Topic 1 - Social Influence (complete!!!!)

Question 1

What is Internalisation? Give an example

Answer 1

• When person adopts beliefs and behaviours of a group - including privately e.g. changing to your friend’s religion because you genuinely believe in their ideology
• Most permanent level of conformity
• Person changes both public + private beliefs
• Usually long-term change
• Often a result of informational social influence

Question 2

What is Identification?

Answer 2

• Temporarily adopting behaviours of role model or group - there is something in the group that we value
• We identify with group publicly in order to be accepted - even if you don’t agree privately with everything the group stands for
• Behavioural change only lasts in company of group e.g. difference in behaviour whilst in work compared to with friends
• Moderate type of conformity

Question 3

What is compliance?

Answer 3

• Going along with a majority even if we privately disagree
• No private change in opinions/behaviours
• Superficial public change in conformity
• Usually due to normative social influence
• Weakest type of conformity

Question 4

What is informational social influence (ISI) - who created this theory? Give an example

Answer 4

Deutsch + Gerard (1955) - developed two-process theory to explain two main reasons why people conform

• Following the behaviours of a group (the majority) in order to be ‘right’
• e.g. copying the answer to a question because most of your classmates wrote the same thing as you believe that they must be right
• Often leads to internalisation (permanent change in behaviour/opinion)
• COGNITIVE process - related to what you think
• Most likely to happen when in an unfamiliar situation (don’t know what’s right) or if situation is AMBIGUOUS
• Also occurs when decisions have to be made quickly (crisis situations)

Question 5

What is normative social influence (NSI) - who created this theory? Give an example

Answer 5

Deutsch + Gerard (1955) - developed two-process theory to explain two main reasons why people conform

• Changing beliefs or behaviours to fit in with group (the majority) in fear of rejection/for acceptance
• e.g. saying you like a movie just because your friends said they liked it so you don’t seem like the odd one out
• Often leads to compliance (temporary change of behaviour/opinion)
• EMOTIONAL process
• Likely to occur with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection
• May also occur with those you know e.g. friends - most concerned with social approval
• May also be more frequent in stressful situations where there is greater need for social support

Question 6

There is research support for NSI - describe this research and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 6

STRENGTH

When Asch interviewed his ppts, they often said that they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer because they were afraid of disapproval

When ppts wrote their answers down (given ANONYMITY) conformity fell to 12.5% - being anonymous eliminates normative group pressure

Provides evidence that at least some conformity is due to a desire of not wanting to be rejected - i.e. NSI

Increases theory VALIDITY

Question 7

There is research support for ISI - describe this research and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 7

STRENGTH

Lucas et. al. (2006) found that ppts conformed more often to incorrect answers when maths problem more difficult

When maths problem easy they were confident with their own answer, but when it became more difficult the answer became more AMBIGUOUS

Ppts did not want to be wrong so conformed to answers they were given by group

Shows ISI is a VALID explanation for conformity because results of supporting research is in line with what theory predicts

Question 8

It is often unclear whether it is ISI or NSI at work in research studies - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 8

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting research eval. point)

e.g. In Asch’s study variations found that conformity reduced when dissenting ppt introduced:

• May be due to NSI - as dissenter provides social support
• However could also be due to ISI - as dissenter provides alternative source of social information

Both interpretations of findings possible

Therefore hard to separate NSI and ISI as both processes most likely operate together in real life conformity situations

Question 9

Some psychologists argue that NSI does not explain conformity in every situation due to DISPOSITIONAL variables e.g. personality - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 9

WEAKNESS

Some people more concerned with being liked by others - known as nAffiliators

nAffiliators - have a strong need for affiliation i.e. want to relate to other people

McGhee + Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform

Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others

Theory is LIMITED - dispositional factors means NSI cannot explain conformity for all

Theory too SIMPLISTIC - describes conformity as one general theory of situational pressures

Question 10

Some psychologists question if the distinction between NSI and ISI is even useful when explaining conformity - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 10

WEAKNESS

NSI and ISI difficult to be separately studied as findings of research can be explained using both theories (e.g. Asch’s NSI study + Lucas’ ISI study)

Therefore distinction between the two questionable if both types seemingly work simultaneously

Question 11

Describe Asch’s (1951) baseline procedure on the effects of NSI on conformity

Answer 11

Aim : to investigate how often people conform to opinions of group even when answer is UNAMBIGUOUS

123 American ppts split up into groups - only 1 real ppts in each group whilst rest were confederates

Real ppts did not know others in group were confederates

Groups of 6-8 people

Asked to match the length of a comparison line (A, B or C) to the standard line - answer always obvious (unambiguous)

Confederates always gave the same incorrect scripted answer

Real ppts always went last or second to last to hear all/most confederates’ answer

Question 12

Describe Asch’s (1951) baseline findings on the effects of NSI on conformity

Answer 12

Real ppts conformed 36.8% of the time

25% of real ppts never conformed

Question 13

Which variables did Asch (1955) investigate in his variations of his baseline study on the effects of NSI on conformity?

Answer 13

• Task difficulty
• Unanimity
• Group size

Question 14

Describe the ‘group size’ variation of Asch’s (1955) study

Include the :

• Procedure
• Findings
• Conclusion

Answer 14

Procedure:

• Varied number of confederates from 1-15
• Total group sizes therefore varied from 2-16 (including the real ppt)

Findings:

• Found a CURVILINEAR relationship
• Conformity increased with group size but only up to a point
• When group size went above 3 levels of conformity began to level off
• Group of 3 produced 31.8% conformity

Conclusions:

Suggests that most ppts sensitive to views of others (NSI) as just one or two confederates was enough to sway opinion

Question 15

Describe the ‘unanimity’ variation of Asch’s (1955) study

Include the :

• Procedure
• Findings
• Conclusion

Answer 15

Unanimity = when everyone in a group agrees on the same answer

Procedure:

• Introduced a DISSENTER to the group (dissenter also a confederate)
• In one variation dissenter gave correct answer, in another variation dissenter gave a different incorrect answer from the group

Findings:

• Real ppt conformed less in presence of dissenter regardless of whether the dissenter’s answer was correct or incorrect
• Conformity decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when group was unanimous

Conclusions:

• Presence of dissenter allowed real ppt to behave more independently - acted as a role model for independence
• Suggests that influence of majority heavily depends on being unanimous

Question 16

Describe the ‘task difficulty’ variation of Asch’s (1955) study

Include the :

• Procedure
• Findings
• Conclusion

Answer 16

Procedure:

• Increased task difficulty by making stimulus and comparison lines more similar in length
• Meant is was harder for real ppt to judge the difference between the lines

Findings:

• Conformity increased as task difficulty increased

Conclusions:

• Ppts conformed due to ISI - increasing task difficulty made situation more ambiguous so real ppt turned to the group for their answer

Question 17

Some psychologists critique that Asch’s study into conformity lacks TEMPORAL VALIDITY - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 17

