social influence Flashcards
what is meant by conformity?
- a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
what is a confederate?
- an individual in a study who is not a real participant and has been instructed how to behave by the researcher
what psychologist studied conformity using comparison lines?
- Asch in 1951
what were the aims and background of Solomon Asch’s baseline (original) procedure?
- Solomon Asch (1951) devised a procedure to measure the extent that people conformed to the opinions of others, even in situations when the other answers were clearly wrong
what was Asch’s procedure?
- he used 123 American male undergraduates that were tested individually, sitting last or next to last in a group of 6-8 confederates
- they were shown two large cards, on one was a ‘standard line’ and the other 3 were comparison lines, with one of the lines matching the ‘standard line’ and the other 2 being different
- each group member stated which of the 3 lines they thought matched the standard
- there were 18 trials involving different pairs of cards
- on 12 of these trials the confederates all gave the same clearly wrong answer
what were the findings of the baseline study?
- he found that the naïve participants conformed 36.8% of the time, showing a high level of conformity when the situation is unambiguous (simple)
- there were individual differences, 25% of the ppts never gave a wrong answers
- 75% conformed at least once
what other variables did Asch investigate?
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
what was the procedure and findings for the size of the group?
procedure- Asch varied the number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15 (total group size being 2 and 16)
findings- if there were 2 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%, when there were 3 confederates conformity rose to 31.8%
- above 3 confederates, conformity rate levelled off, adding more than three confederates made little difference
what was the procedure and findings for unanimity?
procedure- Asch introduced a dissenting confederate- sometimes they gave the correct answer and sometimes a different wrong answer (but always disagreed with majority)
findings- in the presence of a dissenter, conformity reduced on average to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous
- conformity reduced if dissenter gave right or wrong answer
explanation- having a dissenter enabled the naïve ppts to behave more independently
what was the procedure and findings for the task difficulty?
procedure- Asch made the line-judging task harder harder by making stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length
- thus it was difficult to see differences between the lines
findings- conformity increased
explanation- the situation is more ambiguous, so we are more likely to look to others for guidance and to assume they are right and we are wrong
what is one strength of Asch’s procedure?
P- Easy to replicate
E- Asch’s use of a lab experiment and simple tasks has made the study easy to repeat over the next 75 years
E- even though modern society has changed a lot since the 1950’s, the replicability of the study allows this change to be documented
what is another strength of his procedure?
P- one strength is that there is other evidence to support Asch’s findings
E- Lucas et al (2006) asked ppts to solve easy and hard maths problems, ppts were given answers that were falsely claimed to be from 3 other students
E- this shows Asch was correct that task difficulty is one variable affecting conformity
- the ppts conformed more often (agreed with the wrong answers), when the problems were harder
what is one limitation of his procedure?
P- one limitation is that the situation and task was artificial
E- ppts knew they were in a research study (demand characteristics), the task was trivial and there was no reason not to conform
E- this means the findings do not generalise to everyday life
what is another limitation of his procedure?
P- one limitation is that the procedure cannot be generalised
E- this is because Asch carried out his study with 123 American males and it was conducted in the year 1955
E- this means that the findings cannot have temporal and population generalisability as it cannot be generalised to females or more modern times
what are 3 types of conformity?
- compliance
- internalisation
- identification
what is meant by compliance?
- this is a superficial type of conformity and only occurs when other members of the group are present
- it involves going along with others in public but privately may have different opinions so the behaviour stops as soon as group pressure ceases
what is meant by internalisation?
- this is when a person genuinely accepts the group norms and results in private as well as public change of opinions/behaviour
- the change is usually permanent and persists in the absence of group members because attitudes have become part of how the person thinks (internalised)
what is meant by identification?
- this is when we identify with a group that we value, we want to become part of it
- so we publicly change our opinions/behaviour, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for
what are the 2 explanations for conformity?
- informational social influence (ISI)
- normative social influence (NSI)
what is informational social influence?
