Social influence

Conformity

Choosing the course of action most favored by the majority of others to fit in and be liked

Types of conformity

Compliance

Internalisation

Identification

Compliance

Going along with the requests of the majority in public, but privately disagreeing

Temporary

eg. laughing when its not funny, wearing similar clothes

Internalisation

Majority views are taken on at a deeper level, becoming part of the persons belief system

Private and public agreement

Permanent

eg. religion, veganism, smoking pressure

Identification

Changing behaviour but only in presence of the majority group, they identify with

Private and public agreement when with the group

Temporary

eg. being began in uni flat, but reverting at home

Explanations for conformity

Normative social influence

Informational social influence

Normative social influence (NSI)

Person doesn’t want to appear foolish, so they change their public behaviour to gain social approval, rather than be rejected

About norms and typical behaviour

Need to be liked

Compliance

Emotional process

Occurs in situations with strangers (scared of disapproval) or people they know (to gain social approval)

Informative social influence (ISI)

Person looks to others for the correct answer because they believe they are experts

Need to be right

Cognitive process

Occurs in new situations that are ambiguous and also crisis situations

A strength of ISI as an explanation for conformity is that there’s research support

E- Jenness carried out a study asking students to guess the number of beans in a jar. After each having their own guess, they then discussed their estimates and were asked for a second guess. The results showed that individual estimates converged to a group norm

E- this study shows that people conform in situations where they feel like they don’t know the answer, and others may be experts, which is what ISI states

L- therefore, the explanation has high external validity because it has been shown this study

A strength of NSI as an explanation for conformity is that it has research support

E- Asch assessed the extent to which people will conform to the opinions of others, even in an unambiguous situation. his line experiment found that 37% conformed, many because they were afraid of disapproval

E- These findings show that majority of conforming is due to fear of being rejected by the group, which is what NSI states

L- therefore, this explanation has high external validity because its been shown in this study

A limitation of explanations for conformity is that individual differences play a role

E- in NSI, research shows it doesn’t effect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. for example, McGhee and Teevan found that students in high need of affiliation were more likely to conform, showing certain people are more concerned with being liked

E- in ISI, research also shows there are individual differences in the way people respond to conformity. for example, Asch found students as less conformist than older participants however Perrin and Spencer found engineering students as rarely conforming. this shows confidence and other personal factors affect levels of conformity

L- the explanations are necessarily valid for every individual

A limitation of explanations for conformity is that ISI and NSI work together

E- the 2 process approach proposed by Deutsch and Gerrard says behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI. but more often both processes are involved. for example, in Asch's line study, adding a dissenting participant decreased conformity rates. this could be due to it decreasing the power of NSI as there is an increase in social support, or it could be decreasing the power of ISI as there is an alternative source of information

E- this shows how it’s not always possible to be sure whether ISI or NSI are at work

L- this casts doubt over the idea of NSI and ISI working independently as forms of conforming behaviour

Asch’s research

\-Asch’s baseline study was a procedure to assess the extent people will conform to other, even when in an unambiguous situation (obvious)

\-123 male student volunteers used in 18 trials


1. participants were told they’re taking part in a visual task
2. in the room was 7 confederates and 1 actual participant
3. they were all asked to say out loud which of the 3 comparison lines matched up to the stimulus line, with it being very obvious
4. all the confederates were told to say the same wrong answers, to see if the naive participant would conform
5. the real participant sat 2nd to last, so the confederates spoke before them
6. a control group tested how accurate individual judgements were

What explanation for conformity did Asch research

NSI

Asch’s findings

37% rate of conformity

75% conformed at least once

25% never conformed

Error rate of 0.04% in control group

Asch’s post interview results

Most conformed to avoid rejection and disapproval from the group, but they trusted their own judgement privately (NSI)

Some believed their perception was wrong

Conclusions from Asch’s research

Individual judgements are affected by majority views, even when they are clearly wrong

