Social influence(paper 1) Flashcards
Conformity:A01
1.What is conformity and what are the three types of conformity?
A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.
1.compliance-individual changes public opinion for acceptance but privately disagreeing and not changing personal opinions/behaviours usually to gain approval and avoid disappointment eg, laughing at a joke you don’t find funny(short term)
2.identification-person conforms to attitudes because they value something about the group they change their public behaviour with the group(compliance) and begin accept behaviour adoptions as true(internalisation) and only when in the presence of the group eg, eg,school uniforms(short term)
3.internalisation-When an individual changes both their public and personal private opinions/behaviour by accepting a group’s views eg, religion(long term change)
Conformity A01:
What are the two explanations for conformity?
Two reasons for conformity is known as dual process model:
1.normative social influence:
-humans have a basic need for acceptance and approval to avoid rejection.This could be an evolutionary origin, survival more likely if belonged to social groups.
-hence to gain acceptance we conform to the behaviours/opinions of the group.
-This leads to compliance conformity as individuals conform to group publicly to be liked but privately disagreeing and not changing their personal behaviours/opinion
- eg, smoking and peer pressure
2.Informational social influence:
-humans basic need to feel confidence that behaviours/opinions are correct and right so we feel more in charge of our lives
-Hence in ambiguous situations lack of certainty can lead to evaluation of personal beliefs and behaviours against others and conforming to others as we believe them to be right and also to be experts.
-The type of conformity is internalisation as it results in both a private and public change of behaviour and opinion eg, religious conversion
Explanations of Conformity A03:
Evaluation
4 peel paragraphs for 16 marker and 3 for 16 marker with a stem
1.Advantage Research support for Normative social influence:(pro)
-one study found supporting NSI found that adolescents who were exposed to the simple message that majority of the peers their age did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking.Aligns with the idea that NSI, driven by the desire for acceptance and approval, can lead to changes in public behaviour/opinions (compliance and conformity). Additionally, this research increases the generalizability of NSI, demonstrating how peer influence—such as age-based peer pressure in the case of adolescents—can shape behavior in a wide range of contexts, including health decisions
2.A strength of (NSI) is its real-world applications, particularly in encouraging more responsible behaviour. For example, Research studied how social influence impacts energy conservation, such as using less gas and electricity. They found that people were most influenced by the energy-saving behaviors of their neighbors. This suggests that NSI plays a significant role in promoting energy conservation. Consequently, this finding could be applied in campaigns designed to encourage energy-saving habits by highlighting the positive behaviours of the majority, thus motivating others to follow suit.
3.Advantage Research support for Informational Social influence:
One study found that participants who were exposed to negative information about African Americans (which they believed reflected the views of the majority) later reported more negative beliefs about a Black individual. This further supports the idea of Informational Social Influence (ISI), demonstrating how we are easily influenced by others whom we perceive to be more knowledgeable about a particular issue. Such influence can lead to internalization, resulting in a change in both public and private views. Therefore, the research suggests that ISI is a powerful mechanism of social influence, capable of contributing to widespread societal shifts in attitudes and behaviour.
4.limitation of (ISI) is that it does not account for all types of tasks. ISI suggests people conform to others’ beliefs to gain accurate knowledge, only applies in situations where objective information is unavailable. For example, when deciding on factual matters, like the population of Bristol, people can easily check statistics rather than relying on others. However, for subjective judgments, such as whether Bristol is the most fun city in the UK, individuals may turn to others’ opinions because factual data is not applicable. Therefore, ISI is only relevant in certain situations, and its effectiveness depends on the type of task, meaning it cannot fully explain all instances of conformity.
Asch’s study 1956 original /Research:A01:
WHEN WAS STUDY CONDUCTED?
1.what was the aim?
2.What was the procedure?
3.What were the findings?
4.What was conclusion?
Asch’s study 1956
To investigate the extent to which social pressure
from a majority group could affect a person to
conform
123 American male undergraduates participated, with 5 confederates and 1 naïve participant in each group.
Participants compared 3 lines of different lengths and identified the one matching a standard line.
Each participant took part in 18 trials, 12 of which were “critical” where confederates deliberately gave wrong answers.
Average conformity rate: 33% on critical trials.
25% never conformed; 75% conformed at least once.
1 in 20 conformed on all critical trials.
