Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

psychology > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What is social support?

A

An external factor where there are others who are resisting.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Social support in conformity…

A

… pressure to conform can be reduced when there are others who aren’t conforming.
Enables one to follow own conscience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Social support in obedience…

A

…pressure to obey can be reduced when someone else is disobeying.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Evaluation of social support.

A

+ research support:
(asch one dissenter reduced conformity to 5.5%)
(Milgram one disobeyed reduced obedience to 10%)
+gamson’s study had high ecological validity so no demand characteristics.
-grp size less than 10 one dissenter has influence but not irl where grps are bigger.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is locus of control?

A
  • Julian Rotter (1966)

- refers to ones perception of degree of personal control they have over their behaviour.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is high external locus of control?

A

Future p/actions are largely from factors outside their control like luck or fate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is internal LOC?

A
  • stronger sense of control
  • more likely to resist pressure (show resistance to social influence)
  • more self confident smarter less need for social approval.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Evaluation of LOC (strengths):

A

+Oliner & Oliner (1988) interviewed 2 groups and found that 406 who protected and rescued Jews has higher LOC than the 106 who didn’t.
+Holland (1967) repeated Milgram baseline study 37% internals didn’t shock to highest and 23% externals didn’t which increases validity of LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Evaluation of LOC (weaknesses):

A
  • Twenge (2004) analysed data for over 40 years from American obedience studies and found people have become more resistant to obedience but more external (results changing due to society where many things are outta personal control)
  • it’s exaggerated, and comes to play in new unfamiliar situations, even if one has high external LOC, if they conformed or obeyed in a situation they’d likely do it again.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is conformity?

A

A change in a persons behaviour/views due to real/imagined pressure from a person or group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is compliance?

A

Adjusting behaviours and views that are shown in public.
No change to privately held views.
A superficial and temporary form of conformity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is internalisation?

A

Adjusting behaviours and views to fit with majority.
But they share the same views and act the same way privately.
A deeper and more permanent form of conformity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is identification?

A

When you conform to the opinion of a group, due to there being something about the group that you value.
Identify with the group so views change to be a part of it (may disagree privately).
Normally done when you admire the group.
Like temporary internalisation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is ISI?

A

Informational social influence,

The need to be right.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

When does ISI happen?

A
  • situation is ambiguous
  • situation is difficult
  • situation needs rapid response
  • we believe others to be expert
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What does ISI lead to?

A

Internalisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is NSI?

A

Normative social influence,
Need to be liked.
-want to be accepted and not ridiculed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

When does NSI happen?

A
  • when there’s a concern for rejection from strangers

- need for social support from others when in stressful situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What does NSI lead to?

A

Compliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What are demand characteristics?

A

The changing of behaviour by guessing the aim of the study so acting accordingly.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Strengths of explanations for social influence.

A

There’s research support:

  • Lucas et al (2006)-asked students to do easy/hard maths problems, found there was more conformity to wrong answers when the questions were harder (esp. for those with poorer maths skills). Supports ISI as students conformed when questions were hard.
  • Asch (1951)- line test-found many went with blatantly wrong answer as they feared rejection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Weaknesses of explanations for conformity.

A

-individual differences-in NSI they found nAffiliators wanted more affiliation (to be in a relationship with people-more long term).
In ISI Asch found not all students conformed in ambiguous situations.
-can merge when explaining conformity- if one person disagrees NSI decreases as there’s more social support, it can reduce ISI when there’s another source of information.
-studies that support may be lab studies-likely to show demand characteristics. Lack ecological validity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Describe Jenness’ study.

A
  • ambiguous situation where glass bottle is filled with beans.
  • asked individuals to estimate.
  • Then group estimate.
  • Then alone again to see ISI.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What were the findings of Jenness’ study?

A

Almost all changed individual guesses to be closer to majority, showed internalisation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Describe Sherif’s study.

A

1935-aimed to show people conform to group norms in ambiguous situations.

  • using auto kinetic effect (small spot of light projected onto screen in a dark room it’ll appear to move)
  • they were tested individually.
  • then in groups of 3
  • they then had to say results out loud.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What were sherif’s results?

A

The person who was different conformed.

People always tend to conform instead of making individual judgements (to come to a group agreement)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Describe Solomon Asch’s study.

A

Aim: to see to what extent people conformed under social pressure from a majority group.