There are big individual differences between people that affect extent of conformity (eg. confidence)

Asch’s variations

Group size

Unanimity

Task difficulty

Group size variation

The more confederates, the higher the rate of conformity, up to a point

32% conformity with 3 confederates, but any more made little difference

Suggests small majority is not sufficient for influence, but no need for a majority of more than 3

Unanimity variation

Presence of dissenter reduced conformity by a quarter (from when majority was unanimous)

Lets the participant act more independently

The dissenter disagreed with the others

Task difficulty variation

He made the comparison lines more similar in length and conformity increased in this condition

The harder the task, the more likely participants will conform because ISI plays a greater role (want to be right and look to others as experts)

A strength of Asch’s research is that it has real life application

E- bullying

A limitation of Asch’s research is that the findings have limited generalisability

E- 123 student volunteers took part in his research, and they were all American males

E- Neto suggests women may be more conformist because they are more concerned about social relationships than men are. also, Bond and Smith found conformity rates higher in collectivist cultures such as China, which differs to America, an individualist culture

L- as a result, his findings can only apply to his participant population because he didn’t take gender and cultural differences into account. lowers external validity

A limitation of Asch’s research is that it used a artificial situation and task

E- participants knew they were in a study so there was the risk of demand characteristics. also, the task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and didn’t reflect everyday situations

E- as a result, the findings don’t tell us much about normal everyday behaviour and it’s hard to generalise to normal situations, especially to ones where the consequences of conformity might be more important

L- lacks ecological validity

A limitation of Asch’s research is that it has historical bias

E- Asch carried out his research in the 1950s, which was an especially conformist time in America. it was just after the war, so people may were weary about consequences for not conforming

E- also, Perrin and Spencer repeated Asch’s study with engineering students in the UK, only 1 student conformed in 396 trials

L- society has changed tremendously since the 50s, including social norms, and these findings suggest his research is not consistent across time and situations

Zimbardo’s research

The Stanford prison experiment

He wanted to find out whether the brutality of prison guards is due to their sadistic personalities or the prison environment

Zimbardo’s procedure

\-Set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University

\-21 men were selected from a volunteer sample, deemed emotionally stable

\-Students were randomly assigned to either the role of a prisoner or a prison guard

\-Prisoners were arrested in their own homes, blindfolded, strip searched and issued a uniform and number (to create a loss of personal identity, deindividuation)

\-Prisoners had a strict daily routine, including 16 rules from the guards

\-Guards were told they had complete power over the prisoners

Zimbardo’s findings

\-Guards took up their roles with enthusiasm (many punishments, brutality, aggression and harassment)

\-Prisoners ripped their uniforms, and the guards retaliated with fire extinguishers

\-Prisoners became depressed and anxious (3 were released within 4 days due to psychological disturbances) (1 went on hunger strike)

\-Guards identified more with their role and some seemed to enjoy their power over the prisoners

\-Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days, rather than the intended 14 due to his girlfriend’s threats and convincement

Zimbardo’s conclusions

All guards and prisoners conformed to their roles (guards=brutal, prisoners=submissive)

Situations and social roles have a strong influence on individuals behaviour

People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if they are as strongly stereotyped as prison guards

Other visitor volunteers (eg. prison chaplin) also conformed to their roles, as if it was actually a prison rather than a psychological study

A strength of Zimbardo’s research is that it was highly controlled

E- Zimbardo has control over the key variables in his study. such as the selection of participants, they went through psychometric testing so only emotionally stable ones were chosen and he randomly assigned them to each role

E- this was to rule out individual personality differences and reduce researcher bias

L- increased internal validity of the study so we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of social roles on behaviour

A limitation of Zimbardo’s research is that it lacks research support

E- Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s experiment (the BBC prison study) but the findings were very different. the prisoners took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to harassment and disobedience

E- the researchers used social identity theory to explain this outcome. they argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group, but the prisoners did

L- these findings challenge Zimbardo’s conclusions about conformity to social roles because according to him, conforming to these roles should come naturally, but that was not the case. this decreases Zimbardo’s internal validity

A limitation of Zimbardo’s research is that it lacks realism

E- Banuazizi and Mohavedi argued that the participants were only play acting, rather than genuinely conforming to a role. their performances were based on their stereotypes of how the roles are supposed to behave

E- this explains why the prisoners rioted because they thought that was what real prisoners did

CP- however, McDermott argued that the participants did behave as if the prison was real. quantitative data gathered showed that 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life

L- this suggests that the situation was real to the participants, and that Zimbardo did replicate the social roles in a prison very well, increasing its internal validity

A limitation of Zimbardo’s research is that it had major ethical issues

E- for example, when a student wanted to leave, Zimbardo spoke to him as a prison warden, instead of a researcher

E- he became subjective and didn’t fulfil his main ethical responsibility to protect participants. this exposed them to the risk of psychological harm

L- this does not challenge the validity of his findings, but it’s a major criticism of his research

Obedience

Form of social influence where people follow a direct order, usually from a figure of authority who has the power to punish if not carried out

Milgram’s research

He wanted to find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure, and inflict pain on another person, just because they were instructed to


1. 40 American male volunteers were offered $4.50 to take part in a ‘memory’ experiment
2. Each volunteer went to Milgram’s lab at Yale University and met the experimenter and another participant (both confederates)
3. The real participant was always assigned the teacher role and the confederate always got the learner role
4. The teacher was ordered to give an increasingly severe electric shock every time the learner made a mistake on the learning task
5. Shocks started at 15 volts and increased to 450 volts, they were actually fake but screams got louder and more dramatic as the voltage increased
6. The experimenter would use prods when the teacher felt unsure about continuing (eg. please continue, the experiment requires you to continue)

Milgram’s findings

Every participants delivered shocks up to 300 volts

65% went to the full 450 volts (65% obedience)

Qualitative data collected observed participants sweating and stuttering

Milgram’s conclusions

Under the right circumstances, ordinary people will obey unmoral orders

The findings were unexpected. Before the study students predicted less than 3% would continue to 450 volts (they underestimated)

All participants were debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal, 84% reported they felt glad to have participated

A strength of Milgram’s research is that it has a supporting replication

E- a French documentary, The Game of Death, replicated Milgram’s study. the participants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other participants (actors) in front of a studio audience. 80% delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an ‘unconscious man’ and has almost identical behaviour to Milgram’s participants, sweating, anxiety

E- these results support Milgram’s original findings and conclusions about obedience to authority

L- shows his findings are reliable

A strength of Milgram’s research is that it has high external validity

E- even though the lab experiment may first appear to lack external validity, Milgram argued the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. research supports this such as Hofling et al who studied nurses on a hospital ward and found high levels of obedience to unjust demands from doctors (21/22 nurses obeyed order to administer an OD of an unknown drug)

E- suggests processes of obedience to authority from his lab can be generalised to other situations

L- his findings are valuable in telling us about obedience in real life

A limitation of Milgram’s research is that it has low internal validity

E- Orne and Holland argued that participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t believe the set up. they guessed it wasn’t real electric shocks, but went along and ‘play acted’

E- if this is true, then Milgram didn’t test what he intended to, it lacks internal validity. Perry confirmed this by listening to tapes of Milgram’s participants, of which many expressed their doubts about the shocks

L- as a result, his findings aren’t valid because behaviour wasn’t genuine

CP- Sheridan and King’s study had participants giving real shocks to a puppy. 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. this suggests the effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved the same way with real shocks

A limitation of Milgram’s research is that there may be an alternative explanation for the obedience

E- social identity theory suggests the key to obedience is group identification. participants in Milgram’s study identified with the experimenter and the science of the study and so obedience levels were high. they fell when participants identified less with the science and more with the victim. also, the first 3 prods appeal for help with the science, however the last prod demands obedience, and every time this prod was used, the participant quit

E- this theory contradicts Milgram’s claim that his findings were due to pure obedience to authority

L- lowers internal validity

Explanations for obedience

Situations variables

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Situational variables as an explanation for obedience

Proximity

Location

Uniform

Proximity - situational variables

The physical distance of an authority figure and the individual receiving the orders

The further away they are, the more obedient they are as they can psychologically distance themself from the consequences of their actions

Proximity in Milgram’s study

Baseline study has the teacher and learner in separate rooms (65% obedience) - furthest away

In the variation, the teacher and learner were in the same room (40% obedience)

In another variation, the teacher forced learners hand onto shock plate (30% obedience) - closest

Location - situational variables

The place where an order is issued

Status of place affects obedience

A person with legitimacy of authority in the right location will have higher obedience rates

Location in Milgram’s study

Baseline study was in prestigious Yale University (65% obedience)

In the variation, it was in a run down office (47.5% obedience)

Uniform - situational variables

People in positions of authority usually have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority and gives them legitimacy

Someone in uniform expects obedience, so levels increase to avoid consequences

Uniform in Milgram’s study

Baseline study had experimenter wearing a grey lab coat (65% obedience)

In variation, he was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in every day clothes (20% obedience - lowest)

A strength of Milgram’s variations is that there is research support

E- Bickman conducted a field experiment in NYC where 3 confederates dressed in different outfits and asked passerby’s to pick up litter. The confederate dressed a security guard had double the obedience (38%) than those dressed in a jacket and tie or as a milkman (less than 20%)

E- this supports Milgram’s conclusions that a uniform has a powerful effect on obedience

L- increased internal validity for his variation studies

A limitation of Milgram’s variations is that it lacks internal validity

E- Orne and Holland, who also criticised Milgram’s baseline study, pointed out that it’s even more likely that participants were aware the procedure was fake in the variations, due to the extra manipulation of variables. such as when the experimenter was replaced by a ‘member of the public’

E- it’s unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the process of obedience or because participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly

L- if this play acting is the case, then Milgram didn’t measure what he intended, lowering internal validity

A strength of Milgram’s variations is that there is cross cultural replications

E- Miranda et al found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students and Meeus also found an obedience rate of 90% in dutch participants

E- this suggests that Milgram’s conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males and are valid across cultures

CP- however Bond and Smith identify that most replications took place in Western societies. these are culturally not that different from the USA but they are more different to Eastern societies for example. so it’s not appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings apply to all cultures because social norms, and therefore obedience levels vary between cultures

A limitation of Milgram’s variations is that it may be a dangerous perspective

E- since Milgram’s findings support a situational explanation of obedience, it can be argued that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour. Mandel criticized this perspective because it’s offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control

E- it removes the personal responsibility from the perpetrators and runs the risk of trivialising genocide

L- as a result, the situational explanation can be seen as threatening to victims in certain situations

Agentic state as an explanation for obedience

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we believe we are acting for an authority figure (they’re an agent)

Frees us from our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure

Agent experiences high anxiety (moral strain) but they feel powerless to disobey

\-Includes agentic shift, autonomous state and binding factors

Agentic shift

The shift from autonomous state to agentic state

Occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure, they have greater power due to their position in a social hierarchy. It lets them defer responsibility to the person in charge

Autonomous state

Opposite to agentic state

Person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels responsibility for their own actions (independent)

Binding factors

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour

Reduces their moral strain

Milgram proposed individuals use strategies like shifting responsibility to the victim, or denying there was damage made

Agency theory in Milgram’s study

Autonomous state: teacher gets uncomfortable increasing voltage so they ask the experimenter who will take responsibility. they say they will

Agentic shift occurs immediately

Agentic state: teacher has become the experimenter’s agent, and moral strain and binding factors are reduced

A strength of agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that there’s research support

E- Blass and Schmitt showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner. they blamed the experimenter rather than the participant

E- therefore, the students believed the participants were agents of authority

L- this supports the agency theory

A limitation of agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that its limited

E- the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings. for example, it doesn’t explain why some of Milgram’s participants did not obey (humans are social animals involved in social hierarchies and so should all obey)

E- as a result, it suggests a cgentic shift can only account for some obedience situations, not all

L- lowers external validity since the explanation can’t always be applied to circumstances outside the study

Legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience

Suggests we are more likely to obey people we perceieve to have authority over us

Authority is agreed by society and is justified by individual’s position of power within the social hierarchy

Lets society function smoothly

Consequences of legitimacy of authority

Some people are granted the power to punish others (eg. police and courts)

We accept that the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers, and are willing to hand control of our behaviour to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately

Destructive authority

Some people can abuse their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in dangerous ways, such as Hitler

Shown in Milgram’s study when the experimenter used prods to order the teachers to behave in ways against their consciences

A strength of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience is that it’s a useful account of cultural differences

E- many studies show that countries differ in the degree of obedience to authority. for example, Kilham and Mann replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and only 16% went all the way up to 450 volts. however, Mantell found 85% of German participants reaching 450 volts

E- this reflects the idea that different cultures produce different levels of obedience because they are structured differently

L- this shows that authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures more than others. this increases the internal validity of the explanation

A strength of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience is that it can help explain real life war crimes

E- for example, the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam war in 1986 had horrific incidents. only one soldier faced charges and was found guilty, William Calley, but his defense was that he was only following orders, like the Nazi officers at the Nuremberg trials

E- researchers argue that the massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US army

L- therefore there is the possibility that it could help us understand how to prevent such crimes in the future. eg. by educating people to challenge legitimate authority rather than mindlessly obey it

Dispositional explanation for obedience

The Authoritarian personality

Authoritarian personality

A type of personality that is especially susceptible to obeying people in authority

Individuals are submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferior status

Forms during childhood as a result of harsh parenting

Adorno

Argued the Authoritarian personality

Wanted to understand the anti-semitism of the Holocaust

Believed that a high level of obedience was basically a psychological disorder of the personality

Invented the F-scale (fascism)

Characteristics of Authoritarian personality

Especially obedient to authority

Extreme respect and submissiveness to authority

Believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values like love of country, religion and family

Have high conventional attitudes towards race and gender

Inflexible in their outlook

Everything is either right or wrong

Very uncomfortable with uncertainty

Origins of authoritarian personality

Forms in childhood

A result of harsh parenting (strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, conditional love)

Leads to resentment and hostility that cannot be expressed, and so becomes displaced onto others who are perceived to be weaker (why they are dismissive of inferior status)

A psychodynamic explanation

Adorno et al study

Investigated causes of obedient personality in 2000 middle-class white Americans, and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups using the F-scale

Found that people who scored high identified with ‘strong’ people and contempted the ‘weak’, were very conscious of everyone’s status and showed excessive respect to those of higher status

They also had a cognitive style with no ’fuzziness’ between categories of people, they had distinctive stereotypes

Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

A strength of the authoritarian personality explanation is that there is research support

E- Milgram and Elms interviewed a small sample who participated in the original studies and had been fully obedient. they all completed the F-scale and scored highly, much higher than a comparison group of disobedient participants

E- they believed there might be a link between obedience and authoritarian personality, which supports Adorno’s view

CP- analysis of the individual F-scales found that obedient participants had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians. this suggests the link is complex and authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience

A limitation of the authoritarian personality explanation is that it’s limited

E- this dispositional explanation cannot explain all obedient behaviour in a country’s population. for example, in pre-war Germany, millions of people displayed obedient, racist and anti-semitic behaviour. it is extremely unlikely that they could all possess an authoritarian personality

E- this shows that an alternative explanation is much more realistic. social identity theory states the majority of those German’s identified with the Nazi state and scapegoated the Jew ‘outgroup’

L- therefore, authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience has less value than we thought

A limitation of the authoritarian personality explanation is that the F-scale has methodological problems

E- the scale had severe criticism because every item is worded in the same ‘direction’, meaning it’s possible to get a high score for authoritarianism just by ticking the same line of boxes down one side of the page

E- as a result, people who agree with each item are not necessarily authoritarian, but simply just acquiesces. the scale is basically just measuring the tendency to agree to everything (acquiescence bias)

L- this is a limitation because the concept of authoritarian personality has no basis if the method of measuring it is flawed

A limitation of the authoritarian personality explanation is that correlation doesn’t mean causation

E- Adorno and his colleagues found many significant correlations between a range of variables. eg. they found authoritarianism was strongly correlated with prejudice against minority groups

E- however, no matter how strong a correlation, it does not mean one variable causes the other. as a result, Adorno cannot claim that a harsh parenting style caused the development of an authoritarian personality

L- this undermines the validity of the explanation and limits the power of the authoritarian personality to explain why people obey

Explanations of resistance to social influence

Social support

Locus of control

(ability to withstand social pressure to conform or obey)

Social support

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey who act as models to show others that resistance is possible

Eg. Asch conformity - dissenter reduced conformity

Eg. Milgram obedience - disobedient confederate (dropped to 10%) they are a model for the participant to copy and frees them from their own conscience

A strength of social support as an explanation for resistance is that there’s research support for conformity resistance

E- Allen and Levine found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch type study. this occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision

E- this supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity and how it enables someone to be free of group pressure

L- this increases the explanations internal validity

A limitation of social support as an explanation for resistance is that there’s conflicting research

E- May et al carried out a study investigating whether social support could help people to stop smoking. questionnaries and interviews assessed the level of social support the participants had. they found that social support was a good predictor of abstinence from smoking, but only in the short term. after 26 weeks, social support made little difference (eg. getting positive support from friends had no impact long term)

E- although the explanation has value short term, the lack of long term evidence shows it’s not as useful in the real world

L- lacks internal temporal validity

Locus of control

The sense we have about what directs events in our lives

Internal vs external control

Internal locus of control

People believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them

\-Higher self confidence (less need for social approval)

\-More achievement oriented

\-Take responsibility for their actions

\-More likely to resist conformity and obedience

External locus of control

People believe things happen without their control, a matter of luck or other outside forces

\-Blame other factors for their outcomes eg. luck

\-Don’t always take responsibility

A strength of LOC as an explanation for resistance is that there’s research support

E- Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured the LOC of participants. he found 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level whereas only 23% externals did not continue (internals had greater resistance to obedience)

E- this suggests internals have a greater resistance to obedience, supporting locus of control as an explanation because it claims these people are more likely to resist

L- this increases the internal validity of the LOC explanation and the confidence that it explains resistance

A limitation of LOC as an explanation for resistance is that it has a limited role

E- Rotter points out that locus of control only comes into play in rare, unusual situations. it has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations, where our previous experiences will always be more important

E- this means that people who have conformed/obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal LOC

L- suggests that locus of control can explain only a limited range of situations where people might resist social influence, meaning locus of control is not an as important factor in resistance as some have suggested

Minority influence

Includes consistency, commitment, flexibility

Form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviour

Leads to internalisation (both public and private beliefs changed)

Minority influence - consistency

Minority influence is most effective when the minority keeps the same beliefs over time (diachronic consistency) and all individuals have them same beliefs (synchronic consistency)

This will increase conformity because people will rethink their own views if they think they have a point

Minority influence - commitment

Minority influence is most effective when the minority demonstrates dedication to their purpose, by making personal sacrifices or engaging in extreme activities

This makes the majority group pay attention to their views eg. climbing on roof or hunger strikes (augmentation principle)

Minority influence - flexibility

Minority influence is most effective when the minority adapts and accepts reasonable compromise

