their behaviour, and the views, attitudes and beliefs they voice in public, so that they are in line with the majority. There is no change to privately held views, attitudes and beliefs and conformity only lasts while the group is present.

Question 4

What is internalisation

Answer 4

Internalisation is another type of conformity which is when individuals adjust/change their behaviour, and the views, attitudes and beliefs they voice in public, so that they are in line with the majority. The individual examines their behaviour, beliefs and attitudes based on what others are saying and decide that the majority is correct. This leads the person to accept the group’s point of view privately as well as publicly.

Question 5

What is identification

Answer 5

conform to the opinions of the group because there is something about the group that we value. We identify with the group because we feel that we are similar to that group and therefore change our views to be part of it. We also identify with those people who we admire and may look up to. We may agree with the group publically but disagree privately.

Question 6

Explanations of conformity (AO1)

Answer 6

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory and thus identified two reasons for conformity: the desire to be accepted (NSI) and the desire to be right (ISI)

ISI is when the person conforms because they’re unsure so they look to others for the answer. It’s the need to be right and takes places in difficult, ambiguous situations or when there’s a crisis (leads to internalisation)

NSI is conforming to fit in with norms and be liked/accepted into a group. People have a fundamental need to be liked and accepted, so people conform to avoid ridicule or rejection (happens with strangers or stressful situations, leads to compliance)

Question 7

Explanations of conformity AO3

Answer 7

PROS:

• research evidence to support. Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult, Lucas found that conformity occurred more to incorrect answers when the mathematical problems were more difficult rather than easy. Shows how conformity happens in difficult situations
• With regards to NSI, Asch (1951) found that many of his participants went along with a clearly wrong answer because other people did. These participants feared rejection so agreed with the wrong answer

CONS:

• individual differences in NSI and ISI, not every individual shows NSI but some are as they feel the need to be liked (naffiliators). Naffiliators conform but those who aren’t wont conform to NSI (lacked population validity). Studies also show that not everyone conforms to ISI even in ambiguous situations (Asch 28% not as conformist compared to other types of pps 37%)
• ISI and NSI work together in explaining conformity rather than separately. For example, in Asch’s experiments, conformity was reduced when there is one other dissenting participant (i.e. when another participant disagrees with the majority). In this case the dissenter may reduce the power of NSI because he is providing social support to the participant or may reduce the power of ISI because the participant now has an alternative source of information from this dissenter.

Question 8

Jennes (1932) study into conformity (jelly beans)

Answer 8

Wanted to examine whether ppl change opinion in ambiguous situations

Had a glass bottle filled with beans, asked 26 students to estimate how many were in there. Put pps and allowed them to discuss it then asked them again how many beans there were. Jeness found nearly all pps changed their original answer when they had another opportunity . Males changed by 256, female by 382. Shows they changed due to ISI

Question 9

Sherif (1935) auto kinetic effect experiment

Answer 9

Aimed to show ppl conform to group norms when in ambiguous situations

He used the autokinetic effect – this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).
It was discovered that when participants were individually tested their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm).

Pps then tested in groups of 3 and found they mostly converged to a common estimate, showing people conform

He also started with the group discussion then asked pps individually and found answers were similar, showing they had internalised the group norm and took is as their own, showing when in ambiguous situations people conform to group norm

Question 10

Asch study (1951)

Answer 10

Asch believed problem with sherif experiments was there was no correct answer so dk if ppl actually conformed

Had 123 male us pps participate in a vision test, placing each pps in a group of up to 8 confederates, who had agreed in advance what answer they would give when shown the line task.

18 trials, in 12 confederate gave wrong answers(critical trials), Asch wanted to see if the real pps would conform to what confederates say. Also had a control group with no confederates

He found in critical trials 75% conformed once and 25% didn’t at all. In control group less than 1% gave wrong answer. Overall 35% pps conformed on average

Interview after showed pps knew answers were wrong but went along with what everyone else said to avoid ridicule

Showed compliance (agree publicaly but not privately) and NSI (wanted to fit in)

Question 11

Variables investigated by Asch

Answer 11

Group size- changed number of confederates. With 1 or 2, conformity rate was low but with 3 it went up to 30%. This was the maximum showed group size is only important up to a certain point

