Social Influences

Question 1

What are the three types of conformity?

Answer 1

Compliance, Internalisation and identification

Question 2

Define Compliance

Answer 2

A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it

Question 3

Define identification

Answer 3

A moderate type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we want to be associated with the group as we value them in some way, even though we don’t necessarily agree with everything they believe

Question 4

Define Internalisation

Answer 4

A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because the content of the attitude/behaviour proposed is consistent with our own value system

Question 5

Define the two explanations for obedience

Answer 5

Normative Social Influence - people conform because they want to be accepted. Driven by emotional factor rather than cognitive. Innate for us as social creatures to fear rejection. More likely to happen in a situation where an individual believes they are under surveillance by the group.

Informational Social Influence - People conform because they want to be right. It’s a cognitive process. Most likely to happen in ambiguous situations or where the others are experts. Change behaviour to conform with someone they deem to be right.

Question 6

What is conformity?

Answer 6

A type of social influence where a person changes their attitude or behaviour in response to group pressure.

Question 7

What are nAffiliators?

Answer 7

nAffiliators are people who have a greater need for ‘affiliation’ which makes them more susceptible to NSI as they have care more about being liked by the group

Question 8

1 Strength of NSI

Answer 8

Research support:
Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found adolescents exposed to message that the majority of their peers didn’t smoke were less likely to take up smoking.
In Asch’s research, participants reported conforming as they felt self-conscious and were afraid of disapproval from the group. When participants wrote their answers, conformity fell to 12.5%.

Question 9

1 Strength of ISI

Answer 9

Research support:
Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical questions that were easy or more difficult. Was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult. People conform in ambiguous situations as predicted by ISI

Question 10

1 Limitation of ISI and NSI

Answer 10

Do not always work independently. It’s assumed NSI and ISI are 2 seperate processes but more often both processes are involved. In Asch’s study they may have conformed to the incorrect majority because they wanted to be accepted (NSI) or because the majority cast doubt on their ability to be correct (ISI). Isn’t always possible to be sure which type of conformity is at work.

Question 11

2 Limitations of NSI

Answer 11

Individual differences - nAffiliators have a greater need for affiliation and so are more likely to be affected.

May not always be detected - Some individuals do not recognise the behaviour of others as a causal factor in the change of their own behaviour. Nolan et al. (2008) investigated whether people detected the influence of social norms on their own energy conservation behaviour. They believed the behaviour of their neighbours had the least impact on their behaviour when results showed it had the strongest impact.

Question 12

State the years Asch conducted his conformity studies.

Answer 12

1951 and 1955

Question 13

Describe the procedure of Asch’s baseline study

Answer 13

123 male US undergraduates were placed in groups of 9 participants. Only one naïve participant present in the group; the rest were confederates. The participants were shown 3 lines that differed in length and asked to say which was the same length as the ‘standard’ line. Confederates deliberately instructed to give wrong answers

Question 14

Results and conclusions of Asch’s baseline study

Answer 14

When confederates gave same wrong answer, mean conformity rate = 36.8%
Naïve participants agreed with wrong answer on a third of the 12 trials
People will conform to a majority even when the majority is clearly incorrect.

Question 15

What is a dissenting confederate

Answer 15

A colleague of the researcher who is aware of the aim of the study and who goes against the group by giving a correct or different wrong answer.

Question 16

State the three variables which affect conformity

Answer 16

Group, Unanimity and Task difficulty.

Question 17

Outline the procedure and effect of unanimity on conformity

Answer 17

Added a dissenting confederate to the group. Conformity reduced by a quarter when there was a dissenting confederate giving the right answer

Question 18

Outline the procedure and effect of group size on conformity

Answer 18

Asch varied the number of confederates giving the answer from 1-15 and found a curvilinear relationship. Conformity with 3 confederates reached 31.8% and adding any more had no effect and conformity levelled off.

Question 19

Outline the procedure and effect of task difficulty on conformity

Answer 19

Asch added some more difficult line judgement tasks in which the comparison line and standard line were less obviously different. Conformity increased when line judgement more difficult.

Question 20

Strength and counter of Asch’s research

Answer 20

Research methodology. Controlled lab study. Provides objective, measurable and quantifiable data. High internal validity as used a clear IV (majority of opinion) and a clear DV (% of participants conforming) Can be easily replicated. Smith et al (2006) replicated the study and produced similar results. COUNTER - Low ecological validity. Does not reflect conformity in everyday life.

