Social Influence Flashcards
Define conformity
A change in a person’s
behaviour or opinions
as a result of real or
imagined pressure from
a person or group of
people
What are the 3 types of conformity?
Internalisation
Identification
Compliance
What is internalisation?
A deep type of conformity where we take on the
majority view because we accept it as correct.
•Public and private change in opinion/behaviour
•It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in
behaviour, even when the group is absent.
•Attitudes have been internalised – part of the way the person thinks
What is identification?
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same
way with the group because we value it and want to be
part of it.
• We don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority
believes.
• We may publicly change our opinion/behaviour but not
privately agree with everything the group stands for
What is compliance?
A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we
outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree
with it.
• The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is
monitoring us/group pressure is felt.
• This conformity involves simply ‘going along with others’ in public,
but privately not changing personal opinion/behaviour
What are the 2 explanations for conformity?
The need to be right (informational social
influence)
• The need to be liked (Normative social influence)
What is informational social influence?
s is about who has the better information – you or the rest of the group
• When we are uncertain about something, in new, ambiguous or unfamiliar situations, we look
to the behaviour and opinions of others
• Also typical in crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly
• Also occurs when one person is regarded as more of an expert
• This helps shape our thoughts and behaviour
We agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct.
• It is a cognitive process because it is to do with what you think
• We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation
What is normative social influence?
We agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted,
gain social approval and be liked.
• It is about norms – what is ‘normal’ or typical behaviour for a social group
• Norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals
• People do not like to appear foolish
• People prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected
• It is an emotional rather than a cognitive process
• Most likely to occur in situations with strangers where you
may feel concerned about rejection
• May also occur with people you know as we are concerned
about social approval of our friends
• This may lead to compliance
What are 2 strengths of the types of conformity?
Research support for Informational Social Influence
• Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were
easy or more difficult
• There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than
when they were easier ones
• This was most true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor
• The Study shows that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the
answer
• This is what ISI explanation would predict
• We look to other people and assume they know better than us and must be right
Research support for NSI
• Asch (1951)
• Found that many of his participants went along
with a clearly wrong answer just because other
people did
• When asked, some said they felt self-conscious going against the
majority’s answers and were afraid of disapproval
• When Asch repeated his study but asked participants to write down
instead of saying their answers, conformity rates fell to 12.5
What are 2 weaknesses of the types of conformity?
Individual differences in NSI
• Some research shows that NSI does not effect everyone’s behaviour in the
same way
• E.g. people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by
NSI than those who care more about being liked
• nAffiliators are people who have a greater need for ‘affiliation’ (a need for
being in a relationship with others)
•
• McGhee and Teevan (1967)
• Found that students high in need of affiliation were more
likely to conform
• This shows the desire to be liked underlies conformity for
some people more than others
• Therefore there are individual differences in the way people respond
Individual differences in ISI
• ISI does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way
• Asch (1955)
• Found that students were less conformist than other participants
• Perin and Spencer (1980)
• Conducted a study involving science and engineering students
• Found very little conformity
What are the 3 variables affecting conformity?
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
How did Asch (1956) investigate how group size affects conformity?
• Asch (1956) found with one real participant and one confederate conformity was
low
• Conformity rose to 13% with two confederates
• Conformity rose to 32% with three confederates (same as original study)
• Adding further confederates (up to 15) had no further effect on overall conformity
This suggests that a small majority may not be sufficient to exert influence but there’s no
need for a majority of more than three
how did Asch (1956) investigate how unanimity affects conformity?
Asch (1956) introduced a confederate who went against the other confederates
• Found conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5%
• If the ‘rebel’ went against both the other confederates and the real participant, conformity still
dropped to 9%
• The presence of a dissenter enabled the naïve participant to behave more independently
How did Asch (1956) investigate how task difficulty affects unanimity?
Asch (1956) increased task difficulty by making the lines more similar in length
• Found when he did so participants were more likely to conform to wrong answers
• This demonstrates the effect of task difficulty on conformity
• Suggests Informational Social Influence plays a greater role when the task becomes harder
• The situation is more ambiguous
When was Zimardo’s research conducted?