Unanimity of majority- if one confederate gave correct answer, conformity rate dropped from 33 - 5.5%. If one confederate gave wrong answer , rate dropped to 9% showing you only need one break in unanimous decision

Task difficulty - when lines were more close together conformity levels rose. Lucas et at (2006) found influence of task difficulty is moderated by the self-efficacy (how confident they are) of a pps. With the maths problems, high self-efficacy pps were independent showing situational and personality differences are both important in determining conformity

Question 12

Evaluation of Asch study and variable affecting conformity

Answer 12

Only cons:

• carried out in 1950s (much more conformist decade) so lacks temporal validity as it means that the Asch effect is not consistent across situations or time. When carried out in 80s only 1 student conformed in 396 trials compared to Asch’s 75% conforming at least once
• lacks ecological validity we cannot thus generalise the findings to everyday situation especially when in everyday situations conformity may be important especially when we interact with people and groups in a more direct manner . A line task is not going to be carried out in everyday life also demand characteristics were present
• gender bias, only contained men so can’t generalise study to women, also lacks population validity as carried out in US which is an individualistic culture. When it was carried out in China conformity rates were higher
• ethical issue of Asch’s study, deception (confederates used), could lead to psychological harm as pps could be confused why everyone is answering wrong (creates stress and confusion). There was no fully informed consent asw but there was a debriefing

Question 13

Method of Zimbardo (1974) study AO1

Answer 13

Aim was to see whether people will conform to new social roles

Procedure

• converted base of Stanford university into mock prison, asked for volunteers to participate
• gave participants who applied diagnostic interviews to get rid of those with problems/ history of crime
• 24 male students (10 prisoners and 11 guards, rest were reserves)
• pps randomly assigned to prisoner and guard. Prisoners treated like acc prisoners (personal possessions removed, id by number, had locked chain around ankle)
• guards dressed in identical uniforms, had a whistle hat and sunglasses. They worked 8 hr shifts and were told to do whatever they thought was necessary (no violence)
• zimbardo acted as warden

Question 14

Findings of zimbardo study (AO1)

Answer 14

• prisoners and guards identified with their roles quickly
• prisoners tried rebelling and guards stopped that by harassing and tormenting prisoners
• they gave prisoners pointless and boring task like cleaning toilets with bare hands
• one prisoner released after 36 hrs due to screaming and crying (thought he was becoming depressed)
• slowly but surely more people started to leave and even tho zimbardo wanted it to last 2 weeks, only lasted 6 days after Stanford phd maslach deemed it in humane as prisoners were being abused

Question 15

Zimbardo study AO3

Answer 15

PROS:

• Zimbardo and his colleagues had some level of control over variables e.g. when selecting participants, Zimbardo and his team chose the most emotionally stable males. Furthermore, each participant was randomly assigned to either prisoner or guard meaning that there was no experimenter bias. So we can be confident in drawing conclusions
• good application to real life scenarios. From 2003-2004 USA Military Police committed serious human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Zimbardo argued same conformity to social roles was present in both, guards had lack of training boredom and no accountability which is why they did what they did

Cons:

• lack of research support. Study by reicher and haslam 2006 (BBC prison study) conducted similar experiment and found that it was the prisoners who took control
• ethical issues. Zimbardo’s dual roles as warden and psychologist prevented him from treating his pps correctly. Deception also used and pps didn’t give full consent as they didn’t know they’d be arrested like an actually prisoner. This could’ve scarred pps

Question 16

What is obedience

Answer 16

Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming.

Question 17

Milgram study on obedience (1963) AO1

Answer 17

AIM- to investigate the level of obedience participants would show when an authority figure tells them to administer electric shocks to another human being.​

PROCEDURE:

• asked pps by advertising to take part in study at Yale university. 40 pps who were paired with one another (drew lots to identify teacher and learner). Draw was fixed so that the learner was one of milgrams confederates
• teacher and researcher went into a room next door and the pps thought they were giving electric shocks of up to 450v when leaner gave wrong answers
• if pps asked qs or wanted to stop researcher would say ‘prods’ such as please continue, you have no other choice etc. (Asked in sequence)

