Social Influence Flashcards
What is conformity
A form of majority influence where the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour of people in a particular group are adopted in response to real or imagined group pressure
What are the 3 types of conformity
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
Explain compliance
-Compliance is publicly conforming to the behaviour or views of others in a group but privately maintaining your own views
-It involves going along with the geoup even if you do not really agree with what they’re doing
-It is a temporary change in behaviour as it only lasts as long as group pressure is present
-This tule of conformity is likely to be linked to normative social influence
A weakness of behaviourist treatment ot phobias is flooding and systematic desensitisation may not be addressing the real cause of the phobia
The treatments have been criticised by the psychodynamic model which claims that vehavoural therapies only focus on symptoms and ignores the causes of abnormal behaviour. Psychoanalysts claim that the symptoms are merely the tip of the iceberg, the real cause of phobias may be traumatic childhood experiences which are repressed into the unconscious mind
However, they belive hat the behaviourist therapy does not deal with these issues, it rather tires to alleviate the anxiety caused by it. In long term, this will lead to the phobia resurfacing ub a different form (symptom substitution)
Therefore, using behavioural therapies such as these to treat phobias may be ineffective in the longrun
Explain identification in terms of social influence
-identification is when individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to that of a group because being a member of the group is desirable and they are seen as role models
- This is a stronger type of conformity as it involves private and public acceptance
- It is generally temporary and does not maintained when individuals leave the group
What is internalisation
- Internalisation is a conversion of private views to match those of a group
- The behavior of belief of the majority Is accepted by the individual and becomes part of their own belief system
- It is the most permanent Form of conformity as it usually lost even if the majority is no Longer present
- This type of conformity is most likely to be linked to informational social influence
What did Deutsch and Gerald develop to provide explanations as to why people conform and what does this consist of
Dual process model
Normative social influence
Informational social influence
DUAL PROCESS MODEL
Explain normative social influence
- People conform because they desire to be liked by other members of the group and also want to avoid being rejected
- The important thing Is the need for acceptance and approval from the group
- It is associated with compliance as Conformity on occurs when the individuals within the group but stops When the individual is away from the group
DUAL PROCESS MODEL
Explain informational social influence
- Informational social influence is based on the desire to be right and occurs.When we turn to others who we believe wake me to correct in an attempt to gain information about how to think or act
- This type of conformity is common when people are uncertain about their opinions on how to behave
- It is associated with internalisation as you continue to conform to the behavior of the group when the group is not present as he believed the behaviour is correct
One strength is there is research support for informational social influence
Lucas at Al students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult. He found that students were more likely to give the wrong answer when questions were difficult rather than when they were easy as they conformed to the majority. This was especially true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor. This supports ISI as ppts looked to others for answers as they had the desire to be right and this happens in ambiguous situations, in this case students were unsure of the answers themselves due to difficulty of task of perceived lack of ability
This increases the validity of dual process model as it shows conformity can occur due to informational social influence
One strength of normative social influence as an explanation for conformity is there is supporting evidence
Asch did 12 critical trials using a line judgement task and found there was approximately a 37% conformity rate to wrong answers made by the majority. In this case ppts conformed to the incorrect responses given by the confederate even when the correct answer was obvious. This supports the role of NSI as ppts conformed because they wanted to be part of the majority due to a desire to be liked by the group and avoid being rejected. Furthermore, since the answer was obvious it is unlikely that ppts were conforming to be right. This increases validity of DPM and shows conformity can occur due to nroamtive social influence
One weakness of the dual process model as an explanation of conformity is it foes not take into account individual differences and locus of control
For some people they care more about being accepted by others and are more likely to be influenced by the majority and conform to be liked.Then those who care less about being like liked. Additionally, Shute found people with an external locus of control are more likely to conform ad they beleive the cause of behaviour lies externally and beyond their own control
This is an issue as the dpm believes all people react to conformity in the same way but it doesn’t take into account personality related factors which are key in determining like hood of conformity
This means the dom is incomplete so reduces its validity
Evaluation of Asch line experiment
- Artificial situation and task -
A limitation of Asch’s research is that it employed an artificial situation and an artificial task . For example , as Fiske ( 2014 ) argued , the group that naïve participants were part of is very different to the kind of groups typically encountered in everyday life , which tend to be people we are familiar with ( e.g. , friends or colleagues ) . Furthermore , the task of matching lines has little to do with everyday life experiences and is insignificant compared to real life situations involving pressure to conform ( e.g. , making a decision on a jury about the guilt or innocence of a defendant ) . Thus , Asch’s study may therefore only explain conformity in special circumstances where there are no consequences to conformity and bear little similarity to real life . Therefore , Asch’s research lacks ecological validity and is unlikely to inform our understanding of conformity in everyday situations .