WEAKNESS

Arguable that findings are unique to culture + time in which research took place - MCCARTHYISM

McCarthyism = period of time in 1950s where society was extremely ‘anti-communist - many people falsely accused and prosecuted on baseless allegations

Therefore due to time period Americans much more likely to conform out of fear of prosecution - this is likely to have been translated into Asch’s research

Conformity rates may have been higher than true value because of time period - questionable VALIDITY of findings

Therefore limited applicability of research past the time period it was conducted in as findings too heavily dependant on historical factors

Question 18

It could be argued that the findings of Asch’s research show independence rather than conformity - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 18

WEAKNESS

Only around 37% of ppts conformed - means that a large majority (63%) did not

Study lacks INTERNAL VALIDITY - instead of finding results to support conformity, it actually did the opposite

Question 19

Asch’s conclusions may be CULTURALLY BIASED - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 19

WEAKNESS

Asch’s ppts only consisted on male American men - people from an individualist country where there is a focus on yourself rather than benefitting the social group

Cross-cultural studies into conformity have shown higher levels of conformity in collectivist countries :

e.g. Oh (2013) found that collectivist cultures showed higher levels of compliance - increased likelihood of conformity

In collectivist cultures the social group is seen as more important than the individual - more likely to see NSI

Means that Asch’s sample is not REPRESENTATIVE and findings cannot be GENERALISED across all cultures

Question 20

There is supporting research when looking at Asch’s conformity study - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 20

STRENGTH

Perrin + Spencer (1980) = carried out similar study using youths on probation as the real ppts and probation officers as confederates - conformity levels similar to Asch

Nicholson et al. (1985) = Found conformity levels similar to Asch in a replication study using British students - concluded that it was due to a sense of ‘national cohesion’

Lucas et al. = Found similar results to the task difficulty variation of Asch’s study - as maths problem became increasingly difficult conformity levels also increased

Plentiful supporting research and findings increase the validity of Asch’s own study into conformity

Question 21

Asch’s study into conformity was conducted in a lab - describe and explain any limitations this could have brought to Asch’s findings

Answer 21

WEAKNESS

Situation + task were artificial - ppts. could easily guess aim of study and display DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS

Task was rather trivial (comparing lines) - therefore there was no real reason for the ppts not to conform (no consequences for conforming)

Also lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY - we do not compare lengths of lines in real life, situation does not reflect a real situation in which a person would conform

Fiske (2014) argued that the groups ppts were put in were not very “group-like” i.e. did not resemble groups we experience in everyday life

Means that we are unable to GENERALISE findings to real life situations, especially where the consequences of conformity are important

Question 22

Asch’s study has some major ethical issues - describe and explain what these are and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 22

WEAKNESS

Ppts were DECIEVED - did not know group were confederates

Ppts might have been PSYCHOLOGICALLY HARMED - might have felt stress under the group pressure to conform to the incorrect answer

Ppts unable to give full INFORMED CONSENT - they were not told full aim of study, thought study was on perception when it was actually on conformity

Questionable whether the ethical issues outweigh the benefits from the study

Question 23

What are ‘social roles?’ Give an example

Answer 23

A branch of conformity

The ‘parts’ we play as members of various
social groups e.g. son, teacher, father etc.

Accompanied by expectations we and others have of the appropriate behaviour for that particular role e.g. a mother is expected to be caring towards her child

Question 24

Describe the procedure of Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford Prison experiment (SPE) on social roles

Answer 24

Aim: to investigate how people would conform to the social roles of prisoner and guard in a simulation

Set up a mock prison in basement of psychology department as Stanford uni

Selected 21 men (student volunteers) who were tested as ‘emotionally stable’ - no history of drugs, prison etc.

Volunteers paid $15 for each day of experiment

Ppts randomly assigned ‘prisoner’ or ‘prison guard’

Prisoner ppts randomly mock arrested, strip searched + deloused

Prisoners given loose smock to wear + cap to cover their hair - only identified by their numbers (increases deindividuation so ppts more likely to conform to social roles)

Guards had their own uniform + wore shades - limited eye contact & severs emotional connection with prisoners

Prisoners further encouraged to identify with their role - rather than leaving study early prisoners could ‘apply for parole’

Zimbardo observed ppts behaviour as the ‘owner’ of the prison

Question 25

Describe Zimbardo’s findings with his (1973) Stanford Prison experiment (SPE) on social roles

Answer 25

Guards took up their role with enthusiasm

Within 2 days prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment - ripped their uniforms, shouted + swore

Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers

After rebellion put down prisoners became depressed + more submissive whilst guards became more aggressive (conforming to their social roles)

Guards became crueller - harassed prisoners + highlighted difference in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules

Guards punished smallest of misdemeanours - seemingly enjoyed the power imbalance + control

Prisoners began to show signs of DEINDIVIDUATION - referred to themselves by their numbers instead of their names

1 prisoner released on day 1 - showed signs of psychological distress

2 more ppts released on 4th day

Zimbardo had to end study 6 days in instead of intended 14 - described how he began to feel DEINDIVIDUATED himself

Question 26

Describe Zimbardo’s conclusions with his (1973) Stanford Prison experiment (SPE) on social roles

Answer 26

Social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals behaviour - guards became more brutal + prisoners became more submissive

Such roles easily taken on by all ppts - even volunteers who came to fill in specific roles (e.g. prison chaplain) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison instead of a psychological study

Question 27

There are very clear ethical issues when looking at Zimbardo’s (1973) SPE - explain what these are and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the SPE

Answer 27

WEAKNESS

Lacks fully informed consent as some details of study left out to avoid demand characteristics

Psychological harm - study had to be called off early due to psychological harm, one even had to leave earlier as they suffered a mental breakdown

Right to withdraw - prisoners unable to leave (unless it was an extreme case) , instead they could ‘apply for parole’

Therefore difficult to balance the value of Zimbardo’s research findings when it came at such a high cost

Question 28

How could you counterpoint the ‘ethics’ argument when evaluating Zimbardo’s (1973) SPE?

