Social influence P1 Flashcards
1
Q
conformity
A
a change in behaviour due to real or imagined group pressure
2
Q
types of conformity
A
compliance - shallowest
identification - mid
internalisation - deepest level
3
Q
compliance
A
shallowest level superficial short-term change change in public behaviour - none in private beliefs explained by normative social influence
4
Q
identification
A
explained by nsi & isi
Short term change
public behaviour & private beliefs change
changes when away from group
5
Q
internalisation
A
deepest level
long term change
change in public behaviour & private beliefs#
explained by Informative social influence
6
Q
explanations for conformity
A
informative social influence
normative social influence
7
Q
Informative social influence
A
want to be right & gain knowledge
conformity increases in difficult situations
avoid being wrong and want to act appropriately -> avoid standing out
e.g. an unconfident student copying a confident students answer when unsure
8
Q
Normative social influence
A
want to be accepted and fit in -> avoid standing out
because it’s socially rewarding and to avoid punishment like embarrassment
e.g. pretending to agree with an opinion to fit in when you disagree
9
Q
Limitation for normative social influence, it can’t predict conformity in every case
A
nAffiliators have a strong need to affiliate with people as they want to relate to others. Mcghee & Teevan 1967, found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others.
10
Q
Asch 1951 results
A
-measured number of times each ppt conformed to Majority view
ppt’s conformed 37% to incorrect answers on critical trials
74% conformed on at least 1 critical trial
26% never conformed
11
Q
Asch 1951 - line judgement
A
123 male college students in USA
thought taking part in a vision test
used line judgement task - real answer was obvious
one naïve ppt with 7-9 confederates who agreed answers in advance, naïve sat 2nd from last
each ppt did 18 trials, confederates would say the same answer on 12/18 ‘critical trials’
Aim = to see whether the ppt would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was clearly incorrect
A LAB study
independent groups
12
Q
Aschs variables
A
Task difficulty - increased difficulty by making lines more similar, conformity increased as it is unclear what the right answer is making it natural to look for others for guidance.
Unanimity - in one condition, a dissenter gave the correct answer and an incorrect answer in the other, disagreeing with the group, conformity decreased, when unanimity cracks non-conformity is more likely
Group size - varied numbers from 1-15, with 3 confederates to the wrong answer was 31.8% & the presence of more confederates made little, difference. suggesting that most ppl are sensitive to the views of others.
13
Q
Research support, Lucas 2006, strength
A
+ Research support, from other studies for the effects of task difficulty. Lucas 2006, asked their ppt’s to solve ‘easy & hard’ maths problems, ppt’s were given answers from 3 other students. The ppt’s conformed more when the problems were harder. This shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable which effects conformity.
14
Q
lucas 2006, limit
A
Lucas’s study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested, ppt’s with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence. This shows that at an individual level can influence conformity by interacting w situational variables, but asch didn’t research the roles of individual factors.
15
Q
Strength of Asch’s research
A
supports the normative social influence explanation. He interviewed ppt’s and some said that they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer & afraid of disapproval.
- > the NSI explanation suggests that ppl conform to fit in and to affiliate to avoid social embarassment
- > This research can be applied using NSI.
16
Q
Limit to asch, study has low ecological validity
A
Asch used a line judgement task, which is artificial to measure conformity.
- > judging line lengths is unusual and a task not done daily
- > This means that results can’t be generalised to real-life situations of conformity.
17
Q
Limit to Asch, use of biased sample
A
all ppt’s were male, american students all from the same sex. age group and occupation. As the sample only represents a small percentage of a population, this study lacks population validity and this suggests that the results can’t be generalised to a whole population.
18
Q
Limit to asch, didn’t fully adhere to BPS ethics
A
Ppt’s weren’t protected from psychological harm due to stress
ppt’s were also deceived as they were told it was a vision test -> lacks respect, even if deception was necessary to produce valid results. Therefore Asch’s research may be seen as unethical.
19
Q
Zimbardo 1973 procedure
A
research into conformity & social roles
aim - to investigate how readily ppl would conform to roles of prisoner & guard
basement of stanford university
22/75 male students selected from a volunteer sample, interviewed & those deemed ‘stable’ were used.