- Ethical Issues -
A limitation of Asch’s research is that it presents several ethical concerns . Asch’s naïve ( real ) participants didn’t provide fully informed consent prior to the study , because they were deceived about key aspects of the experimental procedures . For example , participants were not informed that the purpose of the research was to investigate conformity ( in order obtain valid results ) and in fact were led to believe that the study was investigating visual perception . The naïve participants also thought the other participants involved in the group task were genuine participants like themselves , when in fact they were confederates whose responses were deliberately inaccurate on most trials . Therefore , Asch’s research into conformity violates a number of ethical guidelines reducing the credibility of the research .
JUST READ THIS
Asch line experiemnt
PROCEDURE US undergraduates took part in what they were told was a study of visual perception . Seven people sat looking at a display and had to say out loud which one of the three lines was the same length as a given stimulus line . The correct answer was always obvious . All participants , except for 1 , were confederates . The genuine / naïve participant was always the last but one to answer and the confederates gave the same wrong answer on most trials
FINDINGS Participants conformed to the wrong answer on 37 % of trials and 75 % of participants conformed at least once
CONCLUSIONSShows that participants will conform to the group’s behavior when they know the answer is wrong
What are the 3 variations in Asch’s line experiment
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
Explain the geoup size variable in Asch’s line experiment
Increased number of confederates from 1 to 15
-Research indicates conformity rates increase as the size of a majority influencing the person increases, but there comes a point where furher increases in the size of the majority doesn’t lead to further increases in conformity
-Asch found that with three confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was about 31.8% but adding one more confederate knly increased this to 35% with no further increase as more confederates were added till 15
RESEARCH INTO ASH’S VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY
Explain unanimity
-Unanimity means to what degree the group members are in agreement with eachother
-Conformity rates decline when majority influence is not unanimous
-Asch found that when there was a confederate present who disagreed to the majority, conformity reduced to 5.5% which is significantly lower than the original conformity rate(where the group was unanimous - 35%)
RESEARCH INTO ASH’S VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY
Explain Task difficulty
-Conformity increases when task difficulty increases as the right answer becomes less obvious, therefore confidence in out own judgement tends to drop
-Asch increased task difficulty by making the comparison lines similar in length to eachother, so the correct answer was less obvious when he did this ppts were more likely to conform to the wrong answer, demonstrating the effect of task difficulty on conformity
One strength of Asch’s research is there is research support for task difficulty
Lucas et al asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult. Students were more likely to give the wrong answer (conform to the people around them) when the questions were difficult rather than when they were easy ones. This was especially true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor
This supports Asch’s findings as it lrovided evidence that increasing task difficulty leads to greater conformity. Furthermore, if participants find a task more difficult to perceived lack of ability, it also increases conformity
This increases validity of Asch’s findings on task difficulty
A weakness of Asch’s research is it has low ecological validity because it involves a very artifical task
The task of matching lines is not representative of real life situations involving pressure to conform. This shows whilst someone may have conformed in a non consequential setting of a lab experiment, they are more likely to resist the pressures when the choices have real consequences. Asch’s studies only explain conformity in special circumstances where judgements have no consequences and have little similarity to real life
As the studies lack ecological validity, the findings fo not inform our understanding of conformity in everyday situations
A limitation of Asch’s studies is it has low temporal validity
Asch’s studies were conducted during the 1950s