Question 21

3 Limitations of Asch’s research

Answer 21

Lack’s temporal validity:
Experiment took place in 1950s America in a period of McCarthyism which was strongly anti-communist and in which people were scared to go against the majority. Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated the study in the UK and only one person conformed out of 396 trials.

Ethical issues: Deception. Fake participants and fake aims (told it was a test of eye-sight). COUNTER - Fully debriefed and interviewed after the study.

Unrepresentative sample: Males (beta bias) from the US, an individualist culture (culture bias). May not accurately represent conformity rates in other countries. Smith et al (2006) analysed Asch type studies across different cultures. Found conformity higher among collectivist cultures across Africa and Asia. This could be because in collectivist cultures the social group is more important than the individual.

Question 22

Define social roles

Answer 22

The behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a given social position

Question 23

Outline what is meant by conformity to social roles

Answer 23

When an individual adopts a certain behaviour and belief due to the expectations that arise out of the role they play in society and the social situation but stop when they are out of that situation

Question 24

What key study investigated conformity to social roles and what question did they want to answer?

Answer 24

Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment (1973)
“Do prison guards behave brutally because they have sadistic personalities or is it the situation that creates this behaviour”

Question 25

Sample and procedure of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 25

24 male undergrad student volunteers.
All participants were psychological and physically screened to ensure they were fit to partake in the experiment. Participants were randomly assigned either the role of ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’.
‘Prisoners’ were arrested at home and were given uniform and assigned ID numbers. “Guards’ were given uniform, mirrored glasses and wooden clubs and told they had complete power over prisoners

Question 26

How did guards show conformity to their roles

Answer 26

Guards abused and harassed prisoners – frequent headcounts in middle of night, forcing prisoners to clean toilets with their bare hands, punishing for smallest misdemeanour

Question 27

How did prisoners show conformity to their roles?

Answer 27

Prisoners wholly accepted the harsh treatment and became passive and subdued – five participants had to be withdrawn early for mental distress

Question 28

After how many days was the prison experiment stopped v how long it was meant to last.

Answer 28

Stopped after 6 days instead of 14 as the behaviour of the guards became a threat t the prisoners psychological and physical health.

Question 29

Conclusions of the Zimbardo study

Answer 29

Demonstrates the power of social roles of people’s behaviour = both the prisoners and guards conformed to roles eve when it went against moral principles.

Question 30

2 Strengths of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 30

High Internal validity: High control over variables. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to their roles to try and rule out personality differences. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently but in those roles only by chance, their behaviour must have been due to the pressures of the situation.

Real life application: Used to explain events such as the military prisons in Iraq notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPI) Zimbardo believed the guards were victims of situational factors. These factors included a lack of training, boredom and no accountability to higher authority. These factors were also present in the military prisons.
If we are aware of these factors and aware that it can lead to abuse, we can try and prevent this happening in the future

Question 31

2 Limitations of Zimbardo’s Study and 2 counters

Answer 31

Demand Characteristics - Participants may have been guessing how the experimenter wanted them to act rather than conforming to their social roles. Some details of the procedure presented to a sample of students who had never heard of the study. The majority guessed correctly that the aim was to show ordinary people assigned to the role of guard and prisoner would act like real prisoner and guards. COUNTER - Zimbardo pointed to evidence that the situation was very real to the participants. 90% prisoner conversations about prisoner life. Prisoner 416 expressed the view that the prison was real but run by psychologists rather than the government.

Ethical issues - Participants experienced severe emotional distress, breaching protection from psychological harm. Also, Zimbardo played a dual role as a researcher but also prisoner superintendent. One student spoke to Zimbardo in his role of superintendent wanting to leave the study and he responded as a superintendent rather than a researcher with a duty of care to his participants.

Question 32

Define obedience

Answer 32

A type of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from a perceived authoritative figure

Question 33

Name the study which investigated obedience and the sample

Answer 33

Milgram (1963) - 40 male volunteers

Question 34

Describe the procedure of Milgram’s study

Answer 34

Participants told that the study was about how punishment affects learning. Two confederates were present - one in the role of experimenter and one rigged to be the learner. Naïve participant believed they were randomly assigned learner and teacher but they were always assigned teacher who tested the learner on their ability to learn word pairs. If the “learner” got the answer wrong, they were issued increasingly strong electric shocks by the teacher. Confederate was instructed to give deliberately wrong answers. Shocks ranged from 15-450 volts.