10 prisoners - wore smocks, flip flops, stocking on head and chain around the ankle
11 guards - wore khaki shirts & trousers, peaked caps, reflective sunglasses & carried a baton and whistle.
20
Q
Zimardo start of experiment
A
prisoners arrested at home
blind folded, taken to prison and finger-printed
they were stripped & issued with clothing, photographed and put into 1/3 cells.
Given numbers to call them by and had to call others by their numbers.
Zimbardo & co-researchers observed, audio & video recorded the behaviour
each ppt was interviewed during and most after
21
Q
Zimbardo findings
A
experiment was cancelled on day 6, due to the morality questioned by Christina Maslach
in 4 days, 4 prisoners were released with signs of emotional disturbance.
-environment had a huge effect that was instant
-prisoners became increasingly passive as guards interactions became more verbally hostile
-both groups were dehumanised & this supports situational explanation
22
Q
Zimbardo conclusions
A
participants conformed to social roles they were expected to play
23
Q
Strength of Zimbardo 1973
A
This experiment can be applied to the population as the extreme results are not long-term, zimbardo only caused short-term distress.
- > prisoners showing signs of stress were released but not immediately when symptoms were shown.
- > the results weren’t pernament & stress caused was short term and unexpected due to the study being unpredictable.
- > therefore this means that they can be applied to a population
24
Q
Limit of Zimbardo’s study, bias sample
A
- sample was young, white and middle class men -> sample is biased as it is unrepresentative of a whole population
- lacks female, older aged and different race participant’s -> findings can’t be applied as to those categories because of the difference.
- > therefore as a result this lowers generalisability.
25
Limit of Zimbardo, the methodology used
the methodology is questioned as the IV & DV aren't identifiable. It is more of an observational study than an experiment, as the IV & DV aren't and are uncontrolled, if the IV was manipulated we wouldn't be able to identify where the change of behaviour came from.
This means that the methodology was questioned.
26
Milgram 1963 sample and roles
research into obediance
40 male ppt's - volunteer sample, respond to newspaper advert
at yale university
ppt played role of teacher & student - actor was placed in a different room
experimenter was in the same room as teacher (ppt) acting as authority figure
27
Milgram 1963 procedure
1. teacher reads word pairs(test recall), student indicate choice by lights
2. Teacher told to give electric shock w every mistake, with each mistake voltage increases (not real)
3. Learner would scream, became louder, more dramatic and at 180 volts complained of weak heart, at 315 volts silent
Experimenter would prompt T to continue ''the experiment requires you to continue''
After: ppt's debriefed
28
Milgram aim 1963
to see if citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person
29
Milgram conclusion
all ppt's went to 300 volts
65% went up to 450 volts
showing that under the right circumstances that ppl will obey unjust orders
30
Milgram strength, Research support - Jeu de Mort
There is support from research on Jeu de mort 2010. Jeu de mort was a French documentary of ppt's in a game show where they were paid to give electric shocks. They found that 80% obeyed and did a maximum shock of up until 460 volts to a unconscious man. Therefore Milgram's study of obedience has supporting research which improves the validity.
31
Milgram strength, good external validity
Milgram has good external validity as it was conducted in a controlled, lab study which accurately reflected wider authority references in real-life. For example, In hoflings 1966 study, an unknown doctor called 22 nurses asking them to give an unknown drug that was twice it's dosage & not on the stock list for the day. Hofling found that 21/22 nurses obeyed. Therefore this means the findings are generalisable as they can be applied to real-life situations.
32
Milgram limit, low internal validity
this experiment has low internal validity as Holland 1968 has evidence that the experiment might not have temporal validity. Holland 1968 argued that they behaved in that way as they didn't believe in the experiment. Therefore this suggests that Milgram's study has low internal validity.