During this time in America, people were more likely to conform to social norms due to concerns about the rise of communism. Moreover, Perrin and Spencer repeated Asch’s study several decades later and found much lower rates of conformity compared to Asch’s originally study(conformity was found on only one trial out of a total of 396 trials)
This shows that Asch’s findings are not consistent Overtime because conformity may have been higher when Asch conducted his research due to specific conditions within society at that time
Therefore, conclusions about conformity and the variables that affects conformity may not apply to modern day behaviour, undermining the validity of Asch’s research
What is a social role
Social role are the parts people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role
ZIMBARDL - THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
aim
Procedure
Findings
Conclusion
AIM
To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role playing simulation of prison life
To investigate whether conformity was due to the nature of the person (dispositional factors) or the prison context(situational factors)
PROCEDURE
Before the study
-A mock prison was set up in the Basement of the psychology department at Stanford University USA
-Zimbardo recuited 24 male students from a volunteer sample
-All volunteers were psychologically and physically screened to select those who were most stable with no violent or anti social tendencies and were randomly allocated to either the role of the prsioner or guard
During the study
-The prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home and were taken to prison
-Dehumanisation and deindividuation occurred through the use of ID numbers in prisoners and dark sun glasses in guards
-The study was intended to run for 14 days
FINDINGS
-Within a day, the prisoners rebelled and ripped of their numbers. The guards responses by confiscating their blankets and using aggressive behaviour
-Dehumanisation was increasingly apparent as guards humiliated the prisoners until they became submissive. Deindividuation was noticeable by the prisoners referring to eachcother and themselves by their prison numbers instead of their names
-The prisoners became rapidly depressed. After 36 hours, 1 prisoner was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. 3 more prisoners developed similar symptoms and were released later.
-The study was ended after 6 days
CONCLUSION
-Conformity to social roles in a situation affects behaviour and behaviour is influences by a loss of identity
-Power of situation as opposed to dispositional factors influenced behaviour
Obedience Samsung notes
🐑
What is obedience
Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order from a perceived authority figure
One weakness of Milgeams study is it has low internal validity
A limitation of Milgram’s research is that it may lack internal validity . Orne and Holland ( 1968 ) argued that participants were ‘ going along with the act ‘ when they administered the electric shocks . Participants did not really believe in the set - up and guessed the electric shocks were not real , meaning they may have been demonstrating unnatural behaviour because they knew that the electric shocks weren’t real . Therefore , contrary to the claims of Milgram , his participants were not naturally obeying but instead showing demand characteristics and choosing to co - operate with the study . This indicates that Milgram’s study was not really measuring obedience as he intended to measure . Therefore , reducing the validity of the study and its conclusions .
One weakness of Milgrams study is there are ethical issues
A limitation of Milgram’s study is that it has several ethical concerns . Milgram’s study included deception because participants were deceived on the purpose of the study . This is because they were told the aim of the study was to investigate the effect of punishment on learning , when the true aim of the study was to investigate obedience to authority . This also means participants were unable to provide fully informed consent prior to the experiment . Furthermore , the right to withdraw was not provided to participants because they were given verbal prompts to make them stay even when they wanted to stop the study . Additionally , participants were subjected to psychological harm , because they were exposed to extremely stressful situations . These ethical concerns present in Milgram’s research question the credibility of such research
What are the two psychological explanations for obedience
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Explain agentic state
How did milgram investigate this
- People may obey authority as they believe they are acting as an agent for or on behalf of the authority figure
- Known?