Question 35

Describe the results and conclusions of Milgram’s study

Answer 35

• All participants went to 300 volts
• 65% continued to maximum level of 450 volts
  People are willing to obey orders from an authority figure even if it goes against their moral principles

Question 36

2 Strengths of Milgram’s study

Answer 36

Temporal validity:
Burger (2009) replicated Milgram’s study and found almost identical results 46 years later

Supporting replication:
French reality TV show “Game of Death”. Participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show. They were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants (actors). The findings were consistent with Milgram’s. 80% participants delivered the maximum shock of 460V

Question 37

3 Limitations of Milgram’s study

Answer 37

Lacks internal validity:
Demand characteristics. One of Milgram’s research assistants divided the participants into “doubters” - those who believed the electric shocks were fake, and “believers” who believed they were real. Found “believers” less likely to obey. COUNTER - A similar study was conducted where real electric shocks given to a puppy. Despite the real shocks 54% male and 100% female participants delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. Suggests effects in Milgram’s study were genuine as people behaved in the same way with real shocks.
Ethical issues:
Deception - Led participants to believe the allocation of learner and teacher was random. Also led to believe the electric shocks they were issuing were real. Protection from harm - suffered from stress and anxiety as they thought they were issuing potentially fatal shocks to a man with a heart condition. COUNTER - Debriefed participants reassuring them their behaviour was normal and made aware of true aims of the study. Sent follow-up questionnaire and 84% said they were glad to have participated.
Beta and culture bias - Only males from the individualist US.

Question 38

What are situational variables?

Answer 38

External factors which influence levels of obedience

Question 39

State the three situational variables Milgram implemented in his obedience study variations

Answer 39

Proximity, location, Uniform

Question 40

Describe proximity variations and effect

Answer 40

• Teacher and learner in the same room - obedience dropped to 40%
• Teacher holding learners hand on shock plate - obedience dropped to 30%
• Experimenter giving orders over the phone - obedience dropped to 20.5%

Question 41

Describe location variation and effect

Answer 41

When held in a run down office rather than the prestigious Yale, obedience dropped to 47.5%

Question 42

Describe uniform variation and effect

Answer 42

The experimenter was replaced midway through the experiment with an ordinary member of public dressed in everyday clothes rather than an experimenter in a lab coat - obedience dropped to 20%

Question 43

Outline three conditions in which obedience would be maximised

Answer 43

1. The person giving orders is wearing a uniform
2. The person giving orders is within a close proximity
3. The location where the orders are being given is prestigious

Question 44

2 strengths of situational variables and a counter

Answer 44

Research support for the power of uniform:
Convey power and authority. Bushman (1988) - female researcher dressed in either police style uniform, as a business executive or as a beggar. She stopped people in the street and told them to give to change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter. When she was in the uniform 72% of the people obeyed, whereas obedience rates were much lower when she was dressed as a business executive (48%) or as a beggar (52%). When interviewed after people
claimed they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority.
Cross-culture replication
Meeus and Raajimakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. They also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity – when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased. COUNTER - This replication and other have taken place in Western developed societies which are not culturally dissimilar from the USA so it would be premature to conclude that his findings apply to all people across cultures.

Question 45

2 Limitations of situational variables

Answer 45

Lacks internal validity :
Extra manipulation makes it more likely the participants would work out the aim. For example, Milgram recognised when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, the situation was so contrived the participants may have worked out the aim. It is thus unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience, or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly therefore responding to demand characteristics.
Offers an “obedience alibi”:
Mandel (1988) argues that situational variables offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for engaging in evil behaviour – in his view it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control. It does not consider intrinsic or extrinsic factors which could be at play which resulted in the evil behaviours during the Holocaust

Question 46

State the two social-psychological explanations for obedience

Answer 46

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority.

Question 47

Define legitimacy of authority

Answer 47

A person who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation (condition needed to shift into agentic state)

Question 48

Define agentic state

Answer 48

When a person perceives themselves as an agent carrying out another persons wishes and thus no longer feels responsible for their behaviour.

Question 49

What is an agentic shift?