  • 123 male US undergrads
  • vision test (line judgement task).
  • one participant in a room with up to 8 confederates.
  • 18 trials, 12 of which were critical trials (confederated instructed to give wrong answers)
  • control condition where there were no confederates.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What were Asch’s results?

A
  • 32-36% conformed

- 75% conformed at least once

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What conclusions did Asch come to?

A
  • come conformed in fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar (NSI)
  • some genuinely believed they were mistaken or seeing incorrectly (ISI)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What variables affecting conformity did Asch research?

A
  • group size
  • unanimity of the majority
  • task difficulty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What did Asch find out about group size?

A
  • Little conformity if there’s 1/2 confederates.
  • conformity rate increased to 30% when there was 3 confederates.
  • a further increase didn’t affect conformity rates
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What conclusions were made about group size?

A

It’s important up to a certain point.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What did Asch find out about unanimity of the majority?

A
  • if one confederate gave right answer then conformity rates dropped 33%—> 5.5%
  • if one confederate gave a different wrong answer it dropped to 9%.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What conclusion was made about unanimity of the majority?

A

You only need one break in unanimous decision for conformity rates to drop.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What did Asch find out about task difficulty?

A

-conformity increased when line lengths were made smaller

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What conclusion did he come to about task difficulty?

A

Influence of task difficulty is moderated by ones self-efficacy
(nAffiliators vs those with high self efficacy)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Evaluation of Asch’s studies and variables.

A

-lacked temporal validity- Perrin & Spencer (1980) redid the study and only one student conformed in 396 trials.
1950s could be conformist decade and society’s changed.
-lacked ecological validity- demand characteristics, silly task that’s unlikely to happen, groups weren’t accurate representation of society.
-limited application of findings (lacks population validity)- women may be more conformist as they may be more concerned about social relations. Individualistic culture (USA) vs collectivist culture (China-may have higher conformity as they are more orientated to group needs)
-ethical issues-deception, potential psychological harm as they’re confused as to why the clear wrong answer was given (stressed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What did zimbardo want to find out in the SPE?

A

Whether brutality reported among guards in an American prison were dispositional or situational.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What does dispositional mean in SPE?

A

Due to the sadistic personalities of the guards.

Personalities make conflict inevitable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What does situational mean in SPE?

A

Due to the prison environment.

Rigid power structure of social environment

41
Q

Describe the SPE.

A
  • in basement of Stanford University psychology building.
  • 24 males were chosen using diagnostic interviews from 70 applicants.
  • payed $15 and were randomly assigned roles:10 prisoners, 11 guards, 2 reserves and 1 dropped out.
  • prison stimulation was as real as possible: 3 guards on 8 hour shifts,3 prisoners per room, solitary.C.
  • prisoners were arrested by surprise and taken to local police station.
  • blindfolded and taken to uni, referred to by number only.
  • guards given special sunglasses, and told to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order.
  • no violence permitted
42
Q

What were the results?

A
  • called off after 6 days
  • 2 prisoners had a nervous breakdown.
  • 1 went on hunger strike.
43
Q

What were the findings of the SPE?

A
  • guards adapted quickly and easily, behaved brutally and sadistically whilst enjoying.
  • prisoners were dehumanised by being given pointless and boring tasks.
  • prisoners ‘told tales’ and sided with guards.
  • prisoners became more dependant and guards became more derisive.
  • the more submissive the prisoners the more aggressive and assertive the guards.
  • 1 prisoner was released after 36 hours uncontrollable bursts of screaming,crying,anger (early stages of deep depression).
  • 3 others left in next couple of days due to signs of emotional disorder that could have lasting consequences.
44
Q

Strengths of the SPE.

A

-good level of control over variables- most emotionally stable males, random roles so no experimenter bias, high control over variables so high internal validity.
-relevance to Abu Ghraib- 2003-2004 USA military police committed serious human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners. Believes guards were victims of situational factors.
Lack of training. Unrelenting boredom. No accountability to higher authorities. Opportunity to misuse power. (All factors that lead to prisoner abuse)

45
Q

Weaknesses of the SPE.

A
  • lack of research support- Reicher and Hallam (2006) did a partial replica and prisoners took control as they developed a shared identity as cohesive group. Identified as members of a social group that refused to accept limits of assigned roles.
  • ethical issues- was more concerned with prison and role as ‘superintendent’ than his responsibility as researcher. Deception used in arrest. But he argued that he discontinued experiment after seeing the effects.
46
Q

How did Zimbardo defend his study?