33
obedience
an individual follows a direct order, the order issued by a figure of authority with power to punish whom don't obey
34
Situational variables
features of the immediate social & physical environment which may influence a persons behaviour
35
proximity
the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving the order to
36
Variations of Milgram's 1963 base experiment
Proximity - T & L same room =40%, T had to force L on shock plate = 30%, experimenter called & gave instructions = 20%
Location - run down building, ppt found unusual =48%
Uniform - experimenter w lab coat left, ordinary dressed man entered = 20%
37
Bickman 1974
3 confederates dressed in different outfits: Milkman, Civilian & Guard.
field experiment
stood in street and asked passerbyers to do tasks: move from bus stop, pick up litter, give a dime for parking
Bickman found that passerbyers were more likely obey the Guard.
38
milgram variations eval, strength, Research support from Bickman 1974
In bickman 1974, 3 confederates dressed in different outfits, a milkman, guard and civilian, asked passerbyers to do different tasks. They found that ppl were 2 x as likely to obey the guard than the civilian. This shows support for the situational variables as it shows the powerful effect on obedience.
39
Milgram variation strength, Cross-cultural replications
Milgrams findings have been replicated in other cultures. Meeus & Raaijmakers 1986, studied obedience in the Dutch. Ppt's were ordered to say stressful things in a job interview to someone desperate and 90% obeyed. This suggests that Milgrams findings of obedience aren't limited to American Men.
40
Milgram variation, limits, danger of situational perspective.
Milgram's findings support situational explanations of obedience. This perspective is questioned, Mandel 1998 argued that it offers an alibi for evil behaviour, it's offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest nazi's were just following orders. This ignores dispositional variables and therefore it means that it is dangerous to only focus on situational variables and ignore dispositional factors.
41
Situational explanation
consists of agentic state, binding factors and autonomous state
42
Agency/agent
a person who acts in place of others
they are powerless
highly anxious when they realise the act is wrong
43
Agentic state
a mental state where a person believes they have no personal responsibility for behaviour as they are acting in place for an authority figure
44
Milgram & situational ex - agentic state
Milgram was interested by Adolf Eichmann 1962, in charge of Nazi death camps
only argument for behaviour was ''only obeying orders''
he proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn't take responsibility
45
Binding factors - situational experience
Aspects of the situation which allow the person to ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour
'reduces moral strain'
Milgram's ppt's said they wanted to quit but seemed unable to - he proposed strategies to minimise BF
like shifting responsibility to victim
46
Autonomous state - situational exp
when ppl have a sense of responsibility and behave accordingly to their own principles
the shift from autonomy to agency is 'agentic shift'
47
Autonomy
to be free/independant
48
Milgram 1974 autonomous state
he suggests that this is when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, they have greater power due to position in social hierarchy
49
strength of agentic state for situational exp = research support
Blass & Smith 2001 - showed a film of milgrams study to students
asked them to identify who was responsible for harm to the learner?
Students blamed the experimenter rather than ppt due to legitimacy of authority & expert authority.
This shows that the students recognised the legitimate authority as the cause of obedience and therefore supports the agentic state
50
limit for agentic state, it is a limited explanation.
The agentic state doesn't explain many of research findings.
For ex. it doesn't explain why some ppt's didn't obey, the agentic state doesn't explain the findings from Hoflings study. This explanation predicts that when the nurses shifted the responsibility to the doctor, they should've shown high anxiety but they didn't.
This suggests that the Agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience and therefore it is limited as an explanation.
51
Minority influence; Moscovici 1969
3 groups, grp 1 - 2 confederates & 6ppts
grp 2 confederates &6ppt's
grp 3 control - no confederates
grp 1 confeds = consistently said green when veiwing 36 blue slides & asked to state whether blue or green = ppts agreed w wrong on 8.42% of trials
grp 2 = confeds were inconsistent said blue 12x and green 24 x. -> agreement w wrong answer =1.25%
grp 3 = had to identify the colour of each slide, got colour wrong on 0.25% of trials
52
Moscovici 1969 findings
mi to be effective, the minority must be consistent with their views
inconsistent = less impact
53
RSTI SOCIAL SUPPORT RESISTING OBEDIANCE
pressures resisted if another person seen to disobey
in milgrams variation - rate of obediance 65% -> 10% when ppt joined with disobedient confederate
acts as model of dissent for ppt to copy - frees them to act according to own conscience. -> challenges LOA figure -> easier to disobey
obedience is reduced by one other dissenting partner
54
RSTI SS resisting conformity
pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other non-conformers present
dissent gives rise to more dissent - Maj is unanimous
enables others to follow own conscience
non-conformers act as models of independant behaviour
Asch's research showed that the dissenter doesn't have the to give the 'right' answer
pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming
55
Asch study in RSTI SS resisting conformity
provides social support as another person isn't following the Majority
confederates act as models of independant behaviour
56
RSTI SOCIAL SUPPORT
presence of ppl who resist pressures to conform
act as models
helps others do the same
57
resistance to social influence
the ability of ppl to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority/to obey authority
58
A strength of social support is the research support for the +ive effects of social support
Albrech 2006, evaluated teen fresh start
a programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 to resist pressure to smoke. A buddy was provided which acted as social support -> found those with 'buddy' less likely to smoke than control group w/o buddy.