- ‘a desire to be right’
- this is about changing you behaviour when you believe that the group knows more than you e.g. you may not know the answer to a question in class but if most of your class gives an answer, you go along with them because you feel they are probably right
- ISI happens in situations that are new to you/ambiguous and can occur when a decision needs to be made quickly, when one person is regarded as an expert
what is meant by normative social influence?
- ‘a desire to behave like others and not look foolish’
- this is about group norms, every group has their own norms and these guide the behaviour of the group
- when we belong to a group we accept the norms of the group as we want to be liked by others in the group
- NSI is most likely in situations where you don’t know the norms and look to other about how to behave
- NSI is an emotional process because it is about how we feel, it can be summed up as “the desire to be liked”, as we don’t want to be the odd one out
what is a positive evaluation for the explanations of conformity?
P- one strength is that there is supporting research for NSI
E- Asch (1951) found many ppts conformed rather than give the correct answer because they were afraid of disapproval, 36% of ppts conformed on trials when in front of everyone
- when ppts wrote down answers (no normative pressure), conformity fell to 12.5%
E- this shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them
what is another strength for explanations of conformity?
P- one strength is that there is supporting research for ISI
E- Lucas et al (2006) found ppts conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems were difficult (with easy problems, ppts ‘knew their own minds’)
- for hard problems the situation was ambiguous (unclear) so they relied on the answers they were given
E- this supports ISI because the results are what ISI would predict, that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know
what is a negative evaluation for explanations of conformity?
P- one limitation is that NSI and ISI work together in the real world not separately like the theory suggests
E- you are less likely to conform if there is a ‘dissenter’ who disagrees with the group, which reduces the power of NSI (improved social support) or ISI (alternative source of information)
E- therefore, ISI and NSI are hard to seperate and operate together in most real-world situations
what is another limitation for explanations of conformity?
P- one limitation is that there are individual differences in NSI
E- some people are concerned about being liked by others (affiliation)
- McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
E- this shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than for others- an individual difference not explained by a theory of situational pressures
what is meant by social roles?
- the ‘parts’ people play as members of various groups e.g. parent, child, student etc
- these are accompanied by expectations on how we should behave
who studied conformity to social roles using a mock prison?
- Zimbardo in 1973
what were the aims and background of Zimbardo’s study?
aims- Zimbardo wanted to know whether people people acted violently because of ‘sadistic’ personalities, or because of their situation
background- he received funding from the US Navy to conduct a study to simulate a prison environment, and wanted to see whether the power dynamics of prisoners and guards would affect behaviour
what was Zimbardo’s procedure?
- Zimbardo et al (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford university to investigate the affect of social roles on conformity
- 21 male student volunteers were involved in the study and were selected by testing that showed them to be ‘emotionally stable’. they were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner
- the social roles were encouraged by 2 routes:
1. uniform- prisoners were strip-searched, given a uniform and a number (no name), this encouraged de-individuation - guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs, etc
2. instructions about behaviour- prisoners were told they could leave but would have to ask for parole - guards were told they had complete power over prisoners
what is meant by de-individuation?
- a psychological state where people lose their sense of self and identity when they are in a group or crowd
what were the findings of Zimbardo’s study?
- the guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
- the prisoners rebelled withing 2 days- they ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards
- the guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed the prisoners- reminder of their powerless role e.g. frequent headcounts, including at night
- the guards’ behaviour threatened the prisoners’ psychological and physical health e.g.
1. after the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed
2. three prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance
3. one prisoner went on hunger strike; the guards attempted to force feed him and punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’, a tiny dark closet - the study was stopped after 6 days instead of the planned 14 days
what conclusion was made for Zimbardo’s study?
- social roles are powerful influences on behaviour- most conformed strongly to their role
- guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive
- other volunteers also easily conformed to their roles in the prison e.g. the ‘chaplain’
what were the ethical issues of his study?
