social influence and social change Flashcards
minority influence
-attention
-consistency
-deeper processing
-augmentation principle
-snowball effect
-social cryptomnesia
- lessons from drawing attention- MI
-segregation in 1950s America
-civil rights marches drew attention to situation as provided social proof of the problem
- lessons from consistency- MI
-marches on a large scale
-even though minority of population, displayed consistency of message and intent
- lessons from deeper processing- MI
-activism meant many people who accepted the status quo began thinking deeply ab unjustness of it
- lessons from augmentation principle- MI
-‘freedom riders’ both white and black people who boarded buses to challenge separate seating
-many beaten
-personal risk augmented their message
- lessons from snowball effect- MI
-civil rights activists gradually got attention of US gov
-1964 Civil Rights Act passed
-change happens bit by bit but gathers more and more like snow
- lessons from social cryptomnesia- MI
social change came about but some people have no memory of events leading to that change
lessons from dissenters- conformity
-make social change more likely
-Asch’s research variation where one confederate always gave correct answers
-broke power of majority encourage others to dissent
-shows potential for social change
lessons from normative social influence (NSI)- conformity
-environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI
-rpovide info about what others doing (e.g. reducing litter w/ normative messages on bins- ‘bin it- others do’)
lessons from disobedient models- obedience
-make change more likely
-Milgram’s- disobedient models in variation where a confederate refused to give shocks rate of obedience in genuine p’s plummeted
lessons from gradual commitment- obedience
-gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’
-Zimbardo (2007)- once small instruction disobeyed becomes more difficulty to resist a bigger one.
-people ‘drift’ into new kind of behaviour
ao3 for NSI in social change- Nolan et al.
-Nolan et al. (2008) hung messages on front doors of houses. key message was most residents trying to reduce energy usage
-significant decrease in energy compare d to control group who sae messages to save energy with no reference to other’s behaviour
-shows conformity can lead to social change through operation of NSI
ao3 counterpoint to NSI in social change- Foxcroft et al. (2015)
-exposing people to social norms doesn’t always change behaviour
-Foxcroft et al. (2015) reviewed 70 studies of programmes using social norms to reduce alcohol intake. only a small effect on drinking quantity and no effect on frequency.
-shows NSI doesn’t always produce long-term social change
ao3- MI explains social change
-Nemeth (2009) minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking (broad, active info search)
-this thinking leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems
-shows minorities valuable as stimulate new ideas and open mind’s
ao3- deeper processing may apply to MI
-Mackie (1987) disagrees with view that MI causes individuals in majority to deeply think ab an issue
-MI creates deeper processing bc believe others think as we do. when majority thinks differently creates pressure to think ab their views
-so central part of MI has been challenged, casting doubt on its validity as explanation for social change.