Control condition: only 1% errors when confederates were correct.
Conformity occurred even with clear answers (Asch effect).
Participants conformed to avoid disapproval, despite knowing the group was wrong.The conformity shown was compliance, driven by normative social influence.
Variables affecting Asch’s study following original study A01:
1.What did Asch do after his original study?
2.What were the 3 variables he manipulated and explain the findings?
led several other variations of his original study to see which variable had the most significant effect on conformity shown by participants
1.Increasing group size-Group Size
Very little conformity with 1-2 confederates.
Conformity rates rose to about 30% with 3 confederates.
No significant increase in conformity with more than 3 confederates-so conformity increased with increasing group size until a point
2.Unanimity of the Majority-real participant given the support of a confederate(Social ally) who gave the right answers
When confederates unanimously gave wrong answers, conformity was 33%.
If one confederate gave the correct answer(breaking the unanimity)conformity dropped to 5.5%.
3.Increased Difficulty of Task
When the line differences were made smaller, conformity increased.
This suggests Informational Social Influence (seeking guidance when uncertain/ambiguous situations).
Study found that individuals with high self-efficacy were less likely to conform on difficult tasks than those with low self-efficacy.
Asch Research Evaluation A03:
1.Limitation-
not all participants conformed, even with unanimous incorrect answers from the majority. In two-thirds of trials, participants maintained their original, correct answer, indicating a tendency for independent behavior. This suggests that majority influence may not be as strong/influential as it appears as higher proportion of trials produced an independent response.
- Limitation -low temporal validity. The study took place in the 1950s, during a time of high conformity in USA due to societal pressures like McCarthyism. A later study replicated Asch’s experiment and found only one conforming response in 386 trials. This suggests that conformity levels can change over time, and Asch’s research may be a “child of its time” rather than a universal phenomenon.
3.Limitation -ethical issues
- participants were deceived into thinking the confederates were genuine.This violated informed consent and could have caused distress, particularly since participants were unaware of the study’s true purpose.The ethical costs should be weighed against the study’s benefits, which include highlighting people’s susceptibility to group conformity and identifying the variables that influence it.These ethical concerns undermine the study’s acceptability and its use in modern research.
4.Limitation-focus on only one culture reduces generalisability. Research shows that in individualist cultures, the average conformity rate is around 25%, while in collectivist cultures, it is higher at 37%. This suggests that collectivist cultures, which emphasize group dependence, are more likely to conform than individualist cultures that prioritize independence. As Asch’s study was conducted in an individualist culture, its findings may not apply universally, as conformity rates can vary across cultures.
Conformity to social roles: Zimbardo’s research A01:
WHEN WAS STUDY CONDUCTED?
1.What was the aim?
2.Describe the procedure?
3.What were the findings?
4.What is conclusion?
Zimbardo study:1971
Zimbardo set up a mock prison at Stanford University to test if guard brutality was due to sadistic personalities or situational factors (conformity to social roles).
procedure:
24 emotionally stable students were recruited and randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners.
Prisoners were arrested(increased realism arrested in their homes), strip-searched, deloused, and assigned numbers; guards wore uniforms and mirrored sunglasses to encourage deindividuation.
Prisoners followed 16 strict rules, enforced by guards in shifts.
findings:
Within two days, prisoners rebelled, but guards responded with harsh retaliation.
Guards conducted frequent headcounts and harshly punished prisoners for minor infractions.
One prisoner went on hunger strike, was force-fed, and placed in “the hole” as punishment.
Prisoners became subdued, anxious, and depressed; three were released early due to psychological distress.
The study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14 due to extreme behaviour.
conclusion:The study revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour with both guards and prisoners conforming to their assigned social roles.
Conformity to social roles: Zimbardo’s Research Evaluation A03:
1.Limitation- dispositional factors (personality) that may have influenced the guards’ behavior overlooked.Only a third of the guards behaved brutally, another third applied rules fairly, and the rest were supportive, offering prisoners cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggests that Zimbardo may have overemphasized the power of the situation, as individual personality traits likely played a role in behavior, despite situational pressures to conform to the guard role.