Question 18

MILGRAM study on obedience findings (1963) AO1

Answer 18

• all pps shocked up to 300v and 65% up to 450v when only 3% was predicted to go up to 450
  -26 obeyed 14 defied
• many pps showed signs of nervousness (sweating, trembling, bit lips)
• 3 had seizures, one was so severe experiment had to halt
• shows how ppl obey authority even if their actions are detrimental

Question 19

Evaluation of MILGRAM study AO3 (5)

Answer 19

PROS:

• Good external validity as it shows the relationship between the authority figure (in this case the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected real life authority. His research is also supported by Hofling et al.’s (1966) study
• research support, Hofling et al (1966) had a confederate ‘DR smith’ who told 22 nurses to give 20mg of a made up drug to a patient as he would come later. Label on drug said max dose was half but 21/22 nurses obeyed without hesitations, 11 saying they didn’t see the dosage
• la zone extreme was a fake game show pps took part in where 80% gave an ‘unconscious’ man max 460v shock. Showed same nervous behaviours in milgrams study which shows it wasn’t a one-off

CONS:

• Low internal validity,they could’ve showed demand characteristics. Orne and Holland (1968) argued that the participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set-up and guessed that they were not really giving electric shocks to the ‘learner’. Perry (2013) listens to recordings of his study and 70% pps asked milgram if shocks were even real or not
• many ethical issues, couldn’t give full consent as they weren’t fully informed. They weren’t able to withdraw as even if they wanted to stop the researcher kept saying the ‘prods’ and there was a risk of long-term harm as pps thought they had severely injured someone

Question 20

What are the 3 situational variables milgram investigated

Answer 20

Proximity, location uniform

Question 21

How did Milgram investigate the situational variables AO1

Answer 21

• proximity (how close teacher and leaner are). When in same room instead of adjoining room obedience rate dropped from 65 to 40%. When teacher had to force learners hand on electroshock plate rates dropped to 30%. When experimenter left room and spoke on telephone rates fell to 20.5%

-location, instead of conducting in Yale uni he changed it to a old run down building. Obedience levels fell to 47.5%

• uniform in OG study experimenter wore lab coat as symbol of authority. the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ ( a confederate) in everyday clothes. The obedience level dropped to 20%,

Question 22

Milgrams situational variables AO3

Answer 22

PROS:

• Research support as Bickman 74 showed power of uniforms. Asked 150 pedestrians random things. The researchers were dressed in one of three ways: in a suit (jacket and tie), a milkman’s uniform, or a guard’s uniform.
  They gave various orders for example:
  • Pointing to a bag on the street – “Pick up this bag for me”

most likely to obey the researcher dressed as a guard (80%) than the milk man or civilian (40%)

• cross cultural replications. Milgram’s research and his variations have been replicated in other cultures as well. For example, Miranda et al (1981) found high obedience rates in Spanish students (90%).
• high validity as there was a high control of the variables when he carried out his variations

CONS:

• Low internal validity,they could’ve showed demand characteristics. Orne and Holland (1968) argued that the participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set-up and guessed that they were not really giving electric shocks to the ‘learner’ after they kept hearing same 4 prompts
• obedience alibi. David Mandel (1998) argues that using these situational variables almost makes them an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil or bad behaviour. Milgrams findings basically say Nazis carried out Holocaust due to situational factors beyond their control

Question 23

Two explanations of obedience

Answer 23

Agentic state
Legitamacy of authority

Question 24

Agentic state AO1

Answer 24

Milgram explained the importance of responsibility through this theory. He argued that people operate in two different ways in social situations:
• When acting as independent individuals, people are aware of the consequences of their actions and make decisions knowing they will be held account for the consequences. This is also known as the autonomic state.

• When in an agentic state (state in which a person carries out orders with little personal responsibility) an individual sees themselves as under the authority of another, not responsible for the actions they take. In this state they will often carry out an order without question.

The change from an autonomous (independent) state to the agentic state is known as the agentic shift. Milgram said this happens when someone else is perceived as a figure of authority as they usually have greater power than the agent

Question 25

Agentic state evaluation AO3

Answer 25

PRO:

• research support. Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to some students and asked them who was responsible for harming the learner Mr Wallace. The students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant. The students also indicated that the fact that the experimenter was a scientist – at the top of the hierarchy thus had authority – the participants were merely agents

Cons:

• does not explain many other research findings such as why some of the pps did not obey the authority figure in Milgrams study. It also does not explain why one of nurses in Holfling’s study did not give the drug prescribed by the doctor who is higher up in the hierarchy than a nurse whereby a nurse is merely the agent.
• research evidence has refuted the idea that the behaviour of the Nazi’s can be explained in terms of the agentic state. One incident involved German Reserve Police Battalion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in Poland even though they weren’t directly told to shoot yet police preferred it

Question 26

Legitimate authority AO1

Answer 26

Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way. This means that people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us such as parents, teachers, police. Also, from early childhood, we are socialised to obey certain legitimate authority figures

We are taught that we should obey such people with legitimate authority because we trust them, or because we fear punishment.

However some people are granted the power to punish others. For example, in society we accept that the police and the courts are allowed to punish criminals.

Question 27

Legitimate authority evaluation AO3

Answer 27

PROS:

• We need to have legitimate authority figures in a well-functioning, ordered society thus a strength of this explanation is it explains the functioning of a civilised nation. For example, legitimate authority figures such as the police help prevent crime – without the police, society would not function well.
• explains cultural differences in obedience – for example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia and found 16% went to the full voltage. However, Mantell (1971) who replicated Milgrams’s study in Germany found an 85% obedience rate. Both these studies show the cultural differences in perceived legitimacy of authority and how different cultures have different upbringings thus strengthening the legitimacy of authority explanation

CONS:

• not all legitimate authority figures should be obeyed. Sometimes we will obey a legitimate authority figure because of their status even if we disagree with their order. Milgram’s study showed that people will obey a legitimate authority figure even if obedience led to harm to another person.
• In real life there have been examples of legitimate authority figures who have abused their power. Harold Shipman, as a doctor, was a well known example; because he was a trusted, justified authority figure he was able to kill over 200 patients without suspicion.

Question 28

Authoritarian personality AO1

Answer 28

Adorno (1950) proposed a dispositional explanation of obedience. Dispositional explanations of behaviour claim that individuals’ personality characteristics determine their behaviour, not situational influences in the environment.

Adorno argued that authoritarian personalities are more likely to obey authority figures. Authoritarian personalities have a collection of traits which make them more obedient. These include;

➢ servile towards people of perceived higher status,
➢ hostile towards people of lower status,
➢ preoccupied with power,
➢ inflexible in their beliefs and values,
➢ conformist and conventional (e.g. rule following),
➢ likely to categorise people as ‘us’ or ‘them’,
➢ dogmatic (intolerant of ambiguity).

Adorno (1950) thought that people developed these personalities due to receiving extremely harsh discipline from their parents during their upbringing, usually involving physical punishment. This creates feelings of hostility which are directed towards weaker others who cannot fight back and are therefore safe. They cannot take out their anger on their parents because they fear them, so instead they act in a submissive way towards them. They then extend this submissive behaviour to all authority figures.

Question 29

F scale study by Adorno (authoritarian personality AO1)

Answer 29

Adorno (1950) developed a questionnaire to measure authoritarian personalities called the F (Fascism) scale. Participants are asked to rate how much they agree with statements

Adorno tested more than 2000, middle-class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups and found that there was a relationship between authoritarian personality and scoring high on the F scale

Question 30

Authoritarian personality AO3

Answer 30

PROS:

• there is research support for a link between being obedient to authority and having an authoritarian personality (measured through the F scale). Milgram (1966) got 20 obedient pps from his study (shocked all the way to 450v) and 20 disobedient pps and asked them to do the F scale questionnaire and saw a link between scoring high and being more obedient
• Another study to support the authoritarian personality was carried out by Miller (1975) who found individuals who scored high on F scale were more likely to obey an order to hold some electric wiring whilst completing a test. This study shows that you will obey authority even if harming yourself suggesting that this must be due to your personality.

CONS:

• saying that the reason why we obey authority is due to our authoritarian personality is a very limited explanation since it does not explain why the majority of the population in a country such as Germany are very obedient but not all Germans can possess an authoritarian personality. An alternative to this explanation is the Social Identity Theory which is a more relevant explanation of obedience
• A limitation of the authoritarian personality explanation is that it is based on flawed methodology. For example, Adorno introduced the F- scale questionnaire to measure the obedient personality. There are many problems with the questionnaire itself. For example, each item on the questionnaire is worded in the same direction meaning it is fairly easy to get a high score on the authoritarian personality. Also closed qs don’t allow for explanations

Question 31

Social support explanation for resisting conformity AO1

Answer 31

One reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally – someone supporting their point of view. Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence

the pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming. In Asch’s variations, conformity rates dropped to 5.5% when there was one correct dissenter in the group, furthermore if the dissenter was incorrect then conformity rates dropped to 9%.

the pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey. For example, in one of Milgram’s variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the real participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.

Question 32

Social support AO3

Answer 32

PROS:

• There is research to support the idea that social support can reduce social influence – for example, in Asch’s study in terms of the one dissenter reducing conformity to 5.5%. Similarly in Milgram’s study when the real participant was joined by a disobedient confederate who refused to give the shocks, obedience rates went down to 10%
• Another strength of social support studies is that they can be applied to real life – for example, Gamson’s study had high ecological validity as the pps were unaware that they were participating in a psychological study so would not show demand characteristics.

CONS:

• The Social Support explanation is strong for explaining with you have a group size of under 10 people then one dissenter can influence non conformity or disobedience. However, in the real world, group sizes are massive (e.g. 100s) and having one dissenter in a big group will not have any influence on the majority. Can’t represent group sizes in real world

Question 33

GAMSON STUDY 1982

Answer 33

Gamson and his colleagues wished to set up a situation in which pps were encouraged to rebel against unjust authority. The researchers placed an advert in local newspapers in a town in Michigan, USA asking for volunteers to take part in a paid group discussion on ‘standards of behaviour in the community’. Those who responded were asked to attend a group discussion at a local Holiday Inn. When they arrived they were put into groups of nine and met by a consultant from a fictional human relations company called MHRC. The consultant explained that MHRC was conducting research for an oil company, which was taking legal action against a petrol station manager. They argued that the manager had been sacked because his lifestyle was offensive to the local community. In contrast the manager argued that he had been sacked for speaking out on local TV against high petrol prices.

Pps were asked to take part in a group discussion about the sacking and this was filmed. As the discussion unfolded, it became apparent that the pps’ own views were irrelevant and that MHRC wanted them to argue in favour of the sacking. At a number of points during the discussion, the cameraman stopped filming and instructed different members of the group to argue in favour of the oil company’s decision to sack the manager. Finally the pps were asked to sign a consent form allowing the film to be shown in a court case.

Of the 33 groups tested by Gamson, 32 rebelled in some way during the group discussion. The pps established a strong group identity in which the members agreed that the demands of the authority were unreasonable. This could be seen by the way in which they addressed the MHRC coordinator, saying that ‘we don’t want to go on record, even pretending that we agree with what we’re saying. We don’t. All three of us feel the same way’.

In 25/33 groups, the majority of group members refused to sign the consent form allowing the film to be used in court. Nine groups even threatened legal action against MHRC.

Gamson’s study clearly shows the notion of social support and the power of it when resisting obedience to authority.

Question 34

Locus of control AO1

Answer 34

Locus of Control was proposed by Julian Rotter (1966)

● This refers to a person’s perception of the degree of personal control they have over their behaviour.
● Those people with a high external locus of control see their future and their actions as resulting largely from factors outside their control such as luck or fate.

● Those people with a high internal locus of control feel a stronger sense of control over their lives than people with an external locus of control. They are also more active seekers of information, rely less on the opinion of other, and are more likely to resist pressure from others. This means they are more likely to show resistance to social influence

people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement orientated, have higher intelligence and have less need for social approval. These personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence.