Answer 49

Most of the time we are in an autonomous state where we are free to behave according to our own principles. However, in the presence of a perceived authority figure, they shift from being autonomous to taking on the agentic state.

Question 50

What are binding factors?

Answer 50

Aspects of the situation that bind us to the task and help us to block out the moral strain we are experiencing

Question 51

Why do we obey legitimate authority?

Answer 51

Learn to accept from an early age and brought up to understand that some of these figures have the power to punish us. As a result, we are willing to give up some of our independence and trust people in these positions to use their authority appropriately.

Question 52

2 strengths of social-psychological explanations and counter

Answer 52

Research support:
Blass and Schmitt (2001) Showed a film of Milgram’s study and students (the participants) blamed the experimenter for harm caused to the learner. They argued that obedience was due to the naïve participants perceiving the experimenter as an legitimate authoritative figure. They also suggested that the naïve participant was acting as an ‘agent’ on behalf of the experimenter, demonstrating how their perceived authority led them to shift from an autonomous to an agentic state.
Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter “who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed?”. When the experimenter replied “I’m responsible”, the participants often went through without further objections.
Real-life application:
Can be used to explain how obedience can lead to real life war crimes. For example, the My Lai Massacre in 1968. Can be explained in terms of the power hierarchy of the US army. Only one soldeir faced charges and when he was found guilty, his defence was that he was “following orders”. COUNTER - Obedience alibi, used as the basis for justifying harm to others.

Question 53

2 Limitations of social-psychological explanations for obedience

Answer 53

Expression of cruel impulses:
Milgram did detect signs of cruelty among his participants who had used the situation to express their sadistic impulses. In Zimbardo’s prison experiment guards inflicted increasing cruelty on prisoners without an authority figure instructing them to do so. Social-psychological factors perhaps not the cause of behaviour but individual characteristics .
Obedience alibi:
Can serve as the basis for justifying the harm of others. People may engage in unquestioning obedience due to legitimacy of authority or the agentic state provides an excuse for evil acts.

Question 54

Outline the dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 54

The perception of obedience as caused by internal characteristics of individuals

Question 55

Define authoritarian personality

Answer 55

A type of personality which predisposes an individual to obedience

Question 56

Describe the origins of the authoritarian personality.

Answer 56

Forms during childhood and stems from strict disciplinarian parenting – experienced conditional love, had impossibly high standards placed upon them, expectation to be completely loyal · These experiences create hostility and despair in the child, who cannot express these feelings to their parents (through fear of punishment) – instead, these emotions are displaced onto the ‘weak’ (known as ‘scapegoating’)

Question 57

State 4 likely traits of someone with an authoritarian personality

Answer 57

Respect and obedience to authority
Dismissive to those they deem inferior
Distinct cognitive style (‘Black and white’ thinking)
Need strong leaders to promote traditional values (love of family, religion and country)

Question 58

Who developed the F-scale and what is it?

Answer 58

Adorno et al (1950)
Questionnaire assessing 9 personality dimensions linked to the authoritarian personality.

Question 59

1 Strength and counter of dispositional explanations of obedience

Answer 59

Elms and Milgram (1966)
‘Obedient’ and ‘ disobedient’ participants from Milgram’s original shock experiment were issued with F-scale · Higher levels of authoritarianism were found amongst ‘obedient’ participants. COUNTER - Correlational finding. Impossible to draw the conclusion that it was their authoritarian personality that causes obedience as could be other factors involved.

Question 60

3 limitations of dispositional explanations and a counter

Answer 60

Political bias:
Measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology. Doesn’t take into account possible left-wing authoritarian when both left and right wing ideologies emphasise the importance of complete obedience to legitimate authority. COUNTER - Perhaps they are correct to link right-wing ideology with authoritarian personality. Begue (2014) replicated Milgram’s study and found those who defined themselves as left-wing less likely to obey
Flawed methodology:
Questionnaire. Every item worded in the same direction so is possible to get a high score by ticking the same line of boxes. This can lead to acquiesce bias. Therefore, those who agree with items on the F-scale are not necessarily authoritarian but “acquiescers”.
Contradictory evidence:
Elms and Milgram asked their participants about their upbringing. Many of the fully obedient participants reported having a good relationship with their parents, rather than having grown up in the overly strict environment associated with the authoritarian personality.

Question 61

What are 2 explanations for resistance to social influence

Answer 61

Social support, Internal locus of control

Question 62

What is Locus of Control?