-> This shows peer support can help young people resist Social influence
59
A strength for social support is research support for dissenting peers
Resisting obediance
Gamson 1982, ppt's asked to produce evidence used to help create a smear campaign by a oil company -> found higher levels of resistance than milgram
-> ppt's in groups & discussed answer
->29/33 groups rebelled against orders
->> This shows peer support through disobedience by undermining a legitimacy of authority figure
60
Minority influence
social influence where a minority of ppl persuade others to adopt their beliefs
effect depends on commitment, flexibility and consistency
leads to internalisation
minority can influence an individual person or groups
61
Consistency
if minority keeps the same beliefs overtime and between all individuals that form the minority, draws attention to minority view
ppl start to rethink own views
increases interest from others
Synchronic and Diachronic
62
Commitment
Minority influence is more powerful when minority demonstrates dedications to their positions, not acting out of self-interest
-helps gain attention through extreme activities
must create risk to demonstrate commitment
-'Augmentation principle'
63
flexibility
relentless consistency is counter productive and seen by the majority as unreasonable, more effective to accept possibility of compromise
nemeth 1986
is showing willingness to listen to others
64
Synchronic agreement
all members of a minority say the same thing
65
Diachronic agreement
all members of a minority saying the same thing for a long period of time
66
Augmentation principle
Min demonstrate commitment to views
engaging in extreme activities -> draws more attention
as risk shows a great commitment
Maj pay more attention -> consider beliefs
67
Nemeth 1936
suggested that consistency is not the only factor
it is unlikely to convert Maj groups
better to be adaptive and accept reasonable counterbalances
68
what type of conformity does Minority influence lead to?
Internalisation - long term change
69
A strength of Min Inf. is the research support for consistency & it's importance
Moscovici's study showed that a consistent minority opinion has a greater affect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent opinion
- > Wood 1994, meta analysis of 100 similar studies, found minorities who were consistent were most influential
- >> this suggests that consistency is key for the minority influence to be effective
70
A limit of Min Inf is the artificial task
Asch's line judgement
This research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change majority behaviour in real life.
For example, the in-jury decision making the outcomes are more important. This suggests that findings of minority influence lack external validity and are limited in the ability to explain social changes.
71
A Limit is the power of Min Inf. is questioned
the moscovici study figure of agreement w consistent minority influence was low at 8%. This suggests that Minority influence was rare and not a useful concept.
72
The legitimacy of authority - situational explanations
obey people further up a social heriachy, certain positions hold authourity over us e.g. teachers, parents, police officers
most societies follow a structured heriachy
73
How do we give legitimacy to authorities?
through social agreement
the power that authorities wield is legitimate because it is agreed by society
we accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly
74
what do people with legitimate authority have over public?
as the public hand control over to authority figures, we give up some independance to trust those figures of authourity
We learn to accept authority during childhood e.g. parents, teachers
Legitimate authority figures have the power to punish others.
75
what is destructive authority?
it is when leaders use legitimate powers for destructive purposes
some leaders like Hitler, Stalin use legitimate authority destructively, ordering people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways.
76
A strength of legitimate authority is that legitimacy can explain cultural differences.
Research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority
- > For example, 16% of Australian women obeyed in Kilham & Mann (1974) Variation of Milgram, 85% of German ppt's obeyed in Milgrams variation (Mantell 1971)
- >> this shows that authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting upbringing.