2.Limitation-major ethical issues.Although the study was approved by the ethics committee and did not deceive participants, it should have been stopped earlier due to the emotional distress of the prisoners. Zimbardo, in his role as superintendent, failed to protect participants from harm. Participants weren’t fully informed of the risks, and their right to withdraw wasn’t respected. The guards’ abusive behavior went unchecked, and long-term psychological harm was not addressed. This highlights the importance of ethical considerations in research.
3.Limitation-demand characteristics may have influenced the results, weakening the study’s internal validity. One analysis revealed that students, unfamiliar with the experiment, were able to predict the behavior of both guards and prisoners, correctly guessing its purpose. Additionally, Zimbardo briefed the guards to “control” the prisoners and make them feel “powerless.” This suggests that the guards’ behaviour may have been influenced by these cues rather than the situation itself, weakening internal validity of the study.
- limitation of Zimbardo’s prison experiment is that subsequent research contradicts its findings. For instance,a study which partially replicated the Stanford Prison Experiment discovered different results. They found that participants did not automatically conform to their assigned roles. Instead, the prisoners identified as a group and collectively challenged the authority of the guards, while the guards did not conform to their roles and were unwilling to impose authority. This research challenges Zimbardo’s conclusions, as it questions the extent to which situational factors alone determine behavior, suggesting that individuals do not always conform to assigned roles in all contexts.
Obedience: Milgrim’s Research A01:
WHEN WAS ORIGINAL STUDY CONDUCTED?
1.what was the aim?
2.What was the procedure?
3.What were the findings?
4.What was the conclusions?
Milgrim’s study 1963
Milgram aimed to investigate whether ordinary people would obey a legitimate authority figure, even when asked to harm another person (obedience to an unjust authority).
Procedure:Milgram recruited 40 male participants through a newspaper ad, offering $4.50 money for participation. The study took place at Yale University. Two confederates played the roles of the “experimenter” and the “learner.” Participants, always the “teacher,” were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the “learner” (a confederate) for incorrect answers. The “learner” pretended to be in pain and, at 300 volts, banged on the wall and then fell silent. If the “teacher” hesitated, the “experimenter” urged them to continue.
65% of participants administered the maximum shock (450 volts), which was marked as potentially lethal.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts. Only 12.5% stopped at that point.
that ordinary people are highly obedient to authority, even when asked to harm others.
This suggests that it is not just “evil” individuals who commit harmful acts, but regular people who obey orders, as seen in cases like the Abu Ghraib prison abuse.
Obedience: Milgram’s research Evaluation A03:
1.Limitation: presence of several ethical issues:Deception: Participants were misled about the study’s true purpose.Informed consent: Deception meant participants couldn’t give full informed consent.Right to withdraw: Though participants could leave, the experimenter’s prods made it difficult.Psychological harm: Some participants experienced distress, with 3 having seizures.These issues highlight the importance of ethical safeguards to protect participants’ well-being, meaning the study lacks integrity.
2.Limitation: lack of internal validity. It’s suggested that participants may have believed the shocks were fake, as one researcher found after listening to tapes of the participants. Those who thought the shocks were fake were more likely to disobey or give lower shocks. This suggests that the obedience found in Milgram’s study may not be genuine, as participants may not have been obeying authority but instead acting on the belief that no harm was being caused. Therefore, Milgram wasn’t truly measuring obedience as he claimed.
3.limitation- it initially only included male participants, which limited the generalisability of the findings to women and may have overstated gender differences in obedience. However, when the study was replicated with females, the obedience rates were the same. Additionally, a researcher found no gender differences in 8 out of 9 Milgram replications-gender doesn’t significantly affect obedience.This implies it lacks external validity as not representing all of population specifically women.
4.A limitation of Milgram’s research is low historical validity. However, through a more recent replication through a game show format found that contestants were still willing to administer (fake) electric shocks to the presenter, with 80% delivering the maximum voltage. The participants’ behavior and anxiety were almost identical to those in Milgram’s original study. This suggests that Milgram’s findings continue to apply today, indicating that the conclusions drawn from his study remain relevant in modern contexts.
Situational Variable affecting obedience-Milgrim’s Variations A01:
WHEN WAS VARIATION OF HIS STUDY CONDUCTED?
1.What is the aim?
2.What were the three variables he manipulated and what were results/findings?
Milgrim’s variation study 1974
Milgram original study found that 65% of participants shocked learners up to 450 volts. He later conducted variations of the study to identify factors influencing obedience.