Answer 62

The extent to which people believe they have control over their own lives

Question 63

What is social support?

Answer 63

The presence of people who resist pressure to conform or obey can help others do the same.

Question 64

Internal vs External LOC

Answer 64

The belief that we are responsible for what happens in our lives vs the belief that what happens in our life in outside our control

Question 65

How does LOC influence resistance to social influence?

Answer 65

Having a High LOC increases one’s ability to resist social pressure to obey/conform. This is because they are more likely to be:
Self-confident and not require the approval of the group
Information seekers and rely less on the opinion of others, making them less likely to go against others.

Question 66

Resistance to conformity evidence (social support)

Answer 66

In Asch’s study, the presence of a dissenting confederate decreased conformity from 33% to 5.5%

Question 67

Resistance to obedience evidence (social support)

Answer 67

In Milgram’s study, seeing a confederate disobey orders reduced obedience from 65% to 10%

Question 68

2 strengths for social support

Answer 68

Research support for conformity:
Rees and Wallace (2015) found that individuals with a majority of friends who drank alcohol were significantly more likely to have engaged in drunkenness and binge drinking over the previous
12 months. They also found individuals were able to resist pressures to drink alcohol when they had a friend or two who also resisted.

Research support for obedience:
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had internal or external locus of control. He found that people who were classified as ‘internals’ were more likely to disobey compared to people classified as ‘externals.’ This demonstrates that people with an internal LOC are more resistant to authority.

Question 69

2 Limitations of LOC

Answer 69

Contradictory evidence:
Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies across 40 years and found that over time, people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external. If resistance was linked to internal locus of control, we would expect people to have become more internal as resistance has increased. Challenges the link between LOC and resistance.

Social support will only help with resistance if the source seems credible:
Allen and Levine (1971) - In an Asch-type task, when the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight, 64% of participants resisted conformity and when there was no social support only 3% resisted · However, when the dissenter had visibly poor eyesight (wearing thick glasses) the resistance was only. Resistance almost halved when the dissenter displayed visible challenges in their ability to complete the tasks which suggests that social support will only help with resistance if the source seems credible/reliable

Question 70

1 strength for LOC

Answer 70

Research support:
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were externals or internals. Found those classified as internals more likely to disobey. Supports the idea that those with LOC are more resistant to authority.

Question 71

What is minority influence?

Answer 71

A form of social influence where members of the majority group change their beliefs or behaviours as a result of their exposure to a persuasive minority

Question 72

Name the 3 factors that enhance the influence of the minority

Answer 72

Commitment, Flexibility and Consistency

Question 73

Define commitment

Answer 73

The degree to which members of a minority are dedicated to a particular cause or activity – the greater the commitment, the greater the influence

Question 74

What is the augmentation principle?

Answer 74

The riskier the action, the more commitment this demonstrates

Question 75

Define flexibility

Answer 75

Minority influence is effective when they show a willingness to compromise while expressing a position.

Question 76

What is the snowball effect?

Answer 76

The more people who ‘convert’ to the minority view the faster the rate of conversion

Question 77

Define consistency and name the two types

Answer 77

Minority influence is effective when the minority keeps the same beliefs.

Synchronic and diachronic

Question 78

Outline the two types of consistency

Answer 78

Synchronic - consistency between people in the minority.
Diachronic - consistency over time

Question 79

Name and outline the study that shows support for consistency influencing the majority

Answer 79

Moscovici et al. (1969)
172 female, American participants were tested to ensure that they were not colour blind. In groups of 6 (2 were confederates) participants were asked to state the colour of 36 slides – all of the slides were different shades of blue. In condition A – confederates were consistent and called the slides green on all trials. In condition B – the confederates were inconsistent and called the slides green 24 times and blue 12 times
When they were in a group where confederates consistently gave wrong answer (called slides green) participants answered ‘green’ in 8.42% of trials compared to 1.25% of trials in inconsistent group. In the control group, only 0.25% reported any green slides.

Question 80

2 Strengths of minority influence and one counter

Answer 80

Research support for consistency:
Moscovici et al (1969). Also Wood et al (1987) carried out a meta-analysis of 100 similar studies and found minorities who were seen as consistent were the most influential. COUNTER - Moscovici lacks mundane realism and thus ecological validity as it was an articial task.