A
  • argued alternative methodologies that caused less distress wouldn’t have gotten the desired results.
  • he debriefed and did post-experimental questionnaires.
  • claimed results and benefits should out balance distress caused.
47
Q

What does obedience mean?

A

Social influence in which an individual follows a direct order (normally from figure of authority that has power to punish)

48
Q

What was Milgram’s aim and why?

A

To investigate level of obedience participants show when an authority figure tells them to administer electric shocks.
To test ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis, to prove the Holocaust was due to dispositional factors

49
Q

Described Milgram’s experiments.

A

40 males between 20to 50, who volunteered through an ad, four dollars an hour. At Yale.
Were told the study was based on memory and learning. There was a learner and a teacher (it was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and the learner was the Confederate)
Teacher was to read out pairs of words if they guessed wrong or didn’t guess, shock (voltage to increase each time)
If participants asked for advice standardised prods were used.
Each prod was used once and in order if the participant still disobeyed after prod 4 experiment was terminated

50
Q

What were the four prods in this experiment?

A
  • ‘Please continue’/’please go on’
  • ‘the experiment requires you to continue’
  • ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
  • ‘you have no choice,you must go on’
51
Q

What were Milgram’s results/findings?

A
  • 65% shocked to 450V
  • all participants shocked to 300V
  • 14/40 nervous laughing fits.
  • 3 participants had a full blown uncontrollable seizures.
  • many showed signs of nervousness and tension:sweating, trembling, groaning, stuttering.
  • 84% reported they were glad to participate.
52
Q

What was Milgram’s conclusion?

A

Normal ordinary people will obey authority even though their actions may be detrimental

53
Q

Strengths of Milgram’s research.

A

-Good external validity-showed a relationship between authority figure and other. He argued that the lab environment reflected real life authority.
-Research Support: Hofling et al (1966) obedient nurses, 22 nurses got calls from Dr Smith (a Confederate) telling them to give Mr Jones 20 MG of a made up drug called Astrofen saying he would sign when he comes in 10 minutes. On label it said the maximum dosage was 10 MG. Written authorisation is needed before any drug is given. 21/22 complied with out hesitation
Le jeu de la mort 80% delivered maximum (460 version) two and apparently unconscious man. Similar behaviour nervous laughter nailbiting anxiety. Showed that Milgram’s findings weren’t a one off

54
Q

Weaknesses of Milgram‘s research

A

-Low internal validity,Orne & Holland argued that many didn’t believe the setup therefore the study isn’t measuring what it is meant to. Perry in 2013 listened and heard that many participants expressed doubts on where the shocks were real. Milgram reported 70% believed they were.
-Ethical Issues: Baumrind criticised his use of deception, believed deception was betrayal of trust & could damage psychologists reputation.
-issues with research support: Rank &Jacobson (1977) said that nurses had no knowledge of drug and no Opportunity to seek advice therefore it lacked ecological validity. They replicated but instead use a real doctor and said to use three times the recommended dosage of Valium.
2/18 nurse has complied

55
Q

What are the ethics and defences of Milgram’s research?

A
  • Deception (experiment needed it and fully debriefed after)
  • hard to withdraw (35% did,it was hard but not impossible)
  • risk of long term harm (thorough debriefing, reunited with learner and told behaviour was normal)
56
Q

What are the three situational variables of obedience?

A
  • proximity
  • location
  • uniform
57
Q

How did Milgram test proximity?

A
  • in adjoining room so you can hear learner:65%->40%
  • touch proximity where learner had to force learners hand onto ‘electroshock plate’: dropped to 30%
  • remote instruction where experimenter left and gave instructions via telephone :20.5%
58
Q

How did Milgram test location?

A

-run-down building instead of prestigious Yale uni obedience dropped to 47.5%

59
Q

How did Milgram test uniform?

A
  • experimenter in grey lab oat was called away and replaced with ‘ordinary member of public in ordinary clothes’ (confederate)
  • obedience dropped to 20%.
60
Q

Strengths of Milgram’s variations.

A

-control of the variables in his variations-he only changed one variable. Replicated to 1000pps so it’s replicable meaning stronger conclusions can be drawn.
-cross culture replications- Miranda et al (1981) found 90%obedience in Spanish students showing it applies to females and other cultures. Milgram repeated on females American and saw same levels of obedience.
-research support- Bickman (1974) 3 males gave orders to 153 random pedestrians (1 in suit, 1 in milkman, 1 in guards)
80% obeyed guard, 40% obeyed milkman/civilian.