Uniform: The experimenter wore a lab coat, symbolizing authority. When replaced by an ordinary person in casual clothes, obedience dropped to 20%, showing the power of uniform as a symbol of legitimate authority and cue to behave in obedient manner
Proximity: When the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. With instructions via phone, obedience fell further to 20.5%, highlighting how reduced proximity lowers obedience.
Location: Obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5% when the study was moved to a run-down building, suggesting that less prestigious locations reduce perceived authority and obedience.
Situational variable affecting obedience-Milgrim’s variations Evaluation A03:
1.Limitation:may lack internal validity. Some researchers argued that participants were more likely to recognize the procedure was fake due to the additional manipulations, such as the experimenter being replaced by someone in ordinary clothes. This could have led to demand characteristics, where participants acted in line with what they thought was expected. Therefore, it’s unclear whether the observed changes in obedience were due to the manipulated variables or demand characteristics. This reduces confidence in the findings, as it’s uncertain whether the results truly reflect genuine obedience.
2.Limitation:offers an ‘excuse’ for obedience, suggesting that situational factors, rather than personal responsibility, are to blame. Some critics argue that this view is offensive to Holocaust survivors, as it implies Nazis were merely following orders and were victims of situational influences. This perspective overlooks the role of discrimination, racism, and prejudice in the Holocaust, making it problematic and potentially dangerous.
3.Strength:strict control of variables. By systematically altering one variable at a time (e.g., uniform, location, proximity) and keeping others constant, Milgram was able to replicate the study with over 1000 participants. This control increases confidence that changes in obedience were caused by specific variables, establishing clear cause-and-effect relationships.
4.Strength:support for study.For example, a study investigated the impact of authority on obedience by having a confederate dressed in different outfits (jacket/tie, milkman, or security guard) ask passers-by for a coin for the parking meter. Participants were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ compared to the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate. This supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniforms act as a powerful symbol
Explanations of obedience:A01
what are the three explanations of obedience and describe them?
1.Agentic State
In the autonomous state, individuals make choices and accept responsibility. In the agentic state, they act on behalf of others, not taking responsibility and thus relinquishing autonomy and moral responsibility to an authority figure.The agentic shift happens when authority figures are seen as legitimate and take responsibility for actions.
2.Agentic State: Binding Factors
People may remain in the agentic state due to binding factors, which tie them to the situation. These factors include social norms and the fear of breaking commitment to authority, which makes it hard to stop obeying despite wanting to.
3.Legitimacy of Authority
People obey those with legitimate authority, based on their position in a hierarchy. Authority is reinforced by symbols (e.g., uniforms). Obedience can be driven by fear, trust, or a sense of duty to the authority figure. Legitimacy of authority is often internalized from childhood, as we learn to follow authority figures like parents, teachers, and adults in general.
Explanations of Obedience: Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority
Evaluation (AO3):
1.Limitation specifically with agentic state explanation is that people do not always quickly switch between autonomous and agentic states. Milgram suggested this rapid shift, but research on German doctors in Auschwitz found that they gradually transitioned from caring professionals to individuals capable of carrying out cruel experiments on prisoners.This suggests that obedience is not driven by a rapid shift in responsibility onto someone else, but by prolonged involvement in harmful actions, which gradually alters individuals’ thoughts and behaviour.
2.Strength in legitimacy of authority explanation is its ability to explain real-life war crimes, such as the Mai Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. Soldiers, recognizing the authority of their military hierarchy, obeyed orders to commit atrocities, assuming they were legal. This demonstrates how the perception of legitimate authority can lead to destructive behavior. The LoA explanation has practical applications, helping us understand how such crimes can be prevented by educating people to critically evaluate authority and resist unethical orders.
3.A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is its real-world support. A study on aviation accidents between (1978-1990) found that second officers rarely challenged captains, even when they made incorrect decisions. This shows how authority figures, like captains, are obeyed due to their perceived legitimacy in the hierarchy. The study not only highlights the impact of legitimate authority in aviation but also has broader implications for understanding obedience in high-stakes environments like healthcare or law enforcement.
4.One limitation of explanations of obedience is that the agentic state does not fully account for obedient behavior. While Milgram’s study suggests that people obey authority figures due to the agentic state, it could be argued that participants’ obedience was driven by sadistic and cruel personalities rather than the influence of authority. This view is supported by Zimbardo’s prison experiment, where guards exhibited cruelty even without a clear authority figure instructing them. Therefore, the agentic state fails to explain instances of cruelty when no obvious authority is present.