As the agenda state where they believe that their acting on someone’s behalf so the authority figure is responsible for their actions - Opposite of autonomous state as they are acting on their own principles and have responsibility for their own actions
- People are typically in autononius state but shift to agentic state when they are given an order by an autonomous figure
Milgram investigated this by interviewing his apriticlants during the debrief stage and asked them about why they obeyed the experiment. Many reported that they knew it was wrong to administer electric shocks but they felt that the experiemneter was responsible for their actions and not them
This shows that they shifted responsibility to the figure of authority
Explain legitimacy of auhority
How did milgram investigate this
-Refers to amount of social power held by person giving instructions
-More likely to obey someone who is seen as having social power and is therefore a legitimate authority figure
- Especially if authority figure has power to punish us or if we trust their instructions
-Social power is often associated with social roles or social status
Milgram conducted several variations of his study that affected the legitimacy of the authority figure. He found that each time the legitimately of the authority figure was undermines, such as replacing the authority figure with a member of public, or conducting the study in a rundown office block, levels of obedience decreased. This indicates we are more likely to obey an authority who we consider to be legitimate
One strength of the psychological explanation for obedience is there is research support for the role of agentic state
Dambrun and Vatine found participants who gave the most electric shocks when ordered to in a torture stimulation tended to hold the experimenter or victim responsible for what happened instead of themselves. This supports the role of the agebtic state as it shows people who are most obedient don’t accept personal responsibility for their actions, instead shift responsibility to the authorities figure. This also helpes is understand how people can obey even in situations where they know that their actions are wrong
This increases validity of agebtic state as an explanation of obedience
One strength of psychological explanations of obedience is there is research support for the role of legitimacy of authority
Tarnow studied data from us national transport safety board review of air traffic accidents. The factor that contributed the most in 19 out of 37 accidents investigated was the authority of the captain leading to copilot feeling unable to challenge wrong decisions.
This supports the role of legitimacy of authority as it shows due go the social power held by authoritative figures like an airplane pilot, ordered are often kbeyes even if they are believed to be incorrect. Furthermore, since evidence was gathered from real life case, it suggests legitimacy of authority is important factor in obedience outside the lab
This increases validity of legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience
A limitation of psychological explanations of obedience js it fails to account for the role of personality factors that explain why people obey
For example, adorno argued individuals with strict upbringing decelop an authoritarian personality and have an excessive respect for authority and are highly obedient. It is supported by evidence from Elms and zmilgram and in milgrams study, obedient ppts were more likely to have an authoritarian personality than disobedient ppts
This shows dispositional factors like authoritarian personality can affect levels of obedience which undermines the validity of purely psychological explanations as its considered incomplete
What are the 3 situational variables of obedience
Proximity
Location
Uniform
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES IN OBEDIENCE
Explain proximity
-How close to the teacher was to the experimenter or how close to the learner
-If individual is in close proximity to the authority figure higher likelihood of obedience than if they were further
-In close proximity to the victim, lower likelihood of obedience than if victim was not in view
IN MILGRAMS STUDY Obedience was high in milgrams study ehen the experimenter was in the same room as the ppt (65%)
In the remote insturcrjon variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone. Obedience reduced to 20.5%
-In the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to force the learners hand on to an elecctroshock plate when he refused tk answer a question. Obedience dropped further to 30%
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES IN OBEDIENCE
Explain location
How did milgram investigate this
- Can enhance the legitimacy of authority of authoritative figure, which increases obedience (prestigious or official locatoon)
- Can either be appropriate for the authority to give orderes in or not appropriate
(Obey a ticket inspector on train but not in schoo)
Milgram conducted a variation of his experiment in a rundown office block. In this variation 48% of ppts obeyed to 450 volts compared with 65% obedience in the prestigious uni first used (Yale). The legitimacy of the uni increased the power and authority of the experimenter as well as the amount of trust the ppts felt in then leading to higher obedience rates
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES IN OBEDIENCE
Explain uniform
How was this investigated
-Clothing worn by an authority figure affects our perception of them(can chnahe whether or not we obey)
-Official looking uniform enhances a person’s legitimacy of authority and is more likely to lead to obedience if the uniform is appropriate for the current setting
Buckman did a field expeirmwnt in new York, he asked passers by to complete tasks such as picking jl rubbish or lending money to a stranger for a parking meter. In one condition when the experimenter was dressed as a security guard, 92% of ppts obeyed the request and leaded money. In another condition, the experimenter wore normal clothes and 58% obeyed the request. Shoes how important uniform can be in increasing obedience rates
One weakness of proximity as a variable affecting obedience is there is contradicting real life research
Hoffling found that over 95% or nurses showed obedience and followed unreasonable orders of administering double the maximum dosage of an unknown drug despite the instructions being given over phone. This reduces the low obedience rates found in milgrams remote instruction variation. This shows that if the order comes from a legitimate authority figure, the influence of the legitimacy overrides impact of distant proximity in real life
Therefore, it appears Milgram overestimated the extent to which proximity to the authority figure influences obedience which reduces validity of research on proximity
One strength of unifrom ad an explanation of obedience is there is supporting evidence
Bushman carried out a similar field experiment to bickman using a female confederate, told subjects to give chnage to a stranger for a parking meter. When earing police stile unifrom, obedience rates eete significantly higher compared to when she was wearing casual clothing or husoness attire
This supports the role of unifrom as it shows people are more likely to obey someone’s when they are wearing clothes associated with being a legitimate authority figure
Also, as only the police style uniform increased obedience it shows unifrom needs tk be appropriate for the setting to lead to greater obedience
A limitation of unifrom as a variable that affects obedience is the supporting research has ethical issues
Buckman failed tk provide ppts with informed consent as the study took place in a real life setting where ppts were not aware they were taking part in an experiment. Furthermore, research also used deception as pots were misled into thinking confederate was a genuine figure of authority but were just an accomplice of the experimenter with no social power
Ethical principles were breached which ensure ppt behaviour was genuine leading to valid results but this still reduces the credibility of research used to support role of uniform in obedience
One strength of the dispositional explanation of obedience is there is research support for the role of authoritarian personality
For example emls and milgram did follow up interviews with obedient and disobedient ppts in miglrams shock experiment. They were given the f scale test to see if they had ap and found obedient ppts had higher scores compared to disobedient ones
Strath as it supports adorns findings that high scores on the f scale lead to a which makes you more likely to obey authority vs individuals who do not have ap. Also proves that f scale is a valid method of measuring ap. Increases validity of ap as a dispositional explanation of oebdience
One weakness of dispositional explanation of obedience is the supporting evidence is correlational
We do not know if ap leads to obedience or people that are generally obedient eventually develop a submissive trait and end up with ap. If former is true then theory is validated. If latter us true, it could be due to a third factors, both obedience and ap is associated with lower level of education. It could be that low level of education is whar makes people obedience or score higher on f scale. Supporting evidence has questionable validity, reducing the validity of ap as an explanation of obedience
One weakness of dispositional explanation of obedience is authoritarian personality is based on flawed methodology
Greenstein calls f scale a comedy of methodological errors. For example, the scale has been criticised because every item is worded in the same direction. This means it is possible to get a high score for authoritarianism just by ticking the same line of boxes down one side of the page
This is a weakness as people who agree with the items on the f scale may not necessarily be authoritarian but rather have a tendency to agree with something regardless of how they feel (Acquiescence bias)
Since the supporting evidence and method of assessing ap is flawed, this reduces the validity of ap as an explanation of obedience
What are the 2 A01 for resisting social influence
Locus of control
Social support
Explain internal locus of control and external locus of control
ILOC
Attributing the cause of beh to personal factors
Believe they have a great deal of control over own behaviour and responsibilty for their actions
ELOC
Attributing the cause of behaviour to externally factors outside of their control
Less likely to take responsibility for their actions
Rotter proposes that the individuals with an internal locus of control would be better at resting pressure. This is because they…
Act independently as they feel in control of situations
Do not rely on others to decide what to do
Are less concerned with social approval from others
One strength of LOC as ab explanation for resistance to obedience is there is supporting research
Blass investigated the link between loc and obedience and found ppl withhold iLOC were more likely to resist obeying vs those with an eLOC
Shows loc is an important factor in the ability to disobey authority
Furthermore, Oliner and Oliner found through interviews comparing rescuers of Jersey from nazis during the holocaust with non rescuers that the rescuers had an internal locus of control
One weakness of LOC as an explanation for resistance to social influence is the methods used to measure LOC can be criticised
LOC often assessed with 23 item forced choice scale by Rotter, consisted of pairs of statements and for each item, repsondent selects which of the two statements closely fits their views
Problem is due to self report method, leads to social desirability as repsondents feel they need to impress the researcher with their responses
Casts doubt on the validity of the categorisation of repsondents as iLOC or eLOC (e.g. ppl with eLOC might change response to make it look like their have iLOC)
Decreases validity of research supporting LOC abd validity of LOC as an explanation of resistance to social influence
What is social support
The presence of other people who resist pressures to conform of obey and therefore help others to do the same as them
Explain social support and reisting conformity
-Presence of support from someone makes it easier to resist social power, individual feels more confident in their own decision + more confident to reject the majority position + less chance of rejection from the group
-Having an ally who shares the individuals view breaks the unanimity of the group. Once the unanimous position of the majority is broken, individuals freed up to think, repsond or behave un a different way to the majority
Explain social support and resisting obedience
-The presence of other ppl who discovery can serve to reduce obedience
-The obedience of others makes even harmful actions appear acceptable
-Another person obeying empowers the observer to disobey and challenge the legitimacy of the authority figure
One stntegrh of social support and resisting social influence is there is supporting research
Asch showed having social support helps rest conformity pressures from the majority. Found conformity dropped dramatically from 37.5% to 5.5% when one ally confederate gave a diffrwrbt answer to the other confederates and resisted the majority
This supports the role of social support as individuals are more likely to resist conformity when they observe someone else resist conformity, feel less ridicules for going against the majority and more confident in their decisions
Increases the validity of social support as an explanation of resistance to conformity
One strength of social support as an explanation of resistance to obedience is there is supporting research
One one variation of Milgrams experiment, ppt was one of a team of 3 testing the learner, when two disobedient confederates refused to continue shocking the learner and withdrew, only 10% of the naive ppts continues to max 450 volts compared to 65% in the original study
Supporte role of social support as defiance of cofederates who acted a disobedient role model gave ppts confidence to disobey as they felt they had support from another individual and jnfermined the perceived legitimacy of the euthority figure
Increases validity of ss as an epxmansntkon kf resistance to obedience
What is minority influence
Process whereby a small foeup of people chnage the views or opinions of other people to maths the minority
Minority influence usually results in internalisation - both public and private veleifs are chnaged by the process in the long term
What are the 3 factors that make minority influence much more likely to happen and explain them
CONSISTENCY on first exposure to a minority position, majority may assume the majority are wrong. However, if minority continue to maintain position, majority may reassess situation and chnage
Consistency can be shown in 2 ways, the minority have a consistent position Overtime, members of the minority group have the same position amongst themselves
COMMITMENT
Willing to put themsleves at risk/inconvenience/embarrassment, make sacrifices and personal investment, draws the attention of the majority to the views of the minority(augmentation pronciple)
Increases likelihood of influencing majority
FLEXIBILITY
Being only consistent makes the minority group look rigid and unwilling to compromise which can be off-putting to the majority
Minority needs tk be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments
EFFECT OF CONSISTENCY ON MINORITY INFLUENCE - MOSCOVICI ET AL
Explain the procedure, results and conclusion
PROCEDURE Group of 6 females were shown 36 blue coloured slide projected onto a wall, two were confederages. There were 3 conditions, consistent, the confederates answer incorrectly(green) on all trials, inconsistent, they answered incorrectly on some trials and correctly on others, control, no confederatws were present
RESULTS
Minority consistently incorrectly, ppts 8.4% conformity to the minority
Minority inconsistently incorrect, ppts 1.25% co formity to the Minority
CONCLUSION
Minority being consistent in views leads to greater influence on the majority
One strength of factors affecting Minority influence is there is supporting research for flexibility
Nemetj created groups of 3 ppts and one confederate who had to decide on how much compensation to pay a victim of a ski lift accident. When a consistent confederate argued for a low amount and refused to chnage his position he has no effect on the majority. However, when he compromised a little and suggested a slightly higher amount, the majority chnaged their opinion tk the lower amount. This shows minorities have to also be flexible and take into account the view of themjaorith to be successful in persuading the majority