77
A limit of legitimate authourity as a situational explanation is legitmacy can't explain all obedience.
People may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of the hierarchal authority structure
- > for example, most of rank & jacobson's nurses were disobedient, as were some of Milgram's participants.
- > this suggests that innate tendencies towards disobedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority
78
Legitimacy of authority extra eval is real-world crims of obedience.
Research shows that some people disobey legitimate authority. e.g. rank and jacobson, the nurses disobeyed a doctor even in a hierarchy.
- > but soldiers at My Lai obeyed their commanding officer, maybe he had more power to punish than a doctor.
- >> therefore there is some evidence in real-world situations that respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience.
79
what is the authoritarian personality?
a dispositional explanation for obedience
suggests that high obedience is pathological
adorno 1950 believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder & tried to find causes in individuals personality
80
What behaviours do those with an authoritarian personality posess?
especially obedient to authority
Have an exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it
express contempt for people of inferior social status
tend to follow orders and view other groups as responsible for society's ills.
81
Where does the authoritarian personality originate from?
in childhood
through harsh parenting
extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe criticism
Conditional love - parents' love depends entirely on how their child behaves
82
How do the origins of the authoritarian personality display themselves?
Hostility is displace onto social inferiors
childhood experiences create resentment and hostility -> can't express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear punishment
-> feelings are displaced onto others who are weaker - ' scapegoating'
83
What is scapegoating?
when negative feelings are displace onto others who are seen as weaker
-a psychodynamic explanation
84
What was the procedure of adorno 1950?
```
study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle class white americans
use the potential for fascism scale: 'obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn', 'there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents'
-rated on a scale from 1-6, where 6= agree strongly
```
85
What were the findings of adornos 1950 study?
Authoritarians who scored high on the F-scale, identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous of the 'weak'
they were conscious of their own and others' status, showing excessive respect & deference to those of higher status
-had a cognitive style where there was no fuzziness between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
86
A strength of the authoritarian personality is the evidence that authoritarians are obedient.
Milgram 1966 interviewed 20 fully obedient ppt's from Milgram's original obedience studies. They scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient ppt's.
-> this suggests that obedient people may share many of the charachteristics of people with an authoritarian personality
87
A counterpoint to the strength of authoritarian personality
However, subscales of the F-scale showed that obedient ppt's had characteristics that were unusual for for authoritarians. For example they didn't experience high levels of punishment in childhood.
-> this suggests a complex link and means that authoritarianism is not a useful predictor of obedience.
88
A limit for the authoritarian personality is authoritarianism can't explain a whole country's behaviour.
Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and anti-Semantic behaviour, but they can't all have the same personality. It seems unlikely the majority of Germany's population had an Authoritarian personality. A more likely explanation is the Germans identified with the Nazi state.
-> therefore social identity theory may be a better explanation
89
What is the social identity theory?
the view that our behaviour and attitudes are strongly influenced by those of the groups we identify with
90
A limit for authoritarian personality is that the F-scale is politically biased.
Christie & Jahoda 1974 suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology.
But right wing and left wing authoritarianism e.g. Chinese Maoism, both insist on complete obedience to political authority.
-> therefore adornos theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn't explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism, therefore it is politically biased.
91
A social support explanation - for extra social support point.
Only 3% of Allen and Levine's 1971, participants resisted conformity when there was no supporter. But 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform.
However, only 36% resisted when the supporter clearly had poor eyesight and could not be relied on to judge the lines.
-> this shows the explanation is valid because we would expect less resistance when ppt's believed social support wasn't helpful.
92
What is the locus of control?
it is a an explanation for resistance to social influence
-rotter 1966 described external vs internal LOC
-Internals place control with themselves
-Externals place control outside themselves
it is a continuum, people differ in position on scale, high internals lie at one end and high externals lie at the other end, with low internals & low externals lie in the middle
93
What is an internal LOC?
- a person will place control with themselves
- internals believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves
- show greater resistance to social influence
94
What is an external LOC?
externals place control outside themselves
- believe things happen outside their control, if they fail an exam they will say that it is because they had difficult questions
- less resistance to social influence
95
How does LOC affect resistance to social influence?