Answer 28

1. Zimbardo did not know the full extent of what would happen in his experiment - didn’t know how far it would deviate from its original purpose and therefore unable to fully inform ppts in the first place
2. Zimbardo’s experiment was the catalyst for the genuine consideration of ethics in psychological research - value of his research may extend past his contribution to understanding conformity and into psychological research as a whole

Question 29

There was a high level of control over participant variable in Zimbardo’s (1973) SPE - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or a weakness

Answer 29

STRENGTH

High level of control due to methods used to select ppts

Ppts interviewed to make sure they were emotionally stable + had no prior history of criminality

Guards + prisoners randomly assigned - meant that if guards + prisoners behaved very differently, but were only in those roles by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself + not personality differences

Increased INTERNAL VALIDITY - researcher much more confident that findings relate to initial hypothesis

Therefore we can be more confident in drawing conclusions - increases the CREDIBILITY of the research overall

Question 30

Some psychologists argue that Zimbardo’s (1973) SPE lacked any realism of a true prison - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 30

WEAKNESS

Banuazizi + Movahedi argued that ppts merely ‘play acting’ rather than conforming to a role - showed DEMAND CHARACTISITCS

Ppts performance based on stereotypes of prisoners + guards and how they stereotypically act rather than actually conforming

e.g. one of the guards claimed they based his role on a character from a film

Also explains why prisoners revolted - thought that was what real prisoners did

Therefore findings tell us very little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

Question 31

Some other psychologists argue that Zimbardo’s ppts did behave as if the prison was real to them - explain this argument and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 31

STRENGTH (COUNTERPOINT to lack of realism argument)

McDermott argues that ppts did conform to social roles + acted as if prison was real

e.g. 90% of prisoners’ conversations were about prison life - discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘sentences’ were over

Prisoner ‘416’ later explained how he believed the prison was a real one run by psychologists rather than the government

Multiple ppts had to leave early because of psychological distress - unlikely this was fake so prison must have had some realism to have effect on ppts

Suggests SPE did replicate social roles of prisoners + guards in real prisons - gives study high degree of INTERNAL VALIDITY

Question 32

Some psychologists argue that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the SPE

Answer 32

WEAKNESS

Fromm argued that Zimbardo may have been overly exaggerative

e.g. only one third of guards actually behaved in a brutal manner - another third tried to apply behaviour fairly + last third actively tried to help and support prisoners

Significant majority of prisoners sympathised + reinstated privileges to prisoners

Most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform to the brutal role of guard

Suggests Zimbardo overstated view that SPE ppts were conforming to social roles + minimised influence of DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS e.g. personality

Question 33

Some psychologists argue that the social identity theory may be a better explanation when trying to understand ppt’s behaviour in the SPE - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 33

WEAKNESS

Zimbardo’s explanation = conforming to social role comes ‘naturally’ + easily - being given role of guard means that these ppts will inevitably behave brutally because its the behaviour expected for that role

Zimbardo believed that social roles overrides a person’s moral beliefs, no matter how strong they may be

Reicher + Haslam (2006) criticised Zimbardo’s explanation as it does not account for behaviour of non-brutal guards

Used social identity theory instead to argue that guards had to actively identify with their social roles to act cruelly

Therefore Zimbardo’s reasoning may not be accurate to explain experiment findings - only focused on behaviour of a small group of ppts (i.e. the brutal guards)

Question 34

Describe Milgram’s (1963) procedure in his baseline study into obedience

Answer 34

Aim : to investigate the extent that people will obey, even if it meant harming others (in context to German soldiers in Holocaust camps)

Sample = 40 American male volunteers - told that experiment was on ‘memory’

Each ppt introduced to another ppt (secretly a confederate)

Drew lots to see who would be the ‘teacher’ (T) and ‘learner’ (L) - however draw was actually fixed so that ppt would always be the teacher

‘Experimenter’ (E) also involved (confederate dressed in a lab coat)

Two rooms in Yale interaction lab used - one for L and one for T + E

L strapped to chair with electrodes (fake) + asked to learn word pairs - T tests him by naming word and asking L for matching word

T asked to administer (fake) electric shock every time L makes mistake - increasing shock level each time

Shock ranged from 15V (slight shock) to 450V (labelled ‘danger - severe shock’)

Confederate (L) gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) - if ppt hesitated E gave series of prods to make them continue

Question 35

Describe the 4 prods used in Milgram’s (1963) baseline study into obedience

Answer 35

Experimenter gave 4 prods when ppt hesitated to administer electric shocks:

• “Please continue”
• “The experiment requires you to
  continue”
• “It is absolutely essential that you
  continue”
• “You have no other choice but to
  continue”

Question 36

Describe Milgram’s (1963) findings and conclusions on his baseline study into obedience

Answer 36

Every ppt delivered shocks up to 300V (labelled ‘intense shock’)

12.5% stopped at 300V

65% continued to highest level - 450V i.e. they were fully obedient

Also collected qualitative data via observations - ppts showed signs of extreme tension e.g. sweating, stuttering + digging their fingernails into their palms

3 ppts had ‘uncontrollable seizures’

Before experiment asked 14 psychology students to predict ppts behaviour - predicted that no more than 3% would go up to 450V (shows that findings were unexpected)

Concluded that Germans were not ‘more obedient’ - American ppts also willing to obey orders even if it meant harming others

Suspected that there were other factors that influence obedience (explored in study variations)

Question 37

Milgram’s (1963) baseline study into obedience had some clear ethical issues - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 37

WEAKNESS

Deception:
- ppts told that experiment was on memory when it was actually on obedience

• Thought that allocation of ‘teacher’ + ‘learner’ roles were random when they were actually fixed
• Thought electric shocks were real when they were actually fake
• Thought ‘learner’ was a real ppt when they were actually a confederate

Lack of informed consent : ppts were not told full aim of study

Psychological harm : ppts shown visible signs of distress, 3 even had full uncontrollable seizures

Right to withdraw : ‘experimenter’s’ prods (e.g. “you must continue”) made ppts feel as if they could not drop out of study

HOWEVER

• At end of study ppts were debriefed + told that their behaviour was completely normal
• Ppts sent follow up questionnaire, 84% said they were glad they participated
• However psychologist Baumrind criticised Milgram for deceiving his ppts - believed that this could cause serious psychological consequences for ppts

Question 38

There is supporting research for Milgram’s (1963) baseline study into obedience - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 38

STRENGTH

Milgram’s findings replicated in French documentary about reality TV

Documentary focused on game show made for the programme

Ppts in ‘game’ believed they were contestant for pilot episode of new show

Ppts paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other ppts (who were actually confederates) in front of a studio audience

80% of ppts delivered maximum shock of 460V to an apparently unconscious man - behaviour almost identical to Milgram’s ppts (e.g. nail biting + other signs of anxiety)

Supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to an authority + demonstrates that findings weren’t just due to special circumstances

Question 39

Milgram’s (1963) baseline study into obedience may lack INTERNAL VALIDTY - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 39

WEAKNESS

Milgram reported that 75% of ppts said they believed the shocks were genuine

Orne + Holland (1968) argue that ppts behaved as they did because they didn’t believe in the set up i.e. they were ‘play-acting’

Perry’s (2013) research confirms argument - listened to tapes of Milgram’s ppts + reported that only 1/2 believed shocks were real

Suggests ppts may have been responding to DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS, tried to please the researcher instead of actually obeying

Therefore Milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test i.e. study lacks INTERNAL VALIDITY

Question 40

One study found that ppts behaved similarly to Milgram’s in his baseline study into obedience (1963), even when the shocks were real - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 40

STRENGTH (COUNTERPOINT to internal validity argument)

Sheridan + King (1972) = conducted study like Milgram’s, however this time shocks were real

Ppts (all students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter

Despite real stress of animal, 54% of the men + 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock

Suggests that even with the INTERNAL VALIDITY argument, effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because similar results found in studies where shocks were actually real