This increases the valiftu of flexibility ad a factor that affects the influence of the minority on the majority
One weakness of factors affecting Minority influence is it uses highly artificial tasks
Having ppts jusdge the colours of slides in Moscovivis study. Since this task is not something ppts would do on an everyday basis, this greatly reduces the ecological validity of the study meaning results cannot be applied to everyday life. In particular these tasks are incredibly different from how minorities try to chnage the majority viewpoint in the real world e.g. jury decision making. In situations like this the outcomes can be very important and have significant consequences for others unlike the task moscovici used where the outcomes had little impact on other poeple
This reduces the validity of the research used to support factors like consistency in minority influence
A weakness of the research used to support minority influence is that it lacks population validity
Moscovici used only female students as ppts on his study on consistency. There I’d evidence that women are more concerned about social relatio shops and being accepted than men. This may mean that women are more conformist in response to minority influence than Males and that the results from females can’t be generalised to Males. Therefore, the effects of factors like consistency on minority influence may not apply to the wider population due to the lack of male ppts in the supporting research reducing the overall validity of the factor
Name the steps in the process of social change
Drawing attention to an issue
Consistency of position
Commitment and flexibility
Legal changes abd obedience
Snowball effect and social chnage
After social change occurs
Explain these steps in the process of social chnage and USE EXAMPLES
Drawing attention to an issue
Consistency of position
Commitment and flexibility
Legal changes abd obedience
Snowball effect and social chnage
After social change occurs
DRAWING ATTENTION TO AN ISSUE
Minorities can bring about social chnage by drawing the attention of the majority to an issue
E.g. the suffragettes used a range of diff methods to draw attention to their cause, some were militant such as blowing up post boxes and others were political such as holding rallies explaining their demands
CONSISTENCY OF POSITION
Minority continue to maintain their position, majority may reassess the situation and consider the matter again
E.g. the suffragettes maintained the same campaign for voting rights for many decades and wire unifies in their message of demanding the vote for women
COMITMENT AND FLEXIBILITY
If the minority is willing to give things up and suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and will be taken more seriously by the majority(augmentation principle). They must also be willing to listen to the views òf the majority counter argument
E.g. the suffragettes were willing to risk deaths or imprisonment through activities such as hunger strikes and dangerous protest activities
LEGAL CHANGES AND OBEDIENCE
Chnages in tbe law to fit with minority position mean that it is seen as more of a spiral norm that needs to be followed and a failure to do so can lead to punishment
This means that obedience acts as a further pressure to chnage the majority position
E.g. The suffragette movement led to several laws being past, starting with the Representaiton of the people Bill in 1918, which gave women the legal right to vote
SNOWBALL EFFECT AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Minority gradually gathers support Overtime and thei influence converts more and more until it reaches the tipping point where minority turns into a majority
Social chnage occurs
AFTER SOCIAL CHANGE OCCURS
Society is aware social chnage has occurred but forget the origin of that change. The majority does not give credit to the minority for the chnage taking place
E.g. although the majority of people who remeber certain figures in the suffrage movement, very few know who initiated it in the first place
ASCH STUDY OF CONFORMITY
How was there a lack of informed consent and deception
Lack of informed consent - ppts thought the aim of the study was visual perception but they were actually taking part in an experiment on conformity
Deception - They were misled to believe that the confederates were genuine ppts
ZIMBARDO STUDY OF CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES
How was there psychological harm and no right to withdraw
Psychological harm - 1 ppt has to be released after 36 hrs due to psychological disturbance -> all ppts were subjected to degrading treatment
Right to withdraw - depsite ppts asking tk leave the experiment on multiple occasions, the guards didn’t allow them to leave nor did zimbardo step in and allow them to withdraw
MILGRAMS STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
How did he use deception of no right to withdraw
Deception - misled to believe that the electric shocks were real, misled to belive learner (confederate) was a genuine ppt, misled about the aim, thought it was on how punishment affects learning when it was actually about obedience
Right to withdraw - when ppt asked to leave, experimenter kept encouraging them to continue administering the shocks and gave 4 prods to encourage them to continue