Authoritarian personality-explanations of obedience:Adorno et.al 1950:
A01:
WHEN WAS STUDY CONDUCTED?
1.what is authoritarian personality?
2.What are the personalities key traits?
3.Adorno’s explanation of origins?
4.Describe the process?
5.What were the findings?
Adorno et.al= 1950
The Authoritarian Personality is characterized by strict adherence to traditional values, obedience to authority, and a tendency to view the world in black-and-white terms.
Key traits include:
Strong respect for authority and submission to it.
Dislike for those seen as lower in social status.
Conventional views on issues like sex, race, and gender.
Belief in strong leaders to uphold traditional values.
Rigid, inflexible thinking with little tolerance for ambiguity.
Origins:Adorno suggested that authoritarian personalities develop from childhood experiences with authoritarian parenting (strict discipline, high expectations). These attitudes are internalised and carried into adulthood.
process:Adorno et al. (1950) Study:Adorno studied over 2000 middle-class white Americans using the F-scale (Fascism Scale) to measure authoritarian traits.
Findings:
People with high F-scale scores admired strong authority figures and disapproved of the “weak.”
They showed excessive respect for higher status individuals and held rigid, stereotypical views.
There was a strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
Adorno concluded that those with an authoritarian personality are especially obedient to authority.
Authoritarian personality-explanations of obedience:Adorno et.al 1950:
A03 evaluation:
1.Strength: Milgram and Elms research support the link between authoritarian personality and obedience. Milgram and Elms selected 20 obedient and 20 defiant participants from a previous study. Participants completed the F-scale (measuring authoritarianism) and were asked a series of follow-up questions.They found higher levels of authoritarianism among the obedient participants, which suggests that an authoritarian personality may lead to greater obedience. This finding aligns with the view that people with authoritarian traits are more likely to conform to authority, regardless of the moral implications.
2.Limitation: Differences Between Authoritarian and Obedient Participants.Authoritarian personality traits do not always lead to obedience. While Adorno et al. suggested that authoritarianism arises from strict parenting, Elms and Milgram, when inquiring about participants’ upbringing, found that many fully obedient individuals reported having good relationships with their parents. This indicates that not all obedient people possess authoritarian traits, challenging the notion that authoritarianism is the sole cause of obedience.
3.Limitation:Education May Determine Both Authoritarianism and Obedience.The link between authoritarianism and obedience is only a correlation, not a causal relationship. We cannot definitively say that an authoritarian personality causes obedience, as a third factor may be involved.
Research suggests that less-educated individuals tend to score higher on both authoritarianism and obedience. This raises the possibility that lower levels of education might contribute to both traits, making it difficult to conclude that an authoritarian personality directly causes obedience.
4.One limitation of the dispositional explanation of obedience is that situational explanations
may better explain obedience
* Milgram’s variation studies showed that the social context of the situation (proximity,
location, etc) was the main cause of differences in obedience levels, not personality.
* Therefore, Milgram suggests that the authoritarian personality alone cannot explain why
people obey or resist in different social situations=A.P explanation is reductionist and Milgram more holistic by showcasing a wide range of variables affecting obedience levels.
2 Explanations of resistance to social Influence:A01
What is resistance to social influence?
1.What are the two factors?
2.Explain the two factors?
1.social support , 2.locus of control
Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressures to conform to the
majority or obey authority and this is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.
1.) Social Support:
Conformity-Social support reduces conformity by breaking the unanimity of the majority. In Asch’s study, when an ally gave the correct answer, conformity levels dropped. The presence of an ally boosts confidence and helps individuals resist the majority.Obedience-Social support also reduces obedience. In Milgram’s variation, when a participant was joined by a disobedient ally, obedience dropped from 65% to 10%. The ally’s disobedience acts as a model, providing confidence to resist authority.
2) Locus of Control
- refers to whether individuals believe they control their outcomes.
Internal LOC individuals believe they control their fate (e.g., “I succeeded because I worked hard”), while external LOC individuals attribute outcomes to external factors (e.g., “I succeeded because I was lucky”).