61
Q

Weaknesses of Milgram’s variations.

A
  • Lack of internal validity-Holland and Orne believed participants thought it was fake particularly through prompts. Even Milgram new situation was so contrived. Unsure of whether it’s real obedience or simply demand characteristics.
  • Theobedience alibi-David Mandel (1998) argues these variables are an excuse for bad/evil behaviour. Feeble excuse to Holocaust survivors
62
Q

What are the two main explanations of obedience?

A
  • The Agentic state

- Legitimacy of authority

63
Q

What is an agent?

A

Where someone is acting for someone else and take no responsibility (Acts for or in place for another)

64
Q

What is the Agentic state theory?

A

When a person carries out orders with little personal responsibility, as they see themselves under the authority and not responsible for the actions they take.
Often carry out an order without question.

65
Q

What does acting as an independent individual mean?

A

They are aware of the consequences of their actions, knowing they will be held accountable

66
Q

What is another word for acting as an independent individual?

A

Autonomic state

67
Q

What is the change from autonomous to agentic state?

A

Agentic shift

68
Q

When does Agentic state happen according to Milgram?

A

When the other person has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy

69
Q

What are the binding factors that cause Agentic state?

A
  • Reduction of moral strain helps a person feel calm because they feel that it is not their fault and they are merely agents, therefore the fault lies in the victim and authority figure.
  • Participants view themselves as subordinates.
70
Q

What are the strengths of the Agentic state explanation?

A

It has research support, Blass & Schmitt (2001)-Showed film of Milgram study to students and asked them who was responsible for harming the learner. Students blamed experimenter. They indicated that experimenter was a scientist, at top of hierarchy, participants were merely agents and following orders.

71
Q

What are the weaknesses of the Agentic state explanation?

A
  • Does not explain many of the research findings as in rank and Jacobson study only 2/18 nurses were willing to give drug prescribed by doctor even though they were agents.
  • Research evidence has refuted the idea that behaviour of Nazis can be explained in this term. German reserve police battalion, 101 men shots of civilians in Poland even though they were not given direct orders. Therefore does not explain obedience since police were not acting as agents
72
Q

What does legitimate authority mean?

A

Certain positions hold authority over the rest of us (e.g. parents teachers police)
-we are socialised from early childhood to obey certain legitimate authority figures.
Refers to amount of social power held by a person who gives instruction, we trust them or we fear them as they have the power to punish

73
Q

What is a consequence of legitimacy of authority?

A

Legitimate authority can become destructive

74
Q

Strengths of legitimate authority explanation.

A

-Can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. Kelman and Hamilton argued that the My L’ai massacre That took place during the Vietnam war is due to power of hierarchy of the US Army.
Early one soldier was found guilty and face charges, his defence was the same as the Nazi officers who went to trial at Nuremberg =Only doing his duty to follow orders.
-Explains cultural differences in obedience-a replica of Milgram study showed that in Australia 16% went to full voltage whereas in Germany 85% obedience rate.
Different cultures have different upbringings therefore strengthening the legitimacy of authority explanation.

75
Q

What are the weaknesses of legitimacy of authority?

A

-Not all legitimate authority figures should be obeyed-as sometimes it leads to the home of another person.
As in real life there have been examples of where legitimate authority figures have abused their power for example Harold Shipman.

76
Q

People with authoritarian personalities…

A

… Our more likely to obey authority figures

77
Q

Why are people with authoritarian personality is more likely to obey authority figures?

A 
They have a collection of traits which make them more obedient:
-survival towards people of highest status
Hostile towards people of lower status
Preoccupied with power
Conformist and conventional
Dogmatic
Likely to categorise people as us/them
Inflexible in their beliefs and values.
78
Q

What is destructive obedience?

A

Where orders are obeyed even though the individual understands the negative consequences.

79
Q

Why did Adorno say that people develop these personalities (authoritarian personality)?

A

Often due to receiving extremely harsh discipline from their parents during upbringing, creating a feeling of hostility that is directed towards others who are weaker.

80
Q

How is authoritarian personalities measured??

A

Using a fascism scale where participants are asked to rate how much they agree with the statement. Relationship between authoritarian personality and scoring a high on F scale

81
Q

What is the strength of authoritarian personality?