- no protection from harm e.g. physical abuse, degrading tasks
- psychological harm e.g. sleep deprivation
- right to withdraw e.g. 1 ppt was only released after a breakdown
- Zimbardo played the role of the superintendent e.g. had the right of authority over everything
what was a positive evaluation for Zimbardo’s study?
P- one strength of the SPE is the control over key variables
E- emotionally stable ppts were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard and prisoners
- the guards and prisoners has those roles only by chance so their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities
E- this control increased the study’s internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity
what is a negative evaluation of Zimbardo’s study?
P- one limitation is that the SPE lacked the realism of a true prison
E- Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggest ppts were play-acting, their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave
- one guard based his role on a charted from the film ‘cool hand Luke’
- prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did
E- this suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
however, ppts behaved as if the prison was real, e.g. 90% of conversations about prison life, prisoner 416 believed it was a prison run by psychologists
- this suggests the SPE replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just as a real prison, increasing internal validity
what is another limitation of Zimbardo’s study?
P- another limitation is that Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles
E- the power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the SPE
- only a third of the guards behaved brutally, another third applied the rules fairly and the rest supported the prisoners, offering them help
E- this suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences e.g. personality
what is meant by obedience?
- a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order
what psychologist studied obedience using a question- electric shock system?
- Milgram in 1963
what was the background information into Milgram’s study?
- during WWII concentration camps, Germans said they followed orders from an authority figure
- the public thought that Germans were evil and this is why they obeyed, and they Americans wouldn’t do the same
- Milgram thought that the Holocaust could happen anywhere and it was not exclusive to the Germans, so he wanted to test blind obedience and authority figures
what was Milgram’s baseline procedure?
sample- Stanley recruited 40 American male ppts aged 20-50 were paid $4.50, supposedly for a study of memory
procedure- each ppt arrived at Milgram’s lab, a confederate (Mr Wallace) was always the ‘learner’ while the true ppt was ‘the teacher’
- an ‘experimenter’ (another confederate) wore a lab coat
- the learners task was to remember word pairs, the teacher delivered shocks be pressing switches on a ‘shock machine’, starting at 15 Volts and moving up 15 Volts until they reached 450
- the shock machine was fake but it was labelled to make them look increasingly severe
- if the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the Experimenter used a sequence of 4 prods:
‘please continue’, ‘the experimenter requires that you continue’, ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’, ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
what were the baseline findings of Milgram’s study?
- 65% continued to 450 volt (highest level)
- 100% of ppts continued up to at least 300 Volts with 12.5% stopping at 300V
- before the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they though the naïve ppts would respond, the students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450V (so baseline findings were unexpected)
- after the study, ppts were debriefed and a follow up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated
what were the conclusions of Milgram’s study?
- we obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else
- certain situational factors encourage obedience
- Milgram concluded that German people are not different and American ppts in this study were willing to obey even when hurting others
identify some ethical issues within Milgram’s study?
- ppts right to withdraw- if teacher tried to stop, the experimenter would give them ‘prods’ to proceed with the experiment
- fully informed consent from ppts- the ppts were deceived so their consent was not valid until the end of the experiment
- deception- ppts did not know that the experiment was fake or learners were not getting shocked
- importance of protecting ppts from psychological and physical harm- ppts thought they were harming the learners throughout, so could cause lasting effects
what steps did Milgram take to address these issues?
- Milgram made sure that there was a debrief after the study which ensured that ppts knew they were deceived and may prevent harm as guilt may lessen
- he also made ppts do a follow-up questionnaire to reveal that 84% of the ppts were happy to have taken part, so consent is now valid
what is one positive evaluation of Milgram’s study?
P- one strength is that replications have supported Milgram’s findings
E- In a French TV show (the game of death) in 2010, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other ppts (actors)
- 80% gave maximum 460V to an apparently unconscious man, their behaviour was like that of Milgram’s ppts e.g. many signs of anxiety
E- this supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority, and demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances
what is another strength of Milgram’s study?
P- one strength is that the study has good external validity
E- despite the use of a lab experiment, Milgram argues that the authority figure accurately portrays real life power dynamics
- this is supported by Hofling et al (1966), who conducted a study and found 21 out of 22 nurses followed totally unreasonable demands by doctors
E- this shows high mundane realism and ecological validity
what is a negative evaluation of Milgram’s study?
P- one limitation is that Milgram’s study lacks internal validity
E- Orne and Holland (1968) argued that ppts guessed the electric shocks were fake, so they were ‘play-acting’
- this was supported by Perrys discovery that only half of the ppts believed the shocks were real
E- this suggests that ppts may have been responding to demand characteristics
give another limitation of Milgram’s study.
P- one limitation is that the study suffered from multiple ethical issues
E- the ppts in this stud were deceived e.g. they thought that the shocks were real and Milgram dealt with this by debriefing ppts
E- therefore research can damage reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public
why did Milgram’s carry out multiple situational variations?
- after Milgram finished his baseline study on obedience, he carried out a large number of variations in order to consider the situational variables that might lead to more or less obedience
what were the 3 situational variables?
- proximity
- location
- uniform
how did the proximity of the study effect obedience?
- in the baseline procedure, the teacher could hear the learner but not see them
1. in the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
2. in the touch proximity variation, the teacher forced the Learners hand onto a shock plate and the obedience rate was 30%
3. in the remote-instruction variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone, the obedience rate was 20.5% and ppts often pretended to give shocks
what is the explanation behind the effects of proximity?
- decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
- e.g., when the teacher and learner were physically separated, the teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was obedient
how did the location of the study effect obedience?
- the variation study was conducted in a run-down building rather than at the prestigious Yale University (baseline location)
- obedience dropped to 47.5%
explanation- obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority, so obedience was expected
how did the uniform worn in the study effect the obedience?
- in the baseline study, the experimenter wore a white lab coat
- in one variation, he was called away by an ‘inconvenient’ phone call at the start of the procedure and his role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes
- obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of these variations
explanation- a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society, someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
what is a positive evaluation for the explanations of social variations on obedience?
P- one strength is supporting research for the influence of situational variables
E- Bickman’s (1974) confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/tie/milkman/security guard) and issued demands e.g. pick up litter, to people on the streets of New York
- people were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate
E- this shows that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience and supports Milgram’s conclusions
what is another strength of situational variables studies on obedience?
P- another strength is cross-cultural replication of Milgram’s research
E- studies such as Miranda et al (1981) have found similar obedience rates in other cultures
- Miranda studied Spanish students and found a 90% obedience rate
E- this suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans, but are valid to other cultures
- However, Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications took place in societies e.g. Spain and Australia, culturally not that different from the US
- therefore, we cannot conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all cultures
what is a negative evaluation of the studies of situational variables?
P- one limitation is that the studies have low internal validity
E- Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the variations (compared to baseline study) were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation
- in the variation where the experimenter was replaced by ‘a member of the public’, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some ppts may have worked it out
E- therefore, it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the ppts saw the deception and ‘play-acted’ e.g. were influence by demand characteristics
what is meant by agentic state?
- this is when you act on behalf of another person
- Milgram proposed that destructive obedience occurs because a person does not take responsibility and instead they act on behalf of an agent
- an agent is not unfeeling, they still feel high anxiety but feel powerless to disobey
what are binding factors?
binding factors are aspects of a situation that allows the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour or reduced the ‘moral strain’ they feel
- for example, shifting responsibility to the victim (“they were foolish to volunteer”) or denying the damage they were doing to the victims
what is an autonomous state?
- this is the opposite of agentic state
- autonomy means to be independent or free, so a person in a autonomous state behaves according to their principles are feels responsible for their actions
what happens during agentic shift?
- this is the shift from autonomous to agentic (becoming an agent)
- Milgram believed that this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure
what is a positive evaluation of the agentic state?
P- one strength is that the agentic state explanation has research support
E- most of Milgram’s ppts asked the ‘Experimenter’ “who is responsible if the learner is harmed?”
- when the experimenter replied “I’m responsible” the ppts went through the procedure quickly without objecting
E- this shows that ppts acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour
what is a limitation of the agentic shift?
P- one limitation is that the agentic shift does not explain all research findings in obedience
E- Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient
- the doctor was a authority figure but the nurses remained autonomous and did not shift to the agentic state, the same is true for some of Milgram’s ppts
E- this shows that agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situation
what is meant by legitimacy of Authority and what factors are involved?
- legitimacy of authority is when we obey people further up a social hierarchy
- most societies are structured hierarchically meaning people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us e.g. parents, teachers, police officers etc.
- we learn to accept Legitimacy of Authority from childhood
- one consequence of legitimacy of Authority is that some people are granted the power to punish wrongdoers e.g. history has shown us that some leaders use legitimate authority destructively e.g. Hitler
what is meant by destructive authority?
- this is when problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive
what is a positive evaluation of legitimacy of Authority?
P- one strength is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience (can explain cultural differences)
E- many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority e.g. 16% of Australian women went up to 450V and obeyed whereas 85% of West Germans did
E- this shows that authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting upbringing and the structure of different societies causing obedience rates to differ
what is a limitation of legitimacy of Authority?
P- one limitation is that legitimacy cannot explain instances of disobedience as people may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of the hierarchical authority structure
E- for example, Rank and Jacobson’s nurses were disobedient towards the doctor (authority figure), and as were some of Milgram’s ppts
E- this suggests that innate tendencies towards disobedience/ obedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority
what is meant by a dispositional explanation?
- this is any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individuals personality
what is meant by a authoritarian personality?
- this is a type of personality that Adorno argued were more likely to obey people in authority
- it is tested using the F-scale as a high score indicates the authoritarian personality
what are the characteristics of the Authoritarian Personality?
- view society as weaker than it was as they believe we need strong leaders to enforce traditional values
- believe people who are ‘other’ (e.g. different ethnic groups) are responsible for the bad things in society as they believe they are a minority and perceive them as beneath them in society
- obedient to authority
- inflexible outlook on the world- no grey areas
- submissive to authority- driven by blind respect
who invented the F-scale?
- it was developed in 1950 by Adorno
- Adorno believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder, and tried to find it’s causes in the individual’s personality
- he concluded that people with an authoritarian personality are especially obedient to authority
where does the Authoritarian Personality originate from?
- it forms in childhood through harsh parenting- extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and sever criticism
- it is also characterised by unconditional love- parents love depends entirely on how their child behaves
- these experiences create hostility and resentment in the child, but they cannot express these feelings directly against their parents because they feel reprisals
- so the feelings are displaced onto others who are weaker, known as scapegoating (a psychodynamic explanation)
what procedure did Adorno et al carry out to investigate Authoritarian Personality?
- the study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans
- several scales were developed, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale) e.g. on the F-scale (rated on scale 1-6 where 6= strongly agree)
what were the findings of Adorno’s study?
- Authoritarians (who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’
- they were conscious of their own and other’ status, showing excessive respect and deference to those of high status
- Adorno also found that Authoritarian perceived people through ‘black and white’ thinking, meaning they had fixed and distinctive stereotypes of groups
- there is a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
what is a positive evaluation of the Authoritarian Personality?
P- one strength is that there is supporting research
E- Milgram found that a small sample of his obedient ppts had scored highly on the F-scale
E- This suggests that obedient people may share many of the characteristics of people with an Authoritarian Personality
what is a negative evaluation of the Authoritarian personality?
P- one limitation is that authoritarian personality is a limited explanation of obedience as it cannot explain a whole country’s behaviour
E- in pre-war Germany, million’s of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and antisemitic behaviour - but cannot all have had the same personality
- it seems unlikely that the majority of Germany’s population had an Authoritarian personality, a more likely explanation is that Germans identified with the Nazi state
E- therefore, social identity theory (the view that our behaviour is strongly influenced by those of the groups we identify with) may be a better explanation
what is another negative evaluation of the Authoritarian Personality?
P- one limitation is that the authoritarian personality may be based on flawed research
E- the F-scale has been used in many research studies that have led to an explanation of obedience based on the AP, meaning it can be considered a self-report technique
E- therefore, explanations of obedience based on research with the F-scale may not be valid
what is another limitation of the AP?
P- one limitation is that the F-scale is politically biased
E- Christie and Jahoda suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology
- but right wing and left wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority
E- therefore, Adornos theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn’t explain obedience to left wing authoritarianism e.g. it is politically biased
what is another limitation of AP?
P- Adornos study lacked generalisability
E- His sample contained 2000 white-middle class male Americans
E- this means his study lacks population validity as his findings cannot be generalised to other countries
what are the 2 explanations for resistance to social influence?
- locus of control
- social support
what is meant by locus of control?
- this refers to a person’s perception of personal control over their own behaviour
what are the 2 types of locus of control?
- internal locus of control which is the belief that their life is determined by their own decisions and efforts and things that happen to them is largely controlled by themselves
- external locus of control is the belief that their life is determined by external factors like fate and luck and the things that happen to them are out of their control
- locus of control is on a continuum e.g. a scale with one end being high internal LOC and the other being high external LOC with low internals and low externals within the middle
how does internal locus of control effect resistance to social influence?
- people with internal locus of control are more likely to resist social influence e.g. if someone takes personal responsibility for their actions (good or bad) they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs
- this is because they are more confident in their own beliefs and actions so are less influenced by others so leads to greater resistance
what is a positive evaluation of locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence?
P- one strength is that there is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to social influence
E- Holland (1967) repeated the Milgram study and measure whether ppts were internals or externals
- 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level compared to 23% of externals who did not
E- As the internals showed greater resistance to authority this supports the idea that they are more likely to resist social influence as they believe their life is determined by their own decisions and efforts
L- this therefore supports this explanation and this research increases the validity of the LOC explanation
what is one limitation of the Locus of Control?
P- one limitation is that not all research supports a link between LOC in resistance
E- Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies over 40 years (1960-2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more external
- however, if resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal
E- therefore, LOC may not be a valid explanation of resistance to social influence
how is pressure to conformity reduced?
- pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming
- Asch’s research showed that the dissenter doesn’t have to give the ‘right’ answer, so simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience, as the dissenter acts as a ‘model’
- this dissenter shows the majority is no longer unanimous
how is pressure to obey reduced?
- pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey
- Milgram’s research shows that obedient greatly decreased in the disobedient peer condition (from 65% to 10%)
- the ppts may not follow the disobedient peer but the dissenters disobedience frees the ppts to act from their own conscience
- a disobedient mode challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure
what is one positive evaluation for social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence?
P- one strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support
E- Albrecht et all evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an 8-week programme to help pregnant teenagers (14-19) resist peer pressure to smoke
- social support was provided by a slightly older mentor, at the end teens who had a mentor vs a control group without a mentor were less likely to smoke
E- this shows social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world applications
what is another strength of social support?
P- one strength is evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers
E- Gamson et al’s ppts (1982) ppts were told to produce evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign
- 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram’s studies
E- this shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience
what is meant by minority influence?
- this refers to how one person or small group influences the beliefs of other people
- the minority may influence just one person or a group of people (the majority)- this is different from conformity where the majority does the influencing
- minority influence can lead to internalisation as both public and private beliefs are changed
what are the 3 processes of minority influence?
- consistency
- commitment
- flexibility
how does consistency impact minority influence?
- consistency meant the minority’s view gains more interest as the are always doing the same thing
- consistency makes others rethink their own views
- there are 2 types:
1. synchronic consistency- people in the minority are all saying the same thing
2. diachronic- they’ve been saying the same thing for some time
how does commitment impact miniority influence?
- commitment is the act of showing deep involvement
-this helps gain attention as activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause
what is meant by augmentation principle?
- this is when a particular view causes a risk to the individual, and this can change other people’s opinion’s
how does flexibility impact minority influence?
- this is showing willingness to listen to others
- the minority should balance consistency and flexibility so they don’t appear rigid e.g. Nemeth argued that being consistent and repeating the same arguments and behaviours is seen as rigid and off-putting to the majority, so the minority should adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counterarguments
how do we explain the process of minority influence?
the snowball effect- overtime, more people become ‘converted’ so there is eventually a switch from the minority to the majority
- the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion and gradually the minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred
what is a positive evaluation of minority influence?
P- one strength is research supporting consistency
E- Moscovici used confederates to state that different shaded of blue coloured slides were actually green
- when confederates were consistent, people conformed 8% of the time but when confederates were not consistent, conformity dropped to 1%
E- This confirms that consistency is a major factor in minority influence as when consistency increases so does minority influence
what is another positive evaluation of minority influence?
P- one strength is research support for internalisation
E- In a variation of Moscovici’s study, ppts could write down their answer privately, more people conformed than in the original study suggesting peoples private opinions of the colour of slides was changing but they did not want to publicly agree with the minority so we can assume that those who do ‘go public’ hold their new views strongly
E- Therefore, the findings suggests that MI is a valid form of social influence because when it happens it influences people very powerfully and permanently
what is a negative evaluation for minority influence?
P- one limitation is that minority influence research often involves artificial tasks
E- Moscovici et Al’s task was identifying the colour of a slide, far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in the rea world
- in jury-decision making and political campaigning (real life situations), outcomes are more important than the tests itself in the research
E- Therefore, findings of studies lack external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-world situations and how they change views
what is meant by social change?
- a change that happens in a society and not at the individual level
- society makes a shift in their beliefs and actions (over a long period of time and often with some resistance)
what are the lessons for minority influence research?
- drawing attention- providing social proof of issue
- consistency- persistent with you beliefs
- deeper processing- people begin to challenge the status quo
- augmentation principle- commitment / shows dedication to reinforce the message
- snowball effect- more people backing the minority position to become the majority
- social cyrptomnesia- people who have a memory that change has occurred but do not remember how it has happened e.g. people have no memory of the event that led to that change
what are the lessons from conformity research?
- dissenters- make the social change more likely e.g. Asch’s variation showed when one confederate gave the correct answers, the power of the majority encouraging others to dissent was broke
- normative social influence- environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI, they provide information about what others are doing e.g. reducing litter by printing normative messages on bins ‘Bin it-others do’
what are the lessons from obedience research?
- disobedient models make change more likely- Milgram’s research: disobedient models in the variation where a confederate refused to give shocks, the rate of obedience in genuine ppts plummeted
- Gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’- Zimbardo- once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one so people ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour
what is a positive evaluation of social change?
P- one strength is support for normative social influence in social change
E- Nolan et al (2008) hung messages on front doors of houses and the key message was most residents are trying to reduce energy usage
- there were significant decreases in energy uses compared to control group, who saw messages to save energy with no reference to other people’s behaviour
E- This shows conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI
counterpoint- exposing people to social norms does not always change their behaviour
- Foxcroft et al (2015) reviewed 70 studies of programmes using social norms to reduce alcohol intake, there was only a small effect on drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency
- so NSI does not always produce long-term social change
what is another positive evaluation of social change?
P- another strength is that minority influence explains social change
E- Nemeth (2009) says that minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking
- this thinking leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems (when a person actively searches for information and weighs up more options)
E- this shows that minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open people’s minds
what is a limitation of social change as an explanation for social influence?
P- A limitation is deeper processing may apply to majority influence
E- Mackie (1987) disagrees with the view that minority influence causes individuals in the majority to think deeply about an issue
- majority influence creates deeper processing because we believe others think as we do
- when a majority thinks differently, this creates pressure to think about their views
E- Therefore, a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting doubt on it’s validity as an explanation of social change