Question 41

Some psychologists argue that Milgram’s interpretation about blind obedience in his baseline study (1963) may not be justified - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or a weakness

Answer 41

WEAKNESS

Halsam (2014) showed that Milgram’s ppts obey once experimenter gave the first 3 verbal prods

However every ppt who was given the 4th prod (“You have no other choice, you must go on”) disobeyed without exception

According to social identity theory ppts in Milgram’s study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research

Because ppts identified with the ‘scientific’ study, they were more likely to obey as they felt like they were contributing to something scientific for a better cause

When ppts ordered to blindly obey with the 4th prod, they refused

Shows that social identity theory may provide a more VALID interpretation of Milgram’s findings instead of just surmising findings to ‘blind obedience’

Question 42

Describe the 3 proximity variations of Milgram’s baseline study on obedience in terms of:

• Procedure
• Findings
• Conclusions

Answer 42

Proximity = situational variable that affects obedience

1. Proximity procedure :

• Teacher and Learner now in the same room

1. Proximity findings :

• Obedience rate dropped from original 65% to 40%

2. Touch proximity procedure :

• Learner’s hand placed onto an ‘electroshock plate’
• If learner refused to place hand there himself Teacher had to force their hand onto it

2. Touch proximity findings :

• Obedience dropped to 30%

3. Remote instructions procedure :

• Experimenter left room + gave instructions to Teacher by telephone
• Proximity between authority figure reduced

3. Remote instructions findings :

• Obedience reduced to 20.5%
• Ppts frequently pretended to give shocks

Overall conclusions:

• Decreased proximity from victim allows ppts to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
• The further away the learner is from the ppt, the less aware they are of the harm they were causing so they were more obedient

Question 43

Describe the Location variation of Milgram’s baseline study on obedience in terms of:

• Procedure
• Findings
• Conclusions

Answer 43

Location = situational variable that affects obedience

Procedure :

• Conducted study in run down office block instead of prestigious setting of Yale University

Findings :

• Obedience fell to 47.5%

Conclusions:

• Prestigious environment of baseline study gave it legitimacy of authority
• Ppts more obedient in baseline study because they thought that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was therefore expected
• However obedience still quite high in office block variation because ppts still identified with ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure

Question 44

Describe the Uniform variation of Milgram’s baseline study on obedience in terms of:

• Procedure
• Findings
• Conclusions

Answer 44

Uniform = situational variable that affects obedience

Procedure :

• In baseline study experimenter wore a grey lab coat (uniform)
• In variation, experimenter called away at start of procedure
• Role of experimenter taken over by an ‘ ‘ordinary member of the public’ (was actually a confederate)
• Confederate was dressed in every day clothes instead of a lab coat

Findings :

• Obedience dropped to 20% - lowest out of all variations

Conclusions :

• Uniforms ‘encourage obedience’ - widely recognised as symbols for authority
• Often expect that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate ( granted by society)
• Therefore someone in ordinary clothes (no uniform) has less right to expect obedience

Question 45

There have been research support for uniforms influencing obedience - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness of Milgram’s study variations

Answer 45

STRENGTH

Bickman (1974) carried out FIELD EXPERIMENT in NYC :

• 3 confederates dressed in different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit + a security guards uniform
• Confederates individually stood in street + asked passers-by to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter
• People twice as more likely to obey confederate dressed as security guard than one dressed in jacket and tie

Supports Milgram’s findings that situational variables, such as uniform, have a powerful effect on obedience

Question 46

There have cross-cultural replications for Milgram’s study variations on situational factors influencing obedience - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 46

STRENGTH

Meeus + Raaijmakers (1986) carried out a study to assess obdience in Dutch ppts:

• Ppts ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) who was desperate for a job
• 90% of ppts obeyed

Researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity:

• When authority figure giving orders was not physically present, obedience decreased dramatically

Suggests Milgram’s findings about obedience not just limited to Americans, but can be GENERALISED across cultures - findings APPLICABLE to more than one culture

Question 47

Some psychologists argue that cross-cultural variations trying to replicate Milgram’s findings on obedience aren’t very ‘cultural’ as they focus solely on individualist societies - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 47

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to cross-cultural support argument)

• Smith + Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968-85 that took place in India and Jordan - both countries quite culturally different (e.g. collectivist) from US (Milgram’s original sample) -
• However many cross-cultural studies supporting Milgram e.g. Meeus + Raaijmaker’s Dutch study, focus on countries quite culturally similar (e.g. individualistic) in terms of their attitudes towards authority) - so findings would naturally be similar

Therefore may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings (including those about proximity, location + uniform) are APPLICABLE or can be GENERALISED to all cultures

Supporting cultural research BIASED towards individualist societies

Question 48

Milgram’s study variations on obedience may lack INTERNAL VALIDITY - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness

Answer 48

WEAKNESS

Ppts may have been aware the procedure was fake

Orne + Holland (1968) = made this criticism of Milgram’s baseline study + argued that it is even more likely ppts were aware in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables

E.g. In the uniform variation (‘experimenter’ replaced by ‘general member of the public’) - even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some ppt may have worked out the truth

Therefore there is a very high likelihood that ppts displayed DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS

Means that in all of Milgram’s studies (which includes variations) it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because ppts saw through the DECEPTION and simply ‘play-acted’

Therefore INTERNAL VALIDITY of Milgram’s studies questionable

Question 49

Milgram’s study variations support the situational explanation for obedience - however some psychologists argue that this is a dangerous perspective to pursue. Discuss this argument

Answer 49

Situational perspective criticised by Mandel (1998) - argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour

In his view, its offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders because of a uniform or the location - excuses them of their actions by placing blame on situational factors rather than the person themselves

Milgram also ignored role of DISPOSITIONAL (e.g. personality), implying that Nazi’s were actually ‘victims’ of situational factors beyond their control

Therefore need to be careful with Milgram’s research into obedience as it could support a theory that can be used to excuse cruel behaviour

Question 50

Explain Milgram’s Situational explanation for obedience - the ‘Agentic State’ in terms of:

• An autonomous state
• An agentic state
• The agentic shift

Answer 50

• Agentic state = person is acting on behalf of an authority figure with the belief that they hold no responsibility for their actions ; instead believe that responsibility falls on authority figure
• During agentic state person becomes an ‘agent’ for authority
• Agent is not an unfeeling puppet - they experience ‘MORAL STRAIN’ (i.e. high anxiety) when they realise what they’re doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey
• Autonomous state = person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
• Agentic shift = shift from autonomous state to agentic state - Milgram suggested this happened when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
• Authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in the SOCIAL HEIRACHY

Question 51

Explain Milgram’s Situational explanation for obedience - the ‘Agentic State’ in terms of:

• Binding factors

Answer 51

• Milgram observed that many of his ppts wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so
• Concluded that binding factors is what kept his ppts in the agentic state
• Binding factors = aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the ‘MORAL STRAIN’ they are feeling
• Milgram proposed number of binding factors that an individual uses e.g. shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they were doing to the victims

Question 52

Milgram’s Agentic state theory as a situational explanation for obedience has a significant amount of research support - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 52

STRENGTH

Milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience

Most of Milgram’s ppts resisted giving shocks at some point, and asked the experimenter questions about the procedure (ppts experienced a degree of moral strain)

One question most ppts asked = “Who is responsible if the learner is harmed?”