- internals show greater resistance to social influence, more likely to resist conformity or to obey
- if someone takes personal responsibility for their actions, they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs
- people with high internal LOC are more confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence-traits that lead to greater resistance. Also show traits of leaders, have less need for social approval
96
A strength of locus of control is the evidence to support the role of LOC in resisting obedience.
Holland 1967, repeated the Milgram study and measured whether the participants were internals or externals.
37% of internals didn't continue to the highest shock level, they showed greater resistance. Only 23% of externals didn't continue.
-> therefore resistance partly related to LOC, increasing the validity of this explanation of obedience.
97
A strength of the LOC is not all research supports the role of LOC in resistance.
Twenge 2004
Analysed data from American Locus of control studies over 40 years from 1960-2002, showing that people have become more independent but also more external. This is surprising, if resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal.
-> Therefore LOC may not be a valid explanation of resistance to social influence.
98
An evaluation extra for LOC, the limited role of LOC.
A lot of studies show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence. However, Rotter 1982 pointed out that LOC only significantly influences behaviour in new situations. In familiar situations, our previous responses are always more important.
-> therefore, the validity of the LOC is limited because it can predict resistance in some situations but not in others
99
How can the process of minority influence be explained?
individuals think deeply about the minority position because it is new/unfamiliar
-Snowball effect, over time people become more converted, there is a switch from the minority to the majority
the more this happens the faster the rate of conversion
min-> maj -> social change occurs
100
What is the snowball effect?
over time more people become converted, there is a switch from the minority to the majority, the more often this happens the faster the rate of conversion
101
A strength of minority influence is the research showing role of deeper processing.
Martin 2013
gave ppt's a message supporting a particular viewpoint, and measuring attitudes. Then they heard an endorsement for the view from either a minority or a majority. Finally heard a conflicting view, attitudes measured again.
-> Participants were less willing to change their opinions to the new conflicting view if they had listened to a minority group than if they listened to a majority group.
-> this suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.
102
How do social influence and social change relate?
we have lessons from minority influence research (In 1950s america during the civil rights marches)
- also lessons from conformity research, due to asch's research and normative social influence
- also lessons from obedience research, milgram and zimbardo
103
What lessons have we learnt from minority influence in relation to social change?
drawing attention - civil rights marches drew attention to the segregation in US, especially southern states in schools & restaurants, provide social proof of problem
consistency - people took part in marches on a large scale, displayed consistency of message and intent
deeper processing - the activism -> people who accept status quo questioned the unjustness of it
augmentation principle - freedom riders, both black & white, boarded buses in the south to challenge separate seating, many were beaten and light on fire, showing a personal risk
snowball effect - civil rights activists e.g. Martin Luther King, got the attention of the US gov, in 1964 civil rights act was passed
social cryptomnesia
104
what is social cryptomnesia?
when social change occurs but some people have no memory of the events leading to that change
105
What were the lessons learnt from conformity research?
Dissenters make social change more likely - Asch, variation where one confederate always gave correct answers, breaking the power of the majority encouraging others to dissent -> demonstrates potential for social change
-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
106
What were the lessons from obedience research?
disobedient models make change more likely, milgram's research where disobedient models refused to give shocks -> rate of obedience in genuine ppt's decreased
-gradual commitment leads to 'drift', Zimbardo 2007, once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. ppl drift into a new kind of behaviour.
107
A strength of social change is support for normative influence.
Nolan 2008
hung messages on the front doors of houses. the key messages was most residents are trying to reduce energy usage. Significant decreases in energy use compared to control group who saw messages to save energy with no reference to other peoples behaviour.
-> this shows conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI
108
A counterpoint for NSI in social change
Exposing people to social norms does not always change their behaviour. Foxcroft 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.
-> this shows that NSI doesn't always produce long-term social change.
109
A strength for social change is that minority influence explains social change.
Nemeth 2009
says that minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking (broad and active thinking)
This thinking leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems.
-> this shows that minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open people's minds.
110
A limit for social change is deeper processing may apply to majority influence.
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.
-> therefore a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change.