1973
What did the Stanford Prison Experiment intend to discover?
Do prison guards behave brutally because
they have sadistic personalities, or is it the
situation that creates such behaviour?
Describe Zimbardo’s procedure in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
Set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University
• Advertised for students to volunteer
• Those who were considered ‘emotionally stable’ after extensive
psychological testing were randomly assigned to ‘prisoner’ or
‘guard’
• ‘prisoners’ were arrested at their homes by local police,
• Prisoners were strip searched, deloused, given a uniform and
number
• Social roles of prisoners and guards were strictly divided
• Prisoners’ daily routines were heavily regulated
• Guards enforced the rules and only referred to the prisoners by
number
• Guards had their own uniform with clubs, handcuffs, keys and
mirror shades
• They were told they had complete power over the prisoners e.g.
deciding when they could use the toilet
What were Zimbardo’s findings in the Stanford prison experiment?
The guards took up their role with enthusiasm
Their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’
psychological and physical health
• The study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14
• The guards harassed the prisoners constantly
• Often woke them in the middle of the night for a
headcount
• Prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
• One prisoner was released on the first day showing
symptoms of psychological disturbance
• Two more were released on the forth day
• One prisoner went on hunger strike
• He was punished – put in ‘the hole’
• Guards became more and more brutal and
aggressive, some appearing to enjoy the power
What was the conclusion of the Stanford prison experiment?
The power of the
situation influenced
people’s behaviour
•Guards and prisoners
conformed to their
roles within the prison`
What are 2 strengths of the Stanford prison experiment?
Control
• A strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had some
control over variables
• E.g. the selection of participants
• Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner
• This was one way the researchers tried to rule out individual personality differences as an
explanation of the findings
• If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles by chance, their behaviour
must have been due to the pressures of the situation
• Having such control over variables is a strength because it increases the internal validity of the study
• We can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on behaviour
Application to real life
• Zimbardo hoped his research would lead to
beneficial reforms within the prison system
• Beneficial reforms in the way prisoners were treated, especially
juveniles, did initially occur
• However Zimbardo regards his study as a failure in the sense that
prison conditions in the USA are now even worse than when he
performed his study
What are 2 weaknesses of the Stanford prison experiment?
Lack of research support
• Reicher and Haslam (2006) partially replicated the
Stanford Prison experiment (the BBC Prison Study)
• Their findings were very different to Zimbardo’s
• It was the prisoners who eventually tool control of the mock prison and
subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience
• The researchers used Social Identity Theory to explain this outcome
• They argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity
as a cohesive group but the prisoners did
Ethical issues
• A major ethical issue arose because of Zimbardo’s dual
roles in the study
• E.g. on one occasion a student who wanted to leave the study
spoke to Zimbardo in his role as superintendent
• The whole conversation was conducted on the basis that the
student was a prisoner in a prison, asking to be ‘released’
• Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about
the running of his prison, rather than as a researcher with
responsibilities towards his participants.
What are 2 weaknesses of the Stanford prison experiment?
Lack of research support
• Reicher and Haslam (2006) partially replicated the
Stanford Prison experiment (the BBC Prison Study)
• Their findings were very different to Zimbardo’s
• It was the prisoners who eventually tool control of the mock prison and
subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience
• The researchers used Social Identity Theory to explain this outcome
• They argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity
as a cohesive group but the prisoners did
Ethical issues
• A major ethical issue arose because of Zimbardo’s dual
roles in the study
• E.g. on one occasion a student who wanted to leave the study
spoke to Zimbardo in his role as superintendent
• The whole conversation was conducted on the basis that the
student was a prisoner in a prison, asking to be ‘released’
• Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about
the running of his prison, rather than as a researcher with
responsibilities towards his participants.
What are Milgram’s 3 variations?
Proximity
Location
Uniforms
Percentage of fully obedient participants in the Milgram variation of proximity?
Teacher and learner in same room 40%
Teacher forces learner’s hand onto shock plate 30%
Percentage of fully obedient participants in the Milgram variation of location?
In a run down office block 47.5%
Percentage of fully obedient participants in the Milgram variation of uniform?
Experimenter played by ‘member of the public’ 20%
What are the strengths of Milgram’s variations into the factors affecting obedience?
Research support
• Other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational variables on obedience
• Bickman (1974)
• Conducted a field experiment in New York City
• Three confederates were dressed in different outfits: Jacket and Tie, milkman’s outfit and security
guard’s uniform
• Confederates stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as pick up litter
• People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the man in a shirt and tie
• This supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and produce obedience
Control of variables in Milgram’s variations
• A strength is that Milgram systematically altered one
variable at a time (e.g. Proximity) to see what effect it
had on obedience levels
• All the other procedures and variables were kept the
same as the study was replicated over and over with
more than 1000 participants in total
• This increases the internal validity as we have more
certainty what is affecting the DV
What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s variation into the factors effecting obedience?
Social sensitivity
• Milgram’s findings from his variations support a
situational explanation of obedience
• Proximity, uniform and location all influence obedience
• This has been criticised as it offers an excuse for evil behaviour
• It may be offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest Nazis were
simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational
factors beyond their control
Lack of internal validity
• A criticism of Milgram’s original study was that participants
knew it was fake
• This is even more likely with the extra manipulation
• E.g. the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a member of the
public
• Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived, some
participants may have worked out the truth
• This is a limitation as it’s unclear whether the results are due to obedience or
demand characteristics
What are the social-psychological factors?
Agency theory
Legitimacy of authority
What is agency theory split into?
Agentic state
Autonomous state
What is the agentic state?
When an individual obeys an authority
figure and gives up some free will
• See themselves as an agent of the authority figure giving the order
• The authority figure is seen as responsible for the
consequences of the individual’s actions
• A person becomes de-individuated, losing their sense of
individuality
• May obey orders that go against their moral code as they don’t see
themselves as responsible for their behaviour
• The agent experiences high anxiety (Moral strain) – they realise
what they’re doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey
what is the autonomous state?
Opposite of being in an Agentic state
• Autonomy means to be independent or free
• Person in this state is free to behave according to their own
principles
• Individual has control
• See themselves as personally responsible for their actions
What is an agentic shift?
The shift from autonomy to agency is called the
agentic shift
• Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when a person
perceives someone else as a figure of authority
• This other person has greater powers because of their
position in a social hierarchy
• In most social groups when one person is in charge,
others defer to this person and shift from autonomy to
agency
•
What are 2 strengths of agency theory?
Research support
Milgram (1974)
• Carried out a ‘remote authority’ variation of his procedure
• The confederate researcher wasn’t in the same room as the teacher
• Gave orders over the phone
• Found obedience dropped to 20.5%
• Suggests participants were in an autonomous state and saw themselves as
responsible for their actions
Milgram (1963) reported that many of his participants were
under moral strain
• During debriefing many admitted that they knew
what they were doing was wrong
• They continued to obey however, suggesting they
were in an agentic state
• They felt they had to obey the orders of the authority figure
What is a weakness of agency theory?
A limited explanation
• Agency theory doesn’t explain many of the research findings
• It can’t explain why some of Milgram’s participants didn’t obey
• Humans are social animals involved in social hierarchies so should all
obey
• Hofling’s research where 21/22 nurses unquestioningly obeyed the
doctor is also not consistent with agency theory
• They didn’t show any signs of anxiety (moral strain) which would be
predicted by the theory
• This suggests an Agentic shift can only account for some cases of obedience
What is legitimacy of authority?
are socialised to recognise the authority of people (e.g. parents, police officers, doctors)
• We recognise our own and other’s position in a social hierarchy
• This links to agency theory – individuals are socialised to recognise the value of obedience to
authority figures
• From an early age, people experience examples of social roles relating to ‘master and servant’
• Helps keep stability in society
• These kinds of people are legitimate authorities – it is agreed by society that they have the right
to tell us what to do
• This means we are more likely to obey them
• Legitimate authority comes from having a defined social role which people respect (usually
because it implies knowledge or it comes with legal power)
• Legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority e.g. uniform and the legitimacy of a
setting
What is destructive authority?
One of the consequences of legitimacy of authority
– some people are granted the power to punish others
• Most of us accept this so we give up our independence and
hand over control to people we trust to exercise their authority
properly
• We learn this from childhood
• People can however use their legitimate powers for destructive
purposes (e.g. Hitler and also demonstrated in Milgram study)
What are 3 strengths of legitimacy of authority?
Bickman (1974)
• Conducted a field experiment where
researchers ordered passers-by to do
something like pick up litter.
• They were dressed either in a guard’s
uniform, as a milkman, or just in smart
clothes.
• People were much more likely to obey the
person in a guard’s uniform.
• This was because he seemed to be the most
legitimate authority figure
There does seem to be cultural differences
• A strength of this explanation is it a useful account of cultural
differences in obedience
• Many studies show countries differ in obedience to authority
• Kilham and Mann (1974)
• Replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found only 16%
obedience
• Mantell (1971) found 85% obedience in German participants
• This shows in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as
legitimate and entitled to demand obedience
• This reflects how different societies are structured and how children are
raised to perceive authority figures
• This increases the validity of the explanation
Milgram (1963)
• Reported that some participants in his study ignored the
learner’s apparent distress
• They just focused on following the procedure e.g. pressing
the buttons properly
• Therefore they could be seen as doing their duty and
recognising the legitimate authority of the researcher
What is a dispositional explanation?
An internal explanation
Who proposed the authoritarian personality?
Fromm (1941)
How did Adorno at al (1950) create the F-scale?
He studied over 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their
unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
What did scoring high on the F-scale mean?
Have authoritarian tendencies
What are the authoritarian characteristics?
Especially obedient to authority
• Extreme respect for authority
• Submissive to authority
• Show contempt to those with inferior social status
• Highly controversial attitudes towards sex, race and gender
• View society as ‘going to the dogs’ – therefore believe we need
strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values (love
of country, religion, family)
• Inflexible in their outlook – no ‘grey areas’
• Everything is right or wrong
What approach explains the authoritarian personality?
Psychodynamic
How does the psychodynamic approach explain the authoritarian personality?
Formed in childhood
• Result of harsh parenting
• Extremely strict discipline
• Expectation of absolute loyalty
• Impossibly high standards
• Severe criticism of perceived failings
• Conditional love – parents’ love and affection depends on child’s behaviour
• These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child
• Child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents
(fear)
• Displaced onto others perceived to be weaker (‘scapegoating’)
What is a strength of the authoritarian personality?
Correlational research support
• Elms and Milgram (1966)
• Found that participants in Milgram’s study who
were highly obedient, were significantly more
authoritarian on the F-scale, than disobedient
participants
• However this link is merely a correlation between the two variables
• This makes it impossible to draw the conclusion that authoritarian
personality causes obedience on the basis of this result
• It may be that a third factor e.g. lower level of education, causes both
What are the weaknesses of the authoritarian personality?
Limited explanation
• Any explanation of obedience in terms of individual personality
will find it hard to explain obedience in the majority of a country’s
population
• E.g. in pre-war Germany, million of people displayed obedient,
racist and anti-Semitic behaviour
• They must have differed in their personalities in all sorts of ways
• It seems extremely unlikely they all possessed an authoritarian personality
• An alternative explanation – social identity theory is more realistic
• The majority of the German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi and
scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of Jews
Methodological problems
• This explanation is based on a flawed methodology
• Every one of its items is worded in the same ‘direction’ it
is therefore possible to get a high score for
authoritarianism by ticking the same line of boxes
(acquiescence bias)
• Authoritarianism is therefore not being measured (not valid)
• Adorno interviewed participants about their childhood
experiences but already knew who had authoritarian
personalities from their scores
• This could have led to researcher bias
Correlation with other variables
• Many significant correlations were found
between authoritarian personality and other
variables e.g. prejudice against minority
groups
• Cause and effect cannot be inferred from
correlations
• Harsh parenting style therefore cannot be
said to cause an authoritarian personality
What is social support?
The presence of people
who resist pressures to
conform or obey can help
others to do the same.
•These people act as
models to show others
that resistance to social
influence is possible
Describe social support and conformity?
The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other
people present who are not conforming
• As we saw in Asch’s research, the person not
conforming doesn’t have to be giving the ‘right’ answer
• Simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority appears to
enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience.
• This other person acts as a ‘model’ and gives them moral support
• Asch’s research also showed that if this ‘non-conforming’ person starts
conforming again, so does the naïve participant - The effect of dissent is not
long lasting
what research supports the effect of social support in resistance to conformity?
Allen and Levine (1971)
• Provided evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting
conformity
• Found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an
Asch-type study.
• More importantly, this occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses
and said he had difficulty with his vision
(clearly in no position to judge the length of the lines)
• This supports the view that resistance is not just motivated by
following what someone else says, but it enables someone to be
free of the pressure from the group
Describe social support and obedience.
The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person
who is seen to disobey
• The presence of disobedient models has been
shown to be a powerful source of social support
• They make it easier for individuals to act independently
• They also seem to demonstrate that disobedience is actually possible
and how to do it
• The participant may not follow the disobedient person’s behaviour but
the other person’s disobedience acts as a ‘model’ for the participant to
copy
• It frees him to act from his own conscience
What research supports the effect of social support on obedience?
Milgram (1974)
• Found that when two confederates paired with the real
participant left the study early on, declaring they would
go no further, only 10% gave shocks up to 450V
• Suggests creating the group norm of
disobedience put the participants under
pressure to conform to the confederates’ behaviour
What is a locus of control?
A personality dimension that Refers to the sense we each have about
what directs events in our lives
What do ‘internals’ believe?
‘Internals’ believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them
(internal locus of control)
E.g. you do well in an exam because you worked hard, if you don’t do well it is
because you didn’t work hard
What do ‘externals’ believe?
‘Externals’ believe things happen without their own control
it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control)
If you do well in an exam it might be because you had an excellent
textbook/teacher, if you fail, it might be because the questions were hard
What is the locus of control continuum?
People differ in the way they explain their successes and failures
• It isn’t as simple as being ‘internal’ or ‘external’
• There is a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high
external LOC at the other
• Low internal and low
external lying in between
How does locus of control effect resistance to social influence?
Rotter believed that having an internal LOC makes individuals more
resistant to social pressures to conform or obey
• Those seeing themselves in control of a situation are more
likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to
conform or obey
• If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions
and experiences, they are more likely to base their decisions on their
own beliefs and resist pressures from others
• People with a high internal LOC also tend to be more self-confident,
more achievement-oriented, have higher intelligence and have less need
for social approval
• These personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence
What is a strength of the effect of LOC on obedience?
Holland (1967)
• Repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether
participants were internals or externals
• Found 37% of internals did not continue to 450V (showed some
resistance) but only 23% of externals did not continue
• Internals showed greater resistance to authority
• This increases the validity of the LOC explanation
and our confidence that it can explain resistance
What is a weakness of the effect of LOC on obedience?
Schurz (1985)
• Found no relationship between LOC and obedience
among Austrian participants who gave the highest
level of what they believed to be painful, skindamaging bursts of ultrasound to a learner
• However ‘internals’ tended to take more
responsibility for their actions than ‘externals’
• This again, suggests that feeling of personal control may be related to resistance to social influence
What is a strength of the effect of LOC on conformity?
Moghaddam (1998)
• Found that Japanese people conform
more easily than Americans and have
more of an external LOC
• This suggests that differences in
resistance to social influence across
cultures can be explained by
differences in LOC
What is a weakness of the effect of LOC on conformity?
Limited role of LOC
The role of LOC in resisting social influence may have been
somewhat exaggerated
• Rotter (1982) points out that LOC only comes into play in novel
situations
• It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar
situations
• In familiar situations our previous experiences will always be
more important
• People who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in
the past are likely to do so again even if they have a high internal LOC
What is minority influence?