When experimenter replied “I am responsible” majority of ppts went through the procedure quickly with no objections (ppts were in the agentic state)

Shows that once ppts perceived they were no longer responsible for their actions and that the responsibility was shifted to the authority figure, they acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent - as Milgram predicted

This also happened in many of Milgram’s study variations - increases the VALIDITY of his theory with the large amount of research support

Question 53

Some psychologists argue that Milgram’s Agentic state theory as a situational explanation for obedience is limited - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why

Answer 53

WEAKNESS

Agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings on obedience from OTHER psychologists

E.g. Rank + Jacobson (1977) = found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug does to a patient

Doctor was an obvious authority figure but almost all nurses remained in an autonomous state when Milgram’s theory would’ve predicted that agentic shift should occur

Suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience - therefore a limited explanation as it can only be applied to obedience to an extent

Question 54

Milgram’s Agentic state theory as a situational explanation for obedience was based on Nazi’s who were put on trial for “obeying authority” when carrying out the Holocaust - however some psychologists argue that some of the Nazis actually behaved autonomously. State whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 54

WEAKNESS

Mandel (1998) described on incident in WW2 involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101

These men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland, despite not having direct orders to do so i.e. they acted autonomously

Therefore the foundations of Milgram’s theory may no be as secure as we initially thought :

If these soldiers seemingly acted ‘autonomously’ then who’s to say that the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust also acted ‘autonomously’ and therefore the ‘agentic state’ never existed in the first place - they are simply using ‘following orders from an authority figure’ as an excuse for their actions

Question 55

Describe ‘legitimacy of authority’ as a situational explanation for obedience

Answer 55

• Most societies structured in a HEIRACHICAL way - means that people in certain positions hold more authority e.g. police
• Authority these people wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society
• Most accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exert social power over others because it allows society to function smoothly
• One consequence of legitimacy of authority = some people have power to punish others
• Most are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately
• We learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood e.g. from parents + teachers
• Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes DESTRUCTIVE e.g. Hitler : authority orders people to behave cruelly
• Destructive authority also seen in Milgram’s study - experimenter ordered ppts to act against their conscience

Question 56

Legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation for obedience explains cultural differences in obedience - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 56

STRENGTH

Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority

Kilham + Mann (1974) : found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study

Mantell (1971) : found that 85% of German ppts went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study

Shows that, in some cultures, authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals

Theory can be APPLIED to reflect the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

Question 57

Legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation for obedience cannot explain instances of disobedience - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why

Answer 57

WEAKNESS

Theory cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted

E.g. Rank + Jacobson (1977) = found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug does to a patient - even though the doctor was a widely accepted legitimate authority

Significant minority of Milgram’s ppts (12.5%) disobeyed despite the experimenter’s scientific authority

Suggests that DISPOSITIONAL factors might have a bigger role in obedience - some people may just be more obedient than others

Some psychologists argue that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure

Means that legitimacy of authority may be a limited explanation for obedience as it does not explain the opposite side of it - disobedience

Question 58

Legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation for obedience can be APPLIED to real world crimes where people blindly obeyed destructive authority - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 58

STRENGTH

Rank + Jacobson = found that 16/18 nurses were prepared to disobey a legitimate authority (a doctor)

However (COUNTERPOINT) Kelman + Hamilton (1989) argue that a real-world crime of obedience (the My Lai massacre) can be understood in terms of the power of hierarchy in the US army

My Lai Massacre = during Vietnam war 504 unarmed civilians killed by American soldiers. Soldiers blew up buildings + burned down the villages they lived in

Psychologist argue that the Commanding officers who ordered these soldiers to conduct this massacre operate within a clearer legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish

Therefore legitimacy of authority may be a more VALID explanation for obedience than we think - especially when APPLIED TO REAL LIFE and destructive authority

Question 59

Describe the Authoritarian personality (AP) as a dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 59

• Created by Adorno et al
• A PSYCHODYNAMIC explanation
• AP forms during childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting
• Harsh parenting = extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and harsh criticisms for failing
• Those who received conditional love during childhood more likely to develop AP
• These childhood experiences create resentment and hostility, but child cannot express this directly against their parents from fear of punishment
• Therefore their anger is DISPLACED onto those they regard ‘socially inferior’ - known as SCAPEGOATING
• Developed ‘F-scale’ (i.e. Fascism scale) to measure if someone has an AP

Question 60

Describe the characteristics of someone who has an Authoritarian Personality

Answer 60

• Show an extreme respect and submissiveness to authority
• View society as ‘weaker’ than it once was, so believe we need strong leaders to reinforce traditional values
• Show contempt for those they regard as ‘socially inferior’ to themselves
• Prejudiced mindset fuelled by inflexible outlook on the word - believes that world is black and white
• Very uncomfortable with uncertainty therefore blame the people who are the ‘others’ (e.g. those who belong to a different ethnic group to them) are responsible the the ills of society
• These ‘other’ people are a convenient for the Authoritarians who are likely to obey orders from authority figures even when such orders are destructive (e.g. Nazi Germany)

Question 61

Describe Adorno et al’s (1950) procedure into the Authoritarian Personality

Answer 61

• Studied more than 2000 middle-class white Americans and their UNCONCIOUS attitudes towards other ethnic groups
• Developed the F-scale (i.e. the potential-for-fascism scale) to measure AP
• Questions on F-scale included:

“Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn”

“Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished”

Question 62

Describe Adorno et al’s (1950) findings into the Authoritarian Personality

Answer 62

• People with authoritarian leanings (i.e. those who scored high on the F-scale) identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptuous of the ‘weak’
• People who scored highly on F-scale also showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status - were also very conscious of status (their own and other’s)
• Found that authoritarian people has a certain CONGNITIVE STYLE : black and white thinking and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
• Found a strong POSITIVE CORRELATION between authoritarianism and prejudice

Question 63

Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience has research support - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why

Answer 63

STRENGTH

Research support from Milgram + Elms (1966) :

• INTERVIEWED small sample of ppts from the original obedience studies (Milgram) and were fully obedient i.e. went all the way up to 450V
• All of the sample completed the F-scale (and other measures) as part of the interview
• Found that these 20 fully obedient ppts scored significantly higher on the overall F-scale than a comparison/control group of 20 disobedient ppts

Two groups clearly different in terms of authoritarianism

Findings support Adorno’s view that highly obedient people show similar characteristics go people who have an AP