A

Research support-elms and Milgram carried out a study using participants that took part in Milgram‘s previous study found out that those who refuse to shock all the way to 450 V had lower scores on F scale.
In other words those with a higher F scale Score Were more likely to obey an order.

82
Q

Weaknesses of authoritarian personality .

A
  • Limited explanation, not everyone who did up to 450 V Scored highly on the F scale. Doesn’t explain why most Germans are obedient but not all possess authoritarian personality. Social identity theory is more relevant explanation of obedience than the authoritarian personality
  • Methodological problems, there were problems with the questionnaire itself:
  • each item on questionnaire is worded in same direction therefore fairly easy to get to high score
  • questions are closed so no room for explanation
  • Adorno Interviewed participants about childhood experiences, he already knew the score meaning he would’ve showed interviewer bias.
83
Q

What is minority influence?

A

A type of social influence that motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms.

84
Q

How is minority influence achieved?

A

Through conversion.

85
Q

Describe Moscovici’s experiment

A

4 participants, 2 Confederates
36 slides of different shades of blue asked to name aloud the colour.
In one condition (consistent) Confederates called all slides green.
In second (inconsistent) condition Confederate called 24 out of 36 Slide green.

86
Q

What are the results and conclusion of Moscovici’s experiment?

A

Consistent: just over 8% Of participants move to minority position.
Inconsistent: around 1%
Suggesting that minorities should be consistent to exert and influence

87
Q

What was the methodological criticism of the minority influence study?

A

Artificial so it lacked ecological validity as it was unrealistic and participants are aware there have you studied therefore demand characteristics.

88
Q

What are three important characteristics that are needed for minority influence?

A
  • Consistency
  • commitment
  • flexibility
89
Q

Why is consistency important in minority influence?

A

It will be persuasive and shows confidence in its beliefs.

90
Q

Why is commitment important in minority influence?

A

It suggests certainty confidence and courage in the face of a hostile majority

91
Q

What is the augmentation principle?

A

Explains how minorities can change the majority because if the minority is doing something quite risky but shows commitment that the majority will pay more interest

92
Q

Why is flexibility importance in minority influence?

A

Negotiation rather than enforcement, as minorities are generally powerless and flexibility is more effective at changing opinions than rigidity of arguments.
Too much flexibility risks being seen as weak and inconsistent

93
Q

What are the strengths of minority influence?

A
  • Real value of research since Nemith, minority group opens the mind so people search for information consider more options and make better decisions, this allows researchers to understand the means and processes for social change.
  • Research evidence to show change in minority position involves deeper processing of ideas: Martin gave Participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured the support one group heard minority agree of the group heard majority agree then participants were exposed to conflicting ideas, participants were less willing to change their opinion if they listen to the minority rather than the majority, showing the power of the minority influence in terms of use being more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.
94
Q

What are the weaknesses of minority influence?

A

-Lack of realism such as in the colour of slides experiments similar to other studies as they lacked ecological validity.
Does not apply to real life situations which can be more complicated it takes a lot of time and it’s hard to measure

95
Q

What are the six steps for minority influence to show social change?

A
  • Drawing attention to the issue
  • consistency of position
  • deeper processing
  • the augmentation principle (wow deed, If they show they are willing to suffer then they’ll be taken more seriously)
  • the snowball effect (minority becomes the majority)
  • Social Cryptoamnesia (People no longer remember how it happened)
96
Q

What is this snowball effect?

A

Slowly the minority becomes the majority it gradually picks up momentum so eventually the majority will be converting the minority

97
Q

What is social crypto amnesia?

A

forgetting of the source of social change

98
Q

The strength of the role of social influence processes in social change?

A

Research evidence for normative influence-one investigated whether social influence processes lead to a reduction in consumption of energy by hanging messages on doors
Key message was that most residents were trying to reduce energy usage.
Control group had message not referring to other residents instead just to save energy.
The group that referred to other residents had shown a decrease in energy usage showing that conformity can lead to social change to normative social influence.

99
Q

What are the weaknesses of the role of social influence processes in social change?

A
  • nemeth argues the effect of minority influence I likely to be mostly indirect and delayed. As the effects may not be seen for some time it shows that its effects of fragile and role limited.
  • Could be that deeper processing is more involved in majority than minority, Moskovici Research may lack validity because the role of minority influence in bringing about social change is questioned.
  • Barriers to social change, social change can only happen if the minority influence is not associated with negative and extreme stereotypes which can be difficult to shift e.g. tree huggers

psychology (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions