Social Influence

AQA PSYCHOLOGY A LEVEL FLASHCARDS - SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Baseline procedure study - Asch (1951)

Aim:

• Solomon Asch (1951) devised a procedure to measure the extent that people conformed to the opinion of others, even in a situation when the others’ answers were clearly wrong

Baseline procedure:

• 123 American male participants were tested individually, sitting last or next-to-last in a group of 6-8 confederates

• They were shown 2 large cards

• one 1 was a ‘standard line’ + on the other, there were 3 comparison lines - one of the 3 lines was the same length as the standard and the other two were always clearly different

• Each group member stated which of the 3 lines matched the standard

• there were 18 ‘trials’ involving different pairs of cards - on 12 of these (‘critical trials’) the confederates all gave the same clearly wrong answer

Findings of Baseline study:

• Asch found that the naïve ppts conformed 36.8% of the time - this shows a high level of conformity when the situation is unambiguous

• There were individual differences - 25% of ppts never conformed/ never gave a wrong answer

• 75% conformed at least once

• Asch conducted further studies where he showed that certain variables lead to less or more conformity - The details are given below

Variables investigated by Asch:

1. Group size

2. Unanimity

3. Task difficulty

Reasons for conformity:

• Distortion of perception - a small number of participants believed their perception was wrong so they conformed

• Distortion of judgement - some participants doubted the accuracy of their judgements and so conformed

• Distortion of action - the majority of participants who conformed continued privately to trust their own perception and judgements; they changed the public behaviour to avoid disapproval from other group members

Variable 1 - Group size

Procedure:

• Asch varied the number of confederates in each group between 1-15 (total group size between 2 and 16)

Findings:

• The relationship between group size and level of conformity was curvilinear

• If there were 2 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%

• When there were 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%

• Above 3 confederates, conformity rate levelled off - Adding more than 3 confederates made little difference

Explanation:

• People are very sensitive to the opinions of other people because just 1 confederate was enough to sway opinion

Variable 2 - Unanimity

Procedure:

• Asch introduced a dissenting confederate - sometimes they gave the correct answer and sometimes a different wrong answer (but always disagreed with majority)

Findings:

• In the presence of a dissenter, conformity reduced on average to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous

• Conformity reduced if dissenter gave right or wrong answer

• Conformity dropped to 5.5%

Explanation:

• Having a dissenter enabled the naïve ppts to behave more independently

Variable 3 - Task difficulty

Procedure:

• Asch made the line-judging task harder by making stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length

• Thus it was difficult to see differences between the lines

Findings:

• conformity increased

Explanation:

• The situation is more ambiguous, so we are most likely to look to others for guidance and to assume they are right and we are wrong

• This is informational social influence - it plays a greater role when the task becomes harder

Evaluation - Baseline Study (Asch)

Strengths:

• Prevented demand characteristics - Even though Asch deceived his ppts, if they were aware of the true aim, they would have displayed demand characteristics + acted differently

• Real-world application - advertises often use knowledge of conformity to increase sales; one useful technique is the 'bandwagon effect', which focuses on the idea that individuals decide what to buy based on what their peers recommend, due to a need to fit in

• Research support - Neilson Company study (2009) surveyed 25,000 people from 50 countries and found that 90% trusted their peers' opinions of products, significantly more than 69% who trusted media recommendations - strength of Asch's research as it has led to advertising companies using principles from conformity to increase sales

• Controlled Extraneous Variables - Asch’s study was conducted in a lab, and lab studies have high control over extraneous variables, meaning it is easier to demonstrate cause and effect

Limitations:

• Temporal validity - a measure of how well a study's results can be applied across time. It's a type of external validity which is the extent to which the findings of a study can be applied to other situations, people and settings

• Lack of consistency - The Asch experiment was recreated in the UK in the 1980s by Perrin and Spencer who used science and engineering students as their participants - they found only one conforming response out of 396 trials

• Lacks population validity (androcentric + ethnocentric) - Asch only used men in his study and it was suggested the women would be more conformist due to them being more concerned about being accepted (Neto, 1995) - Another issue in the study is that all of the men in Asch's study were from the US, an individualistic culture, so when the test was conducted in collectivist cultures, it has been found that conformity rates are even higher - this suggests that Asch's findings do not represent anyone other than American men

• Ethical issues - Asch broken the ethical guideline of deception, as he deliberately deceived his ppts, saying that they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity - additionally, when ppts are deceived, it hinders their informed consent, as they were consenting to the vision test not the psychological research study

• Contrasting research - Lucas et al. (2006) found that the influence of task difficulty depends on the self-efficacy of the individual. When exposed to maths problems in an Asch-type task, high self-efficacy participants (i.e., participants who were confident in their own abilities) remained more independent than low self-efficacy participants, even under conditions of high task difficulty - this shows that situational differences (task difficulty) and individual differences (self-efficacy) are both important in determining conformity.

Types of conformity

• Internalisation

• Compliance

Internalisation

Think the group is right

• Deep type of conformity in which we take on a majority view because we accept it as correct and internalise opinions/behaviours.

• Leads to permanent change in behaviour, even when in private and when away from the group.

Compliance

Temporary agreement

• Superficial/temporary type of conformity when we outwardly go along with the group’s behaviour but internally disagree with it.

• Change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.

Explanations for conformity

• Informational social influence (ISI)

• Normative social influence (NSI)

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) brought ISI and NSI together in their two-process theory

• they argued that people conform because of 2 basic human needs: the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (NSI)

Informational social influence (ISI)

ISI is about information - a desire to be right

• ISI is a cognitive process - people generally want to be right

• Leads to internalisation

• ISI is most likely in situations which are new or where there is some ambiguity, so it isn’t clear what is right

• It may happen when decisions have to be made quickly, when we assume the group is likely to be right

Normative social influence (NSI)

NSI is about norms - a desire to behave like others and not look foolish

• NSI concerns what is ‘normal’ behaviour for a social group (i.e. norms) - Norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals

• NSI is an emotional rather than cognitive process - people prefer social approval rather than rejection

• Leads to compliance

• NSI occurs in unfamiliar situations and with people you know - with strangers if you don’t want to be rejected, or people we know because we are concerned about the social approval of friends

Evaluation - Types + Explanations of Conformity

Strengths:

Research support:

• NSI - Asch (1951) found that when he interviewed his ppts, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and were afraid of disapproval - when ppts wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%

• ISI - Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to give answers to maths problems that were easy or difficult - there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were more difficult + this was particularly true for ppts who rated their own maths ability as poor - this supports ISI because it shows that people conform more in situations when they don't feel like they know the correct answer so look to others who might be experts for their answer

• ISI - Jenness (1932) used a jelly bean jar task where participants' individual estimates shifted closer to the group estimate after discussion. This demonstrates ISI in ambiguous situations, where participants believed they gained knowledge from the group to be more accurate

• Real life application (energy consumption) - Nolan et al. found that messages stating "most people in your area are reducing their energy usage" led to significantly greater energy savings than simple "save energy" prompts. This highlights NSI's power to motivate community-based behaviour change.

Limitations:

Individual differences:

• Limitation of ISI - Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted a study with engineering students who were confident with precision. In a group, the confederates all agree to an incorrect answer to try to change the opinion of the real participant. The found that there was very little conformity - this shows how people who are knowledgeable and confident in their knowledge are less influenced by the apparently 'right' answer that the majority group show, therefore there are differences in how individuals respond in ISI

• Limitation of NSI - those who have a greater need for affiliation to the group are more likely to conform due to NSI - McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who scored high in need of affiliation, by self-report, were more likely to be conformist - people who don't care about being liked or disliked are less likely to be influenced by NSI

• NSI and ISI can't be separated as they are in the dual-process model - the suggestion in the model is that behaviour is due to either ISI or NSI but it might be the case that both processes are involved. The ppts may have moved towards their group estimates due to a desire to be correct as well as a desire for acceptance (NSI + ISI) - In real life conformity situations, it makes it difficult to distinguish whether conformity was due to ISI or NSI

Baseline obedience study - Milgram (1963)

Aim - to establish whether ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order from a person in authority to inflict plain on another person

Procedure:

• Lab in Yale University

• 40 male ppts - each paid $4.50

• The ppts were told/thought it was a study of memory

• A confederate (‘Mr Wallace’) was always the ‘Learner’ while the true participant was the ‘Teacher’ - The Teacher could hear but not see the Learner

• An ‘Experimenter’ (another confederate) wore a grey lab coat (reinforce authority)

• The Teacher has to give the Learner an increasingly severe electric ‘shock’ each time he made a mistake on the task (memorise pairs of words) - the shocks increased in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts

• The ppts watched the confederate being strapped into a chair in an adjoining room with electrodes attached to his arms

• If the Teacher wished to stop, the Experimenter gave a verbal ‘prod’ to continue and the prods varied - Prod 1: 'Please continue' - Prod 4: 'You have no other choice, you must go on'

  • At 150 volts - learner shouts 'Ugh! Experimenter! Get me out of here…'

  • At 300 volts - screamed + refused to continue

  • From 345 volts - made no responses to the teacher's requests that he answer

• No shocks were actually administered + experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue or until 450 volts reached and given 4x

Findings:

Key -

• 12.5% (5 ppts) stopped at 300 volts

• 65% continued to 450 volts (highest level)

• Observations (qualitative data) - ppts showed signs of extreme tension + 3 of the ppts had ‘full-blown' uncontrollable seizures’

Other -

• Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they thought the naïve ppts would respond & the students estimated that no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts (so baseline findings were unexpected)

• After the study, ppts were debriefed + follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated

Conclusions:

• We obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else

• Certain situational factors encourage obedience (Milgram investigated these)

• When people occupy a subordinate position in a dominance hierarchy, they become liable to lose feelings of empathy, compassion, morality and are inclined towards blind obedience

• Atrocities such as those carried out in WW2 may be largely explained in terms of pressures to obey a powerful authority

Evaluation - Baseline Obedience Study (Milgram)

Strengths:

• Replication/Research support - Although it was a lab study, Milgram argued the lab reflected real-life power hierarchies - Hofling et al. (1966) found that 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed unjustified instructions from a "doctor" to over-administer a drug - this suggests Milgram’s findings can be generalised to real-world authority settings.

• High external validity - The study has been replicated across cultures with similar results - Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study where participants gave real shocks to a puppy. They found 54% of males and 100% of females were "fully obedient." - this counters the argument that Milgram’s participants were just "playing along" (demand characteristics).

• Historical importance + understanding - the study provided a psychological explanation for the Holocaust, moving away from the "dispositional" argument (that Germans were "different") to a "situational" one - this has led to better oversight in military and medical ethics

• Counterargument to low internal validity - Milgram reported that 75% of his ppts in post-study interviews said they believed the shocks were real + Coolican (1996) agreed with Milgram on the basis of videos showing the ppts in Milgram's studies who were taking the situation very seriously and experiencing real distress (e.g. seizures etc.)

Limitations:

• Low internal validity - Orne & Holland argued that participants didn't actually believe the shocks were real. Perry’s (2013) review of Milgram’s tapes showed many participants expressed doubts about the setup, so if they were just "going along with the act," the study isn't measuring obedience, but rather demand characteristics

• Many ethical issues (Deception) - Participants were told it was a study on memory and learning

• Right to Withdraw - Although told they could leave, the "prods" (e.g., ‘The experiment requires that you continue’ + ‘You have no other choice you must continue’) made it feel impossible to stop.

• Protection from Harm - Ppts showed extreme signs of stress (sweating, trembling, and three had "full-blown uncontrollable seizures") - this can damage the reputation of psychology as a science

• Social-Identity Theory Alternative - Haslam and Reicher (2012) argued that obedience wasn't about the authority figure, but about identification + they noted that ppts conformed when the prods appealed to the "science" (identification with the experimenter) but quit when given a direct order (the 4th prod: "You have no other choice, you must go on") - this suggests Milgram’s ‘Agentic State’ may be too simplistic.

Obedience - Situational Variables

In his research, Milgram identified several factors that he believed influenced the level of obedience shown by the ppts

These are all related to the external circumstances rather than to the personalities of the people involved:

• Proximity

• Location

• Uniform

Proximity + Variation

This refers to the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to

• In the baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him

• In the proximity variation, the Teacher and Learner were in the same room + obedience rate dropped from 65% - 45%

• Touch proximity - This was like the proximity condition except that the ppt had to force the learners’ hand onto the shock plate - obedience rate 30%

• Remote authority - Instruction were given over telephone - obedience rate 20.5%

Explanation:

• decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

For example - when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated, the Teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was obedient

Location + Variation

This refers to the place where an order is issued - the relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location

• The study was conducted in a run-down office carried rather than at the prestigious Yale University (as in the baseline) and carried out by ‘Research Associates of Bridgeport’ - obedience dropped to 47.5%

Explanation:

• Obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority (obedience was expected)

Uniform + Variation

• In the original study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat (a kind of uniform) as a symbol of his authority

• Variation - the Experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient phone call and the role of the Experimenter was taken by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothes - obedience rate 20% (lowest of these variations)

Explanation:

• a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society - someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience

Evaluation - Influence of Situational Variables (Milgram)

Strengths:

• Research Support - Bickman (1974) provides field validity - he found that people were twice as likely to obey someone dressed as a guard compared to someone in a milkman outfit or civilian clothes, confirming the situational variable of uniform and the power of perceived legitimate authority.

• Cross-cultural applications - Miranda et al. (1981) found obedience rates of over 90% amongst Spanish students, suggesting Milgram’s findings on situational variables aren't just limited to American men but are applicable across cultures and genders.

• High internal validity (control) - Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time (e.g., moving from Yale to an office block) while keeping all other procedures constant - this allows for a clear cause-and-effect statement between the situational change and the level of obedience

Limitations:

• Low internal validity (demand characteristics) - Orne and Holland (1968) argued that in the variations (especially the "member of the public" uniform variation), the situation became so contrived that participants likely saw through the deception - this means they may have displayed demand characteristics, acting as they thought the experimenter wanted rather than obeying genuinely.

• The ‘Obedience Alibi’ - Critics like Mandel (1998) argue that focusing on situational variables offers an "alibi" for evil behaviour - it suggests that perpetrators of atrocities (like the Nazis) were simply victims of situational pressures, which is socially sensitive and ignores the role of dispositional factors (personality)

• Ethical Issues - While the variables themselves aren't an ethical flaw, the systematic manipulation of proximity and touch (forcing a participant's hand onto a shock plate) caused significant psychological distress, leading to modern criticisms regarding the protection of participants

Milgram’s Agency Theory (situational explanations for obedience)

Agentic state - Act on on behalf of another person

• Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an ‘agent’

• In an agentic state, a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions

Autonomous state - Not an agent

• ‘Autonomy’ means, to be independent or free

• A person in an autonomous state behaves according to their principles and feels responsible for their actions

Agentic shift - Moving to agentic state

• The shift from autonomy to being an ‘agent’ is called the agentic shift

• Milgram suggested that this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure

• This person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy

Binding factors - Reduce ‘moral strain’

• Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the ‘moral strain’ they feel

• Milgram proposed a number of strategies the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victims or denying the damage they are doing to victims

Evaluation - Milgram’s Agency Theory (situational explanations)

Strengths:

• Research support - In Milgram’s original study, many participants asked, "Who is responsible if the Learner is harmed?" When the experimenter replied, "I am," participants often went through the agentic shift and continued to 450v without further hesitation.

• Real-World Application - It explains atrocities like the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, where soldiers argued they were "just following orders" from higher-ranking officers.

Limitations:

• The "Cruelty" Problem - It doesn't explain why some people are just cruel - In Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment, guards became sadistic even without a direct order to be so - this suggests dispositional factors (personality) or social roles play a part, not just agency.

• Incomplete Explanation - It doesn't explain why 35% of Milgram's participants refused to obey - If the theory were perfect, everyone should have undergone the agentic shift

Legitimacy of Authority (situational explanations)

Core concept:

We obey those we see as having legitimate power, defined by society.

Authority is reinforced by:

• Social roles and credentials (e.g. uniforms, titles).

• Social agreement that authority is necessary for order.

Evaluation - Legitimacy of Authority (situational explanations)

Strengths:

• Real-life application - Tarnow (2000 aircraft accidents) - Can explain bystander behaviour (Fennis and Aarts, 2012 – when we have less control in a situation, we are more likely to look to authority for direction

• Cultural Validity: Studies show that obedience rates vary by culture based on how authority is perceived - Kilham and Mann (1974) found only 16% obedience in Australia, whereas Mantell (1971) found 85% in Germany - this supports the idea that in some cultures, authority is more "legitimate" and entitled to obedience than in others, reflecting how different societies are structured.

• Explains the Power of Hierarchy - Unlike Agency Theory, this explains why we shift, as we accept that some people (police, doctors, teachers) have the right to exert social power over us because it allows society to function smoothly - this makes it a highly logically consistent explanation for social order.

Limitations:

• The "Disobedient Models" Problem - In one of Milgram’s variations, when a confederate refused to obey, obedience dropped to 10% - If authority is truly "legitimate," one person’s defiance shouldn't theoretically strip the Experimenter of their status - this suggests social support is sometimes more powerful than the legitimacy of the figurehead.

• Cannot Explain All Disobedience: In Rank and Jacobson’s (1977) study, nurses were told by a "doctor" (a clear legitimate authority) to administer an excessive drug dose. 16 out of 18 refused - this suggests that even when authority is legitimate, personal moral codes or professional expertise can override the impulse to obey.

• Ignores Individual Differences - It doesn't account for why some people are naturally more rebellious - critics argue that The Authoritarian Personality (dispositional) is a better explanation for why certain people submit to authority while others with the same situational pressures do not.

The Authoritarian Personality (dispositional explanation for obedience)

Adorno et al. (1950) believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder, and tried to find its causes in the individual’s personality

Adorno et al. concluded that people with an Authoritarian Personality are especially obedience to authority and they:

• have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it

• express contempt for people of inferior social status

Authoritarians tend to follow orders and view ‘other’ groups as responsible for society’s ills

Originates in childhood -

• Authoritarian Personality forms in childhood through harsh parenting - extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism

• It is also characterised by conditional love - parents’ love depends entirely on how their child behaves

Hostility is displaced onto social inferiors -

• These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, but they cannot express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear reprisals

• the feelings are displaced onto others who are weaker - this is scapegoating - psychodynamic explanation

The Authoritarian Personality Study - Adorno et al. (1950)

Procedure:

• The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans

• Several scales were developed, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale) - Examples from the F-scale (rated on scale 1-6 where 6 = agree strongly)

• ‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn’.

• ‘There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents’.

Findings:

• Authoritarians (who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’.

• They were conscious of their own and others’ status, showing excessive respect and deference to those of higher status

• Authoritarian people also had a cognitive style where there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes (prejudices) about other groups

Evaluation - Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al.)

Strengths:

• Research Support - Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed a small sample of Milgram’s "obedient" participants & these ppts scored significantly higher on the F-scale than the "defiant" group - this confirms a clear correlation between the personality type and obedience to authority.

• Logical Consistency - the theory explains why some people obey even when the situation is not inherently pressuring - it fills the gap left by situational variables by accounting for individual differences.

Limitations:

• Correlation vs. Causation - while Elms and Milgram found a link, it is only a correlation, as we cannot say the personality caused the obedience. A third factor, such as a lower level of education, could be linked to both high F-scale scores and high obedience.

• Methodological Bias (The F-Scale) - every item on the original F-scale is worded in the same "pro-authoritarian" direction - this means the scale might just be measuring acquiescence bias (the tendency to agree with everything) rather than a true personality type.

• Limited Explanation - It struggles to explain pre-war Germany as, it is highly unlikely that millions of Germans all had the same "Authoritarian Personality" due to strict upbringing - A social-psychological explanation (like Social Identity Theory) is often seen as more plausible for mass obedience.

• Political Bias - Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued the F-scale is politically biased toward right-wing authoritarianism - it fails to account for left-wing authoritarianism (e.g., Bolshevism), meaning it isn't a comprehensive theory of obedience to all types of authority.

• Flawed Theory of Origin - Adorno’s claim that it stems from "harsh parenting" is based on retrospective interviews as ppts may have misremembered their childhood, or their current prejudices may have distorted their memories of their parents.

Resistance to social influence - Social Support

Resisting conformity - Dissenting peer

Pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming

• Asch’s research showed that the dissenter doesn’t have to give the ‘right’ answer - simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience

• the dissenter acts as a ‘model’ + shows that the majority is no longer unanimous

Resisting obedience - obedience is reduced by one other dissenting partner

Pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey

• Milgram’s research - obedient behaviour greatly decreased in the disobedient peer condition (from 65-10%)

• The ppt may not follow the disobedient peer but the dissenter’s disobedience frees the ppt to act from their own conscience

• A disobedient model challenge the legitimacy of the authority figure

Evaluation - Social Support (resistance to social influence)

Strengths:

• Research Support (Conformity) - Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased even if the "dissenter" wore thick glasses and said they had vision problems - this proves that social support works not because the person is "right," but because it breaks the unanimity of the group, giving the individual freedom to follow their own conscience.

• Research Support (Obedience) - In one of Milgram’s variations, the participant was joined by two disobedient confederates. Obedience dropped from 65% to 10% - this shows that a "disobedient model" provides a powerful social cue that it is acceptable to challenge legitimate authority.

• Real-World Application - the theory explains the success of historical protest movements - when a small group starts to resist (e.g., the Rosenstrasse protest in Nazi Germany), it provides the "social support" needed for others to join in, shifting the social norm from compliance to resistance.

Limitations:

• Temporal Validity/Nature of Support - Gamson et al. (1982) found higher levels of resistance than Milgram, likely because their participants were in groups (producing "oil company" smear campaigns) - this suggests that social support is more effective when it is a collective, shared resistance rather than just one lone dissenter.

• Individual Differences (Locus of Control) - Social support doesn't help everyone equally. People with an Internal Locus of Control are more likely to resist anyway, whereas those with an External LoC may still conform if the social support isn't strong enough - this suggests social support is only part of the story.

• Effect is Often Temporary - Asch found that if the non-conforming peer starts conforming again, the participant almost immediately follows suit - this suggests that social support provides a temporary "crutch" rather than a permanent change in independent behaviour.

Resistance to social influence - Locus of control (LOC)

Internal place control within themselves - Externals place control outside themselves

Rotter (1966) described internal vs external LoC

• Internals believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves (e.g. doing well or badly in an exam depends on how hard you work)

• Externals believe things happen outside their control (e.g. if they fail an exam, they say it was because they had a bad teacher or had bad luck because the questions were hard)

There is a continuum -

• LoC is not just being internal or external - there is a scale from one to the other and people differ in their position on it

• High internals at one end and high externals at the other, low internals and low externals lie in-between

Internals show greater resistance to social influence

People with internal LoC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey

1. If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions (good or bad) they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs

2. People with high internal LoC are more confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence - traits that lead to greater resistance (also traits of leaders, who have less need for social approval)

Evaluation - LoC (resistance to social influence)

Strengths:

• Research Support (Obedience) – Holland (1967) replicated Milgram’s study and found that 37% of internals refused to continue to the highest shock level, compared to only 23% of externals - this provides empirical evidence that internals show greater resistance to authority.

• Research Support (Conformity) – Avtgis (1998) conducted a meta-analysis showing that individuals with an internal LoC are significantly less likely to conform - this suggests a consistent correlation between personality type and independent behaviour across various studies.

• High Reliability – The Rotter Scale used to measure LoC is a standardised psychometric test, as the scoring is objective and consistent, the findings supporting the theory are considered highly reliable and easy to replicate.

Limitations:

• Contradictory Trend Data – Twenge et al. (2004) did a meta-analysis of American studies of LoC over a 40-year period and found that while people have become more resistant to obedience, they have actually become more external in their LoC - this challenges the link between internality and independence.

• Limited Application – Rotter (1982) argued that LoC only influences behaviour in novel (new) situations. In familiar scenarios, our previous experiences (success or failure) are much more powerful predictors of whether we will resist influence than our LoC.

• Methodological Issues – LoC is measured via self-report questionnaires, so ppts may give "socially desirable" answers (pretending to be more in control than they are), which reduces the internal validity of the research supporting the theory.

• Correlation vs. Causation – Much of the research is correlational as, while there is a link between an internal LoC and resistance, we cannot say for certain that one causes the other; other factors like high self-esteem or past trauma might be the actual cause.

Minority influence

Minority influence

Refers to how one person or small group influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people

• The minority may influence just one person, or a group of people (the majority) - this is different from conformity where the majority does the influencing (conformity is sononmetimes referred to as ‘majority influence’)

Internalisation

• Minority influence leads to internalisation - both public behaviour and private beliefs changed

• Three processes - consistency, commitment, flexibility

Consistency

Means the minority’s view gains more interest

• Consistency makes others rethink their own views (‘Maybe they’ve got a point if they all think this way and keep saying it’)

  • Synchronic consistency - people in the minority are all saying the same thing

  • Diachronic consistency - they’ve been saying the same thing for some time

Commitment

Helps gain attention e.g. through extreme activities

• Activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause

  • Augmentation principle - majority pay even more attention (‘Wow, he must really believe in what he’s saying, so perhaps I ought to consider his view’)

Flexibility

The minority should balance consistency and flexibility so they don’t appear rigid

• Nemeth (1986) argued that being consistent and repeating the same arguments and behaviours is seen as rigid and off-putting to the majority

• The minority should adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counterarguments

The process of minority influence

Individuals think deeply about the minority position because it is new/unfamiliar

• Snowball effect - over time, more people become ‘converted’ (like a snowball gathering more snow as it rolls along) - there is a switch from the minority to the majority

• the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion

• gradually, the minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred

  • Social cryptomnesia - a cognitive phenomenon where a majority population adopts the ideas or values of a minority group, but forgets the original source of those ideas

  • this often happens because the original minority group may have been viewed as "fringe" or "unpleasant”, so forgetting the source allows the majority to adopt the new belief without the social stigma of being associated with the "radical" group.

Moscovici et al.’s study (1969) - optional but useful!

Procedure:

• 172 female ppts - A group of 6 people (4 ppt + 2 confederates) viewed 36 blue-coloured slides of varying intensities - they were asked to state whether the slides were blue or green

• In one condition, both confederates consistently said the slides were green

• In another condition, the confederates were inconsistent (green 24 times, blue 12 times)

• The procedure was repeated with a control group (no confederates)

Findings:

• Consistently minority - ppts gave the same wrong answer (green) on 8.42%

• Inconsistently minority - agreement fell to 1.25%

• Control group - wrongly identified colour, just 0.25% of the time

Evaluation - Minority influence

Strengths:

• Research support for consistency – Moscovici’s blue/green slide study demonstrated that a consistent minority is significantly more influential than an inconsistent one - this was further validated by Wood et al. (1994), whose meta-analysis of nearly 100 studies found that consistency is the single most important factor for a minority to be effective.

• Research support for role of deeper processing – Martin et al. (2003) found that people who listened to a minority viewpoint were more resistant to conflicting opinions later on compared to those who followed a majority - this suggests that minority influence leads to deeper cognitive processing and true internalisation, rather than just surface-level compliance.

• Support for internalisation – In variations of Moscovici’s research, when participants were allowed to write their answers down privately, agreement with the minority actually increased - this proves that the minority's message can be convincing even when people are too intimidated to align with them publicly.

Limitations:

• Artificial tasks – Most research into minority influence, such as judging slide colours, lacks mundane realism - these tasks do not reflect the high-stakes, emotional nature of real-world minority influence, such as political activism or jury deliberations, meaning the findings may not generalise to real life.

• Limited real-world application – In laboratory studies, the "majority" and "minority" are simply groups of strangers, whereas in reality, majorities often have more power and status, while minorities face extreme hostility and social exclusion - these complex power dynamics are rarely captured in controlled experiments.

• The slow nature of social change – Nemeth (1986) argues that minority influence is often indirect and delayed as, the majority may only be influenced on matters related to the issue rather than the issue itself, or the change may take decades to manifest, making the "snowball effect" difficult to track accurately.

Examples of social change

All began as small, committed groups whose dedication eventually won majority support

• The movement for African-American civil rights in the 1950-60s

• Woman’s suffrage movement - hunger strike + killed by horse

• The Civil Rights Movement

• Gandhi’s independence movement