Question 64

Some psychologists argue that the F-scale itself, used to measure the Authoritarian Personality, is not a VALID measure of obedience - explain why and state whether this is a strength or weakness of Adorno’s theory

Answer 64

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to research support argument)

When researchers analysed individual subscales of the F-scale, found that the obedient ppts (in Milgram + Elms’ research) had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians

E.g. unlike authoritarians, Milgram’s obedient ppts generally did not glorify their fathers, did not experience unusual levels of punishment in their childhood and did not have particularly hostile attitudes towards their mothers

Means that link between obedience and authoritarianism is more complex than Adorno suggested:

• Obedient ppts who scored highly on F-scale were unlike authoritarians in so many ways that authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful and consistent predictor of obedience

Therefore suggests that the AP is a limited dispositional explanation for obedience

Question 65

Some psychologists argue that Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality is a limited dispositional explanation for obedience - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness

Answer 65

WEAKNESS

Authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour when it is the majority of a country’s population

E.g. In pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and antisemitic behaviour despite the fact that they must have differed in personality (i.e. not every individual who was obedient would have had an AP - this would’ve been extremely unlikely)

An alternative view is that majority of Germans IDENTIFIED with the antisemitic Nazi state, and SCAPEGOATED the ‘outgroup’ of Jews = i.e. argue that SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY is a better explanation

Therefore Adorno’s theory is limited because an alternative explanation (i.e. social identity theory) is a much more realistic explanation when APPLIED to real life

Question 66

Some psychologists argue that Adorno’s METHODOLOGY when assessing the Authoritarian personality may have political BIAS - explain why and state whether this is a strength or a weakness

Answer 66

WEAKNESS

F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology e.g. nationalism

Christie + Jahoda (1954) = argued that the F-scale is a POLITICALLY BIASED interpretation of the AP

Argues that there is also left-wing authoritarianism e.g. Russian Bolshevism and Chinese Maoism

Extreme right-wing and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common - e.g. both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority - however F-scale only measures how extreme right-wing a ppt is

Means that Adorno’s theory is not a COMPREHENSIVE dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum as the methodology used to measure this (F-scale) is POLITICALLY BIASED

Question 67

Some psychologists argue that Adorno’s Authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience is based on flawed evidence - state whether this is a strength or a weakness

Answer 67

WEAKNESS

On the positive side, research with the F-scale has provided the basis of an explanation for obedience based on the AP

However Greenstein (1969) calls the F-scale a “comedy of methodological errors” because its an extremely flawed scale

E.g. possible the get a high score by just selecting the ‘agree’ answers - therefore anyone with this RESPONSE BIAS will be labelled as having an AP

Therefore evidence for AP flawed - perhaps f-scale is too outdated + needs to be re-evaluated and remade to eliminate political bias and the possibility of response bias

F-scale used in Adorno’s research therefore lacks VALIDITY as some of his ppts may have been wrongly assessed as having an AP

Question 68

Describe ‘Social support’ as an explanation for resisting conformity

Answer 68

• Pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming
• E.g. in Asch’s research the introduction of a DISSENTER decreased conformity (thus increasing resistance to authority)
• Social support = the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey acts as a ‘MODEL’ for independent behaviour
• Social support allows people to follow their own conscience instead of conforming
• Dissent gives rise to more dissent (i.e. resistance) because it shows that the majority is no longer UNANIMOUS

Question 69

Describe ‘Social support’ as an explanation for resisting obedience

Answer 69

• Pressure to obey can be resisted id there is another person who is seen to disobey
• E.g. in one of Milgram’s variations rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ppt was joined by a disobedient confederate
• Ppts may not follow the disobedient person’s behaviour - point is that the other person’s disobedience acts as a ‘MODEL’ of dissent for the ppts to copy which frees them to act from their own conscience
• Disobedient model challenges the LEGITIMACY of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey

Question 70

There is research support for ‘social support’ as an explanation for resisting social influence - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 70

STRENGTH

There is research evidence for the positive effects of social support

e.g. Albrecht et al (2006) :

• Evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke
• Social support provided by a slightly older mentor (called a ‘buddy’)
• At end of programme adolescents who had the ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than that of a control group who didn’t have a ‘buddy’

Shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world - also has PRACTICAL REAL LIFE APPLICATION which can positively impact individuals

Question 71

There is research support for the role of dissenting peers in the ‘social support’ explanation for resisting social influence - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 71

STRENGTH

E.g. Gamson et al (1982):

• Ppts were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign
• Researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study compared to Milgram’s because the ppts were in groups and could discuss what they were told to do (increases likelihood of dissenters in the groups)
• 29 out of 33 groups of ppts (88%) rebelled against their orders (i.e. resisted obedience) - legitimacy of researcher’s authority undermined by significant majority of ppts

Shows that social support (via. dissenters) can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure - i.e. further research support for theory

Question 72

Some psychologists argue that ‘social support’ as an explanation for resisting social influence relies on the context of who is providing the support - discuss this argument

Answer 72

Study by Allen + Levine (1971) showed that social support is dependant on who is giving it:

• Used an Asch-type task where the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight - 64% of real ppts refused to conform
• When there was no dissenter at all 3% refused to conform
• However, in separate condition, when dissenter has obviously poor eyesight (e.g. wearing thick glasses) resistance was only 36%

Questions VALIDITY of social support theory as it does not always guarantee resistance to social influence - in fact, it appears to be heavily reliant on contextual factors, something the theory hasn’t predicted (therefore LIMITED explanation)

Question 73

Describe the difference between an ‘internal’ locus of control (LOC) and an ‘external’ locus of control - give examples

Answer 73

• Created by Rotter (1966)
• Internal LOC (internals) - believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves

Example : If they do badly in an exam they believe its because they didn’t work hard enough

• External LOC (externals) - tend to believe that the things that happen to them are outside of their control

Example : If they do badly in an exam they might blame it on the textbook or they had bad luck because the questions were too hard

Question 74

What is the locus of control continuum?