Research support for flexibility:
Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) created a simulated jury who had to discuss amount of compensation to be paid to a victim of an accident. When a confederate put forward an alternative point of view and refused to change, they had no effect on other members. A confederate who compromised did exert an influence on the rest of the group.

Question 81

2 Limitations of minority influence and one counter

Answer 81

Only leads to superficial acceptance. Surface level explanation. Nemeth (2010) claims it is still difficult to convince people of the value of dissent. People accept the principle only on the surface (they appear tolerant), but quickly become irritated by a dissenting view that persists. They may also fear creating a lack of harmony within the group by welcoming dissent or be made to fear repercussions, such as being ridiculed by being associated with a ‘deviant’ point of view. COUNTER - Evidence has suggested that minority influence actually leads to internalisation. In a variation of Moscovici’s study, participants allowed to write answers down so responses were private but they still found agreement with the minority to be greater. Appears that the majority were convinced by the minority and changed their views.

Limited real-world application:
Research studies make a clear distinction between a majority and minority but in real life it is more complicated than this. There is more involved in the difference between a minority and a majority than just numbers. For example, majorities usually have a lot more power and status than minorities. Minorities are more committed to their causes in real life as they often face a very hostile opposition. The controlled conditions in which research investigating majority and minority influence are based on do not accurately encompass the complex circumstances in which social influence occurs in everyday life.

Question 82

Outline social change

Answer 82

Occurs when a society or section of society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm

Question 83

List the 6 stages in the conversion process

Answer 83

• Drawing attention to issue
• Cognitive conflict
• Consistency
• Commitment
• The snowball effect
• Social cryptomnesia

Question 84

What is conversion?

Answer 84

When an individual who is exposed to a persuasive argument under certain conditions changes their view to match those of the minority – a prerequisite for minority influence leading to social change

Question 85

What is social cryptomnesia?

Answer 85

When people have a memory that social change has occurred but do not remember how it happened

Question 86

Explain gradual commitment

Answer 86

Once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one - people drift into a new kind of behaviour.

Question 87

Explain social norms intervention

Answer 87

An attempt to correct misperceptions of the normative behaviour of peers in order to change the risky behaviour of a target population

Question 88

What are misperceptions in relation to social norms

Answer 88

The gap between a persons perceived norm and the actual norm

Question 89

Describe how social change can happen by challenging obedience

Answer 89

We need disobedient, positive role models to enable us to think independently and resist the gradual commitment to obey.

Question 90

Describe the Montana campaign as evidence for social norms intervention.

Answer 90

Called “MOST of us don’t drink and drive campaign”. This campaign was designed to reduce drinking and driving among young adults in Montana, USA. Survey found that 92% of respondents believed that their peers would drink and drive. Created a simple advertisement with the message that ‘MOST Montana young adults (4 out of 5) don’t drink and drive’. After the campaign concluded, the prevalence of reported driving after drinking was reduced by 13.7%

Question 91

1 strengths for social change

Answer 91

Research support:
Montana campaign support for social norms intervention.
Nolan et al. (2008) investigated whether social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community. Hung messages outside front doors with the message that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. The control group displayed a message that just asked them to save energy. They found significant decreases in energy usage in the first group. COUNTER - DeJong et al (2009) tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to drive down alcohol consumption. Despite receiving normative info correcting misperceptions of drinking norms, students didn’t lower alcohol consumption.

Question 92

2 Limitations for social change

Answer 92

Indirectly not directly effective:
The power of minority influence may be limited since minorities rarely bring about social change quickly as people are more likely to maintain the status quo rather than engage in social change. For example, it has taken decades for attitudes against drunk driving and smoking to shift. Therefore, it has been argued that the effects of minority influence creates the potential for change rather than actual social change.

‘Deviant’ perception limits influence:
The majority may avoid aligning themselves with them as they do not want to be seen as deviant themselves. This limits the impact of the minority because focus of the majority’s attention would be the source of the message (the deviant minority) rather than the message itself. For example, people less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways because they don’t want to be associated with minority ‘environmentalists’ as they are often referred to as ‘tree huggers’ and ‘man haters’. COUNTER - minorities can overcome this by avoiding coming across as deviants when portraying their message. For example, the birth of communism. To avoid being portrayed as deviants, early communists made it clear in their Communist Manifesto that they were really part of the majority (i.e the working class).