• A form of social influence in which a minority of people
(sometimes just one person) persuade others to adopt their beliefs,
attitudes or behaviours.
What is consistency in minority influence?
Minority influence is most effective if the
minority keeps the same beliefs
• Over time (‘diachronic consistency’)
• Between all the individuals that form the
minority (‘synchronic consistency).
• It draws attention to the minority view
• Makes other people start to rethink their own views
What is diachronic consistency?
When a minority keeps its beliefs the same over time
What is synchronic consistency?
When all individuals who form the minority keep their beliefs consistent
what is commitment in minority influence?
Minority influence is more powerful if the minority
demonstrates dedication to their position, for
example, by making personal sacrifices.
• Sometimes minorities engage in quite extreme
activities showing commitment to the cause
• These draw attention to their views - makes the
majority pay more attention
• This is effective because it shows the minority is
not acting out of self-interest.
What is flexibility in minority influence?
Relentless consistency (repeating the same arguments and behaviours
again and again) could be counter-productive if it is seen by the
majority as unbending, rigid and unreasonable.
• This could be off-putting to the majority and
unlikely to result in conversion to the minority position
• Therefore minority influence is more effective if the minority show
flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.
• They need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept
reasonable and valid counter-arguments
• The key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility
What is the process of change in minority influence?
• Over time, more people switch from the majority position to the minority position
(they’ve been converted), pace picks up (conversion happens more quickly) and the
minority gain status, power and acceptability
• This is called the ‘snowball effect’ - Gradually the minority has become the majority
view - A change has occurred
What is the process of change in minority influence?
• Over time, more people switch from the majority position to the minority position
(they’ve been converted), pace picks up (conversion happens more quickly) and the
minority gain status, power and acceptability
• This is called the ‘snowball effect’ - Gradually the minority has become the majority
view - A change has occurred
What are 2 strengths of minority influence?
• Research support for consistency
• Moscovici et al (1969)
• Demonstrated minority influence
• Participants were asked to state whether blue slides
(that varied in intensity) were blue or green
• The participants were either exposed to a consistent or
inconsistent minority (two confederates in the group)
• The study showed that a consistent minority had a greater
effect than an inconsistent minority
Research evidence for flexibility
• Papastamou (1982)
• Got participants to respond to questions about
responsibility for pollution
• They were also exposed to a minority’s extreme views
on how to control pollution
• When the minority refused to budge from their opinion they were not persuasive
• When they appeared flexible by compromising, they were seen as less extreme,
cooperative and reasonable
• They were more persuasive in changing majority opinions
• This shows how flexibility is a key factor in the minority influence’s ability to change a
majority’s opinion
What are 2 strengths of minority influence?
• Research support for consistency
• Moscovici et al (1969)
• Demonstrated minority influence
• Participants were asked to state whether blue slides
(that varied in intensity) were blue or green
• The participants were either exposed to a consistent or
inconsistent minority (two confederates in the group)
• The study showed that a consistent minority had a greater
effect than an inconsistent minority
Research evidence for flexibility
• Papastamou (1982)
• Got participants to respond to questions about
responsibility for pollution
• They were also exposed to a minority’s extreme views
on how to control pollution
• When the minority refused to budge from their opinion they were not persuasive
• When they appeared flexible by compromising, they were seen as less extreme,
cooperative and reasonable
• They were more persuasive in changing majority opinions
• This shows how flexibility is a key factor in the minority influence’s ability to change a
majority’s opinion
What are 2 weaknesses of minority influence?
Artificial tasks
• A limitation of minority influence research
is that the tasks involved e.g. identifying
the colour of a slide, are artificial (just like
Asch’s line task when studying majority
influence)
• Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the
behaviour of majorities in real life
• In jury decision making and political campaigning, the outcomes are vastly
more important – sometimes life or death
• This means findings (e.g. Moscivici) lack external validity. They are limited in
what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-life social
situations
Limited real-world applications
• Research studies make a clear and obvious distinction between the majority and
minority and do so in a controlled way (a strength)
• A limitation however, is that real life social influence situations are much more
complicated than this
• There is more involved in the difference between a minority and a majority than just
numbers
• Majorities usually have a lot more power and status than minorities
• Minorities are very committed to their causes – they have to be
because they often face very hostile opposition
• This is a limitation as the research supporting minority influence
may be seen as overly simplistic
What are the steps involved in social change?
1) drawing attention (through proof of the problem)
2) consistency
3) deeper processing
4) the augmentation principle
5) the snowball effect
6) social cryptoamnesia
What is consistency in social change?
Saying the same message over and over
What is consistency in social change?
Saying the same message over and over
What is deeper processing in social change?
Many people who just accepted the status quo began to think about the minority
What is the augmentation principle in social change?
The minority engaging in extreme activities to show their commitment.
This risk shows their commitment as their motive must be strong, therefore gets more attention
What is the snowball effect in social change?
Over time, more people switch from the majority position to the minority position, pace picks up and the minority gain status, power and acceptability
What is social crypoamnesia in social change?
Public opinion changes gradually over time until the minority view is accepted as the norm, but people forget where the view originally came from
How can normative social influence effect social change?
Social change can be encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing
How does informational social influence effect social change?
It may have a role to play as a new/alternative source of information is available to people
How does Zimbardo’s research support social change?
Zimbardo suggested that obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment.
What is a strength of social change?
Research support for normative social influence - Nolan at al (2008)
Investigated wether social influence processes could lead to reduction in energy consumption.
- they hung messages on the front doors if houses in San Diego every week for a month.
- the key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage.
- another group has a message that just asked them to ‘save energy’ without mentioning other people.
- significant decreases in energy usage was found in the fist group
- shows conformity can lead to social change through normative social influence
What are the 2 weaknesses of social change?
Minority influence is only indirectly affective
- social change happens slowly when it happens at all
- do minorities really have much influence?
- perhaps the effect of a minority are indirect and delayed
- the effects of minority influence are fragile and its role in social influence is prehaps limited
Methodological issues
- explanations of how social change leads to social change draw heavily upon the studies of Moscovici, Asch and Milgram
- all these studies can be criticised in terms of artificial tasks, lacking mundane realism, poor examples etc
- this raises doubts about the validity of explanations
What did Asch investigate?
Majority influence
What years did Asch conduct research into majority influence?
1951
1955
What were the findings of Asch’s investigation?
The control group (tested individually) had an error rate of only 0.04%
showing how obvious the correct answers were
• Participants conformed to the wrong answer on 32% of the 12 critical trials
• 75% of participants conformed to at least one wrong answer
• 25% never conformed
• 5% conformed to all 12 wrong answer
What did Asch conclude?
People are influenced by group pressure even when the
task has a clear-cut answer (unambiguous situation)
• This has been called the ‘Asch effect’
• There are big individual differences in the amount to which
people are affected by majority influence
• Most conformed publicly but not privately
• Suggested they were motivated by normative social
influence
• Wanted to gain acceptance or avoid rejection
What is a strength of Asch’s investigation?
The study was replicable
•Many aspects of the Asch experiment were
standardised such as the same number of
confederates taking part, the same target lines
being shown.
•This means the study can be repeated and many
have replicated his work since
What are 2 weaknesses of Asch’s research?
Artificial task and situation
•Participants knew they were in a research study
•They may have gone along with the demands of the study
(demand characteristics)
•The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial so there
was no reason not to conform
•Conformity may be less if the consequences were more
important
•The group situation didn’t really resemble a groups we’re
part of in everyday life
•Task and situation was artificial
•Doesn’t reflect everyday situations where people might
conform
•Results may not be generalisable to everyday situations
Ethics
• The naïve participants were deceived
• They thought the other people were also genuine participants when
they were confederates
• They believed the study was about visual perception, not conformity
• The participants may also have felt stress or embarrassment when
answering the questions and disagreeing with others which also is a
‘protection of participants’ issue