Internal LOC individuals are more likely to resist conformity and obedience.They take responsibility for their actions, are more confident, and require less social approval. In contrast, external LOC individuals are more influenced by others due to their belief that external factors control their outcomes.
People differ in how they explain their successes and failures, and rather than being strictly internal or external, these beliefs exist on a continuum-there’s a spectrum and people can be anywhere in the continuum.
Resistance to Social Influence: Evaluation AO3
1.Research evidence supports the link between locus of control (LoC) and resistance to obedience. In a replication of Milgram’s study, it was found that 37% of individuals with an internal locus of control refused to continue to the highest shock level, showing greater independence, while only 23% of those with an external locus of control resisted. This demonstrates that internals are more resistant to obedience. These findings strengthen the validity of the locus of control explanation and increase our confidence in its ability to explain resistance to social influence.
2.Strength:Support May Not Have to Be Valid to Be Effective. In an Asch-type study, conformity decreased when there was one dissenting confederate who resisted the majority and gave the correct answer. Remarkably, conformity still dropped even though the dissenting confederate wore thick glasses, making it clear they couldn’t judge the answer correctly. This demonstrates the power of social support, as people only needed someone to support their initial idea, regardless of whether that support was correct or valid.
3.Limitation:People Are More External Than They Used to Be.Not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance. A study examining changes in locus of control in America found that while people became more independent, they also became more external. This contradicts the LOC explanation of obedience, as we would expect that as people became more independent, they would also become more internal, not external.This is problematic because it undermines the validity of the LOC explanation, as it suggests that factors other than independence may influence whether individuals become more internal or external.
4.Research supports the idea that locus of control can help explain resistance to social influence. Internals, or individuals with an internal locus of control, tend to have characteristics that enable them to resist obedience more effectively than externals. Studies have shown that individuals with a high internal locus of control are better able to resist coercion from others compared to those with an external locus of control. This suggests that having an internal locus of control is a significant factor in resisting social influence, as it allows individuals to feel more confident in making independent decisions and resisting pressure.
Research into minority influence:Moscovici et al. (1969)A01
WHEN WAS STUDY CONDUCTED?
what is minority influence?
1.What 3 key factors influence minority influence?
2.What is snowball effect?
3.Describe the procedure and findings of Moscovici’s study?
Moscovici et al. 1969
Minority influence is a form of social influence where a smaller group persuades the majority to adopt their beliefs, often leading to internalisation.
1.Consistency: When the minority consistently holds their position, it prompts the majority to question their own beliefs, creating doubt and potentially leading to attitude changes.
2.Commitment: Minorities who demonstrate commitment, often through risk or sacrifice, show their genuine belief in their position, making the majority take them more seriously.
3.Flexibility: A flexible minority, willing to compromise and engage in dialogue, is more persuasive than a rigid one, as it shows reasonableness and helps others feel their viewpoint is more acceptable.
The snowball effect refers to the gradual process by which a minority opinion grows in influence, eventually becoming the majority. At first, the minority has limited support, but as more people adopt their viewpoint, the minority gains credibility and momentum. This growing support causes others to follow, and the minority view eventually becomes the new norm, shifting societal attitudes.
Procedure: In this study, six participants (including 2 confederates and 4 naïve participants) viewed 36 blue slides that varied in intensity and had to judge whether each slide was blue or green. There were three conditions:
Consistent minority: The 2 confederates consistently said the slides were green.
Inconsistent minority: The 2 confederates said the slides were green on two-thirds of trials and blue on one-third.
Control group: No confederates, only 6 naïve participants.
findings:
Consistent minority condition: Minority (confederates) influenced participants to give the wrong answer (“green”) 8.42% of the time.
Inconsistent minority condition: Minority had little influence, with only 1.25% of participants following the incorrect answer.
Control group: No confederates giving wrong answers, participants made errors only 0.25% of the time.
Research into minority influence:Moscovici et al. (1969) Evaluation A03:
1.LimitationArtificial tasks: External validity low-the tasks involved (e.g. colour of slides) are artificial. Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life. In cases like jury decision making and political campaigning, the outcomes are more important. This means the findings of minority influence studies (e.g., Moscovici’s) lack external validity, and their lack of mundane realism limits their generalisability to real-life situations.