Being extremely consistent is inflexible and is off putting to the majority which is unlikely to result in any conversions to the minority position

Key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility

Minority influence - the process of change

Deeper processing from new, consistent and passionate views is what’s important in the process of conversion to a different minority viewpoint

Over time, increasing numbers of people switch speeds up and the minority view becomes the majority view (snowball effect)

A strength of minority influence is that there’s research support for consistency

E- in Moscovici et al’s study, 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity and state whether the slides were blue or green. there were 2 confederates who consistently said the slides were green and 32% of participants gave the same answer as the minority at least once. a second group were exposed to an inconsistent minority and agreement fell to 1.25%

E- this shows that a consistent minority opinion has a greater effect on others than an inconsistent opinion. Wood et al carried out a meta analysis of 100 similar studies, and found consistent minorities most influential

L- this suggests that consistency is a major factor in minority influence

A limitation of minority influence is that research uses artificial tasks

E- the tasks involved in such research are as artificial as Asch’s line task (such as identifying the colour of a slide)

E- therefore, the research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change behaviour of majorities in real life. in cases such as jury decision making, the outcomes are much more important

L- means findings of minority influence (like Moscovici’s) lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how it works in real life social situations

A strength of minority influence is that there’s research support for deeper processing

E- Martin et al gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their support. one group heard a minority group agree with the initial view, while another heard this from a majority group. participants were then exposed to a conflicting view, and attitudes were measured again. found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they listened to a minority group rather than a majority

E- suggests minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect

L- supports the central argument about how the process works

A limitation of minority influence is that there’s limited real world applications

E- research studies usually make a very clear and obvious distinction between the majority and minority groups, however it’s much more complicated in real life social influence situations

E- there is more involved in the difference than just numbers, for example majorities usually have a lot more power and status than minorities

L- as a result, research into minority influence doesn’t capture the importance and extent of real life issues, reducing external validity

Social change

When a whole society adopts a new belief/behaviour that becomes widely accepted as the norm eg. accepting the Earth orbits the sun, gay rights and environmental issues

Role of minority influence in social change

\-Drawing attention (to issue)

\-Consistency (doing the same thing over time)

\-Deeper processing (more cognitive attention)

\-Augmentation principle (commitment through risky behaviour)

\-Snowball effect (continued attention and commitment means minority group move to majority position)

\-Social cryptomnesia (people have a memory that change occurred but don’t remember how it happened)

Role of minority influence in social change - the African American civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s

\-Drawing attention (marches drew attention to the black separation)

\-Consistency (many marches displaying same message over time)

\-Deeper processing (people thought about the unjustness of it)

\-Augmentation principle (freedom riders risked their lives sitting on buses in mixed racial groups)

\-Snowball effect (Martin Luther King continued to press for changes that gradually got the attention of the US government. Led to civil rights act being passed, prohibiting discrimination)

\-Social cryptomnesia (some have no memory about the events that led to the change)

Social change from conformity research

Use of a dissenter (Asch) can change the power of the majority and lead to social change

Use of NSI in environmental and health campaigns suggest norms of what most people do eg. bin it - others do

Encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing

Social change from obedience research

Use of disobedient role models (Milgram) to stop people copying bad behaviour

Process of gradual commitment (Zimbardo) means once a small instruction is obeyed, its much more difficult to resist a bigger one (people drift into new behaviour)

A strength of social influence processes is that there’s research support for normative influences

E- Nolan et al investigated whether social influence process led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community. they hung messages on front doors of houses in San Diego saying most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. a control had messages just asking them to save energy

E- found significant decreases in energy usage in the first group

L- shows conformity can lead to social change through normative social influence

A limitation of social influence processes is that minority influence is only indirectly effective

E- Nemeth argues that the effects of minority influence are likely to be indirect and delayed because they are not seen as important for some time

E- as a result, social change happens slowly eg. took decades for attitudes against smoking to shift

L- shows that minority influence is limited in social change