Question 35

Locus of control AO3

Answer 35

PROS:

• Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internal or external. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock (showed resistance). However 23% of externals did not continue. Research support of this nature increases the validity of the LOC explanation
• Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. They compared 406 people who had protected and rescued Jews from the Nazis and 126 people who had not done this. found that the group that rescued the Jews had scores demonstrating an internal locus of control, LIKELY TO ACT THAN LEAVE TO FATE

CONS:

• conflicting research evidence. For example, Twenge (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period (1960 to 2002). The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistance to obedience but also show a more external locus of control
• rotters questionnaire measuring a persons LOC lacks temporal validity as it was devised in 60s where society had diff views

Question 36

What is minority influence

Answer 36

Minority influence is a type of social influence that motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms. This is achieved through the process of conversion

Question 37

Behavioural characteristics of minority

Answer 37

Consistency - minority influence will be persuasive if the minority is consistent (unchanging) with its opinion/behaviour, show confidence in its beliefs, and appears unbiased

Commitment - is important in the influence process because it suggests certainty, confidence and courage in the face of a hostile majority. The augmentation principle explains how minorities can change the majority because if the minority is doing something quiet risky but shows commitment then the majority will pay more interest

Flexibility - minorities are powerless so must negotiate rather than enforce their position upon majority. Minority too flexible can be seen as weak and dogmatic

Question 38

Study on consistency Moscovici 1969

Answer 38

His sample consisted of 172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task. The participants were placed in groups of six and shown 36 slides, which were all varying shades of blue. The participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide. Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green; in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue.

Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials.

Question 39

Study on commitment Xie et al 2011

Answer 39

Xie found that you need about 10% of the minority population to influence the majority.
They developed computer models of social networks, with individuals free to ‘chat’ with each other across networks. Each individual held a ‘traditional view’ but were also open to other views. Then they added some committed individuals representing an alternative point on view, which they expressed consistently. If the listener held a different belief to the speaker, he would listen and consider it and move on to talk to another speaker. If the next speaker also held the new belief, the listener adopted it (also known as the snowball effect).

Question 40

Study on flexibility Nemeth 1986

Answer 40

Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski‐lift accident. One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions: 1) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change their position (inflexible). 2) When the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible).

Results: Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority; however, in the flexible condition, the majority members were much more likely to also compromise and change their view.

Question 41

Minority influence evaluation AO3

Answer 41

PROS:

• Research evidence
• There is ‘real value’ of research into minority influence since Nemeth (2010) argues that the dissent in the form of the minority group opens the mind and as a result, people search for information, consider more options and make better decisions and are more creative. This then allows researchers to understand the means and processes for social change which can be linked to minority influence as was shown in many studies.

CONS:

• Low ecological validity. Task carried out in experiments would never happen IRL such as comparing colours of slides in Moscovicis study
• Although minority influence research has real value, it may not apply to real life situations which can be much more complicated. For example, Nemeth (2010) claimed that it is still difficult to convince people of the value of the dissent since people may accept the minority opinion on the surface but may become irritated by this view fearing lack of harmony and as a result we attempt to belittle the dissenting view to contain it

Question 42

What is social change

Answer 42

Social change is when a society adopts new beliefs/ways of behaving, which then becomes the norm. It commonly is a result of minority influence- when an individual or small group of individuals impact upon the majority.

One example of social change is attitudes towards homosexuality. Although it was a imprisonable offence in the UK until 1967, public attitudes have changed over time and most people now regard being gay as a normal variation of human behaviou

Question 43

Steps of how minority influence creates social change

Answer 43

1. Drawing Attention to the Issue - Minorities can bring about social change by drawing the majority’s attention to an issue.

2.Consistency of position - Minority groups are more influential when they express arguments consistently, over time and with each other.

3.Deeper processing – other people not part of the minority start to pay attention to the minority by thinking about what the status quo is and perhaps the unjustness of it

4. The augmentation principle - If a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and are taken more seriously – for example, doing something ‘wow’ which will catch the majority’s attention – this supports the minority influence characteristic of commitment
5. The snowball effect - Minority influence initially has a relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely, as more and more people consider the issue being raised, until it reaches a tipping point, where the minority becomes the majority and there is wide-scale social change. This is when conformity will occur either through Normative Social Influence or Informational Social Influence and everyone will follow each other.

6.Social cryptoamnesia – the majority knows that a social change has occurred but the source of the change and the message itself has become disassociated through the process of social cryptoamnesia and they do not recall how it happened.