2.Limitation:Minority influence explanation overestimates the role of minorities in influencing beliefs and attitudes. It is argued that people are more likely to focus on and carefully process majority beliefs that differ from their own, rather than paying attention to minority viewpoints. Since the majority’s beliefs are more noticeable, individuals are generally more interested in why these beliefs differ from their own. As a result, the message from the minority is often less influential in changing opinions compared to the message supported by the majority.
3.A strength:dissenters encourage creative thinking and help people consider more options, leading to better decision-making. By challenging the majority, dissenters stimulate debate and allow individuals to express their true beliefs, even if their position is ultimately incorrect. This highlights the value of minority perspectives in promoting thought and discussion.
4.A limitation of minority influence is that majority influence remains more dominant in society. The minority is often unsuccessful in changing the majority’s opinion because people quickly become irritated by dissenting views, particularly when they persist. This irritation stems from a fear of disrupting group harmony, leading individuals to dismiss or belittle the minority’s perspective. As a result, the majority view continues, and opportunities for the majority to adopt minority viewpoints are lost. This demonstrates how majority influence tends to outweigh minority influence in shaping societal opinions.
Role of social influence processes in social change:A01
1.What is social change?
2.How does social change take place through minority influence?
3.Describe 4 stage process of conversion?
4.Reference the snowball effect
5.How does social change take place through majority influence?
Social Change refers to the process by which a society or section of society adopts a new belief or behavior, eventually becoming the accepted norm. While it is often linked to large-scale movements like the suffragettes, it can also apply to widespread behavioral shifts, such as healthier eating habits.
Minorities, despite lacking power, can lead to social change by organizing, educating, and gaining support for their cause. This process, known as conversion, involves a four-stage process:
1.Attention: The minority highlights an issue to the majority, grabbing attention (e.g., suffragettes using posters and hunger strikes).
2.Cognitive Conflict: The minority creates a conflict between the majority’s current beliefs and the alternative position, prompting people to consider the minority’s viewpoint.
3.Consistency: Consistent expression of their position by the minority makes them more credible and serious.
4.Augmentation Principle: The minority’s willingness to suffer for their beliefs, often facing mockery or punishment, strengthens their message.
use same definition of snowball effect from previous slides
Research shows that behavior is influenced by group norms (normative influence), as demonstrated in Asch’s conformity study. Environmental and health campaigns use this by highlighting what others are doing, such as “bin it - others do” or “most young people don’t smoke.” By emphasizing the majority’s behavior, these campaigns shift perceptions of social norms, encouraging changes in individual behavior.
also talk about what majority influence is for example if majority of individuals are doing something then more people follow it and explained by both nsi and isi because it is to avoid disapproval and also to fit in and avoid being incorrect and the idea social norms are correct or right.
Role of social influence processes in social change :Evaluation A03:
1.Limitation of social norms campaigns is the potential for a “boomerang effect,” where the message can backfire. For example, research found that while a campaign encouraging heavy energy users to reduce consumption was effective, it led those who already used less electricity to increase their usage. This suggests that promoting social norms may unintentionally encourage those already engaging in positive behavior to adopt less desirable behaviors.This in turn can harm the environment, as it may lead to an overall increase in resource consumption rather than the intended reduction.
2.A limitation of minority influence is that minorities are often seen as deviant, which hinders social change. The majority may avoid aligning with the minority to avoid being labeled as deviant themselves, preventing them from paying attention to the minority’s message. Thus, minorities face the challenge of not only avoiding deviance but also gaining acceptance for their position.This results in a hindrance to social progress, as the minority struggles to gain acceptance for their ideas.
3.Strength:Support for majority influence in social change -as there is research that supports social norm interventions when a social norms intervention campaign informed people the actual social norm was not drink-driving, such behaviour fell by 13.7% This finding supports the real life application of social norms interventions in social change because it shows that when people’s misperceptions about others’ behaviour is corrected, positive changes in behaviour can occur.Therefore, negative behaviours can be reduced, and there is a greater promotion of responsibility within society.
4.A limitation of the social norms approach to social change is that it is not always effective in creating social change. For example, a study tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns across 14 different college sites to reduce alcohol consumption among students. Despite receiving information about drinking norms, students did not perceive lower levels of alcohol use among their peers and did not report a reduction in their own alcohol consumption. This suggests that social norms interventions alone may not be sufficient to bring about meaningful social change across diverse groups or environments.