Answer 74

• People aren’t just ‘internal’ or ‘external’
• LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it
• High internal LOC and high external LOC are on opposite ends of the continuum whilst the middle is varying degrees of both

Question 75

Describe locus of control as an explanation for resisting social influence

Answer 75

• People with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey
• If person takes own responsibility for actions and experiences (internal LOC) they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on opinions of others
• People with a high internal LOC also tend to be more self-confident, more achievement oriented and have higher intelligence than external LOC therefore more able to resist social influence
• High internal LOC also have characteristics of leaders (i.e. those with LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY) who have much less need for social approval than followers (e.g. external LOC)

Question 76

There is research support for the link between locus of control and resistance to social influence - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 76

STRENGTH

Holland (1967) :

• Repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether ppts were internals or externals
• 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (i.e. resisted obedience)
• Only 23% of externals did not continue to the highest shock level
• Therefore internals showed a higher level of resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation

Shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC - increases the VALIDITY of LOC as an explanation for resisting social influence

Question 77

There is contradictory evidence when looking at the link between locus of control and resisting social influence - state whether this is a strength or weakness and explain why

Answer 77

WEAKNESS (could be used as a COUNTERPOINT to supporting evidence argument)

Twenge et al (2004) :

• Analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period
• Data showed that over this time span people became more resistant to social influence but also more external
• Contradicts theory - if resistance is linked to high internal LOC then we should find a rise in internals, however evidence suggests the opposite

Questions the VALIDITY of LOC as an explanation for resisting social influence as contradictory findings suggest otherwise

Question 78

Some psychologists argue that locus of control has a very limited role in resisting social influence - discuss this viewpoint

Answer 78

Rotter themselves point out that LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence

Argues that LOC’s role depends on the situation i.e. a person’s LOC only significantly affects their behaviour in NEW situations

E.g. If a person has conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are that they will do so again regardless of whether they have a high internal or high external LOC

Opens up discussion on the true intention of the LOC theory - if the person who created the theory themselves argues that LOC isn’t the main factor in resisting social influence, then what is the theory’s purpose?

Perhaps LOC fills in the gap for explaining resistance in a more NICHE scenario (e.g. when in a NEW situation) rather than being the sole explanation for resistance as a whole

I.e. only explains resistance to social influence up to a certain EXTENT

Question 79

What is minority influence?

Answer 79

• Theory created by Moscovici (1969)
• Situations where one person or a small group of people (i.e. a minority) influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people
• Distinct from conformity where the majority is doing the influencing
• Often leads to internalisation, both public and private beliefs are changed by the process

Question 80

What are the 3 factors that increase the strength of minority influence?

Answer 80

• Consistency
• Commitment
• Flexibility

Question 81

Explain how consistency increases the strength of minority influence

Answer 81

• Over time, consistency increases the amount of interest from other people
• Can take the form of agreement between people in the minority group : known as SYNCHRONIC consistency (everyone is saying the same thing)
• Can take the form of minority having the same beliefs or behaviour over a long period of time : known as DIACHRONIC consistency (minority have been saying the same thing for a long time)
• Consistent minority makes other people to start to rethink their own views:

E.g. “Maybe they’ve got a point if they all think this way” (synchronic consistency) or “Maybe they’ve got a point if they keep saying this” (diachronic consistency)

Question 82

Explain how commitment increases the strength of minority influence

Answer 82

• Minority must show commitment to their cause or views
• Sometimes minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views
• Important that these extreme activities present some risk to the minority because this shows greater commitment
• Majority group members pay even more attention to a highly committed minority e.g. “Wow, she must really believe in what she’s saying so perhaps I should consider her view”
• Known as the AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE

Question 83

Explain how flexibility increases the strength of minority influence

Answer 83

• Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence because it can be off-putting
• Someone who is extremely consistent and only repeats the same old arguments and behaviours again and again can be seen as rigid, unbending and dogmatic
• Consistency alone unlikely to gain many converts to the minority position
• Instead, members of minority need to be prepared to adapt their viewpoint and accept reasonable and valid counterarguments
• However being too flexible may make the minority look weak (e.g. “If she keeps changing her argument then is their cause even good to consider?”)
• Therefore need to strike a BALANCE between consistency and flexibility

Question 84

Explain how minority influence creates social change

Answer 84

• Hearing something you already agree with doesn’t usually make you stop and think
• However hearing something new makes you think more deeply - especially if the source of this other view is consistent, committed and flexible
• DEEPER PROCESSING is important in conversion to a different minority viewpoint
• Overtime, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position - they have been ‘converted’
• The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion - called the SNOWBALL EFFECT
• Change has occurred when the minority has gradually become the majority

Question 85

Describe Moscovici’s (1969) procedure in his study on minority influence

Answer 85

• Groups of 6 asked to view a set of 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether the slides were blue or green
• In each group 2 people were confederates (therefore 4 real ppts in each group - the majority)
• Two conditions = consistent minority and inconsistent minority
• Also had a CONTROL GROUP with 0 confederates
• In consistent minority confederates consistently said the slides were green
• In inconsistent minority the confederates said the slides were green 24 times and blue 12 times

Question 86

Describe Moscovici’s (1969) findings and conclusions in his study on minority influence

Answer 86

• In consistent minority the real ppts gave the same wrong answer (‘green’) 8.42% of the trials i.e. converted to minority view
• In inconsistent minority agreement with minority answer (‘green’) by real ppts fell to 1.25%
• For control group ppts gave incorrect answer (‘green’) 0.25% of the time
• Concluded that consistency is a major factor in effective minority influence

Question 87

There is research support for the link between consistency and effective minority influence - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 87

STRENGTH

Moscovici’s (1969) blue/green slide study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of others than an inconsistent minority

Wood et al (1994) :

• Carried out a META-ANALYSIS of almost 100 similar studies
• Found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were the most influential : supporting research is HIGHLY RELIABLE

Suggests that presenting consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority - as the theory predicted

Question 88

There is research support for the role of deeper processing in the role of minority influence - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 88

STRENGTH

Evidence shows that a change in the majority’s position does involve deeper processing of a minority’s ideas

E.g. Martin et al (2003) :

• Presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured ppt’s agreement
• One group of ppts then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while another group heard a majority group agree with it
• Ppts then exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again
• Found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority

Suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a stronger enduring effect

Research findings support the central argument about how minority influence works - increases theory VALIDITY

Question 89

Research into minority influence fail to truly replicate the real life complexities of a minority group - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 89

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting evidence argument)

Studies often conducted in a highly controlled artificial lab therefore fails to truly replicate the real life complexities of minorities

In the real world majorities often have a lot more power and status than the minorities

Minorities in the real world are also much more committed as they often face hostile opposition

These aspects are usually absent from minority influence research - the only feature of a minority that is usually conveyed is that it is the smallest group

Therefore minorities in these studies are very superficial and do not tell us anything about minority influence in the real world

COMPROMISES THE VALIDITY of the theory as supporting evidence lacks any real life application - if supporting evidence cannot be applied then how can we expect to apply the theory itself to real life situations?

Question 90

Minority influence research often lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY due to the artificial tasks ppts are asked to do in a highly controlled lab setting - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 90

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting research argument)

Tasks involved in supporting research are just as artificial as Ach’s line task

Includes Moscovici’s blue/green slide study - we do not evaluate the colours of blue slides often (if ever) in real life

Therefore research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life

E.g. in jury cases and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important that the conditions in research studies, sometimes even a matter of life and death

Means that findings of minority influence studies are lacking in EXTERNAL VALIDITY and are extremely limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real-world social situations

Some psychologists even argue (its me, I’m psychologists) that minority influence research is INSULTING to real minorities who risk their lives for their viewpoint as their efforts are simply watered down to trivial tasks in corresponding research

Question 91

Some psychologists question the power of minority influence - discuss this viewpoint

Answer 91

In Moscovici et al’s study, the figure of agreement with a consistent minority was very low - on average 8%

Suggests that minority influence is quite rare and not a useful concept when trying to understand social change

However, when ppts wrote down their answers privately (introduced ANONYMITY) , they were more likely to agree with the minority view

Suggests that there may be even more factors e.g. anonymity, unknown in the original theory, that may affect minority influence

Question 92

What are the 6 stages of social change created by minority influence?

Answer 92

1. Drawing attention through social proof
2. Consistency
3. Deeper processing
4. The augmentation principle
5. The snowball effect
6. Social cryptoamnesia

Question 93

Describe how stage 1 of social change as a result of minority influence (‘DRAWING ATTENTION THROUGH SOCIAL PROOF’) begins. Link this to the African-American civil rights movement example

Answer 93

Stage 1, ‘drawing attention through social proof’:

• In 1950’s black and white segregation applied to all parts of America
• There were black neighbourhoods and some places where exclusive to whites
• The civil rights marches drew attention to this situation, providing social proof of the problem

Question 94

Describe how stage 2 of social change as a result of minority influence (‘CONSISTENCY’) begins. Link this to the African-American civil rights movement example

Answer 94

Stage 2, ‘consistency’:

• Civil rights activists represented a minority of the American population, but their position remained consistent
• Millions of people took part in many marches over several years + always conveyed the same non-aggressive messages (DIACHRONIC consistency)

Question 95

Describe how stage 3 of social change as a result of minority influence (‘DEEPER PROCESSING’) begins. Link this to the African-American civil rights movement example

Answer 95

Stage 3, ‘Deeper processing’:

• Activism meant that many people who had simply accepted racism as the norm began thinking deeply about the unjustness of it

Question 96

Describe how stage 4 of social change as a result of minority influence (‘DRAWING ATTENTION THROUGH SOCIAL PROOF’) begins. Link this to the African-American civil rights movement example

Answer 96

Stage 4, ‘the augmentation principle’:

• Individuals risked their lives numerous times
• E.g. the ‘freedom riders’ were mixed ethnic groups who boarded buses in the south, challenging racial segregation of transport
• Many freedom riders were physically beaten
• This personal risk indicated a strong belief and reinforces (i.e. arguments) their message to the majority

Question 97

Describe how stage 4 of social change as a result of minority influence (‘THE SNOWBALL EFFECT’) begins. Link this to the African-American civil rights movement example

Answer 97

Stage 5, ‘the snowball effect’:

• Activists gradually got the attention of the US government
• More and more people began to back the minority position
• In 1964 US Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination, marking the change from minority to majority support for civil rights

Question 98

Describe how stage 6 of social change as a result of minority influence (‘SOCIAL CRYPTOAMNESIA’) begins. Link this to the African-American civil rights movement example

Answer 98

Stage 6, ‘social cryptoamnesia’:

• Social cryptoamnesia = when people know that social change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened
• People know that change (in terms of racism) has occurred but have no memory of the events that led to this change

Question 99

How does research into conformity link to social change?

Answer 99

• Asch highlighted importance of DISSENT in one of his variations where one of his confederates broke the unanimity of the group
• Breaking unanimity encouraged others to do the same (i.e. the real ppt) - such dissent has the power to create social change
• Research into environmental + health campaigns also exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI to induce social change
• Campaigns do this by providing info about what others are doing e.g. reducing litter by printing posters about how other people regularly recycle
• Social change is encouraged using NSI by drawing attention to what the ‘majority’ are doing so that others conform

Question 100

How does research into obedience link to social change?

Answer 100

• Milgram’s research demonstrates importance of disobedient role models (i.e. social support)
• In variation where confederate teacher refuses to give fake electric shocks to learner the rate of obedience in the genuine ppt plummeted
• Therefore disobedient role models can help start social change by encouraging others to do the same
• Zimbardo suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through the process of GRADUAL COMMITMENT:
• Once one small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist are bigger order - people slowly ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour

Question 101

Research has supported the concept that normative influence does lead to the process of social change - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 101

STRENGTH

Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change people’s energy use habits using an NSI centred campaign :

• Researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in California every week for a month
• Key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage (exploited mechanics of NSI)
• As a control, some residents had a message that just asked them to save energy without referencing other people’s behaviour
• Significant decreases in energy usage in the experimental group compared to the control

Shows that conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence

Increases the VALIDITY of the theory as an explanation for social change

Question 102

Some researchers have found that normative social influence has little to no effect on influencing social change - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 102

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to normative influence research support argument)

Some studies show that people’s behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms

Foxcroft et al (2015):

• Reviewed social norms interventions as part of the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Collaboration
• Review included 70 studies where the social norms (i.e. NSI) approach was used to reduce student alcohol use
• Only found a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency

Therefore using NSI may only effective in changing certain behaviours (i.e. it’s a LIMITED explanation)

Also means that NSI may not always produce long-term social change

Question 103

Some psychologists argue that minorities are extremely valuable in bringing about social change - explain whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 103

STRENGTH

Nemeth (2009) claims social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire

When people consider minority arguments, they engage in DIVERGENT THINKING

Divergent thinking = broad rather than narrow, in which the thinker actively searches for info and weighs up more options rather than taking things for face value

Nemeth argues divergent thinking leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues

Minorities stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way majorities cannot

Shows why dissenting minorities are valuable within society- there’s a general consensus amongst psychologists that minority influence does bring about social change

Question 104

Some psychologists argue that the concept of deeper processing may not even play a role in how minorities bring about social change - state whether this is a strength or a weakness and explain why

Answer 104

WEAKNESS

Some people are supposedly converted to the minority because they think more deeply about the minority’s views, however some psychologists think otherwise

Mackie (1987) presents evidence that it is actually the majority’s influence that may create deeper processing rather than the minority:

• If you do not share the majority’s view you are much more likely to deeply process than if you didn’t share the view of a minority
• This is because we like to believe that other people share our views and think the same way as us
• When we find out that a majority believes something different, we are forced to deeply process their arguments and reasoning e.g. “why does everyone think differently to me?”

Means that a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting DOUBT on its VALIDITY as an explanation for social change

Question 105

Some psychologists argue that despite minority influence, research into conformity and research into obedience there are still major barriers to social change - discuss this viewpoint

Answer 105

Research into social change generally provides practical advice to a minority wanting to influence majority opinion or behaviour

However Bashir et al (2013) argues that there is still resistance to social change even if research findings are implemented:

• Found that ppts were less likely to behave in an environmentally-friendly ways because they did not want to be associated with negative stereotypes linked to the minority position
• Ppts described the minority (i.e. environmental activists) in negative ways e.g. ‘tree-huggers’

Therefore research into social change has questionable value when there are still major barriers to a change in the majority

Arguments between psychologists means that social change is still heavily under-researched as there are still questions on how social change occurs and why some people still resist it (e.g. little research into how negative stereotypes affect a minority’s influence)