Social Influence

Types of Conformity

• internalisation

• identification

• compliance

Internalisation

when a pareson genuinely acceptsthe group norms both in private and in public

Identification

conform to opinions/behaviours of a group in public but not always in private because they value the group

Compliance

going along with others in public but not changing personal opinions/behaviours in private (behaviour stops whengroup pressure stops)

Explanations for Conformity

• Informational Social Influence

• Normative Social Influence

Informational Social Influence

• where individuals adopt the attitudes or conform to others because they perceive them as possessing more knowledge or expertise

• this is due to a desire to be correct

• it is an cognitive process

• change in attitude is likely to be permanent

• can lead to internalisation

Normative Social Influence

• the tendency to conform to group behaviour in order to be liked, or to avoid social rejection

• this is an emotional process change in

• can lead to compliance

• change in behaviour/attitude is temporary

Social Influence AO3

• a strength is further reasearch supporting ISI

• a strength is further research support NSI

• a weakness is that NSI doesnt account for individual differences

Social Influence (AO3): strength is Research to Support ISI

• Evidence = in Lucas 2006 research, students were given mathematical equations that were hard and easy - there was increased levels of conformity for difficult questions than easy ones

• Explanation = this a strength as it shows people will conform in situations where they don’t feel sure

• Link = therefore this increases the internal validity as it establishes the cause and effects which supports explanations for ISI

Social Influence (AO3): weakness is it doesn’t account for individual differences

• Evidence = McGhee and Teevan (1967) research shows that NSI doesn’t effect everyone’s behaviour in the same way eg. some people don't care to be liked

• Explanation = this a weakness as it shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others

• Link = therefore this lacks generalisability as it doesn’t consider each person to be different

Social Influence (AO3): strength is research supporting for NSI

• Evidence = Asch (1951) interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval

• Explanation = this a strength as it shows that some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected

• Link =Therefore, this increases the validity as Asch’s findings support explanations of conformity

Asch's Study (1951)

Participants

• 123 male American undergraduates in groups of 6; 1 genuine particpant and 5 confederates

Aim

• to investigate conformity qmd majority influence

Procedure

• particpants and confederates were presentedbwith 4 lines; 3 comparison and 1 standard

• they were asked to state which of then 3 lines was the same as the standard line

• the genuine particpant answered last or second tonlast

• confederates gave the incorrect answer 12/18 trials

Finding

• 36.8% conformed, 25% never conformed, 75% conformed at least once

Asch's Study (1956) = Group Size

Participants, Aim, Procedures were the same as the 1951 study

• Asch increased the group size of confederates and participants

• There was low conformity were the group confederates were less than 3 - any more than 3 and conformity rose by 30%

• A person is more likely to conform in a larger group if all members of the group are in agreement and give the same answer

• it will increase their confidence in correctness of the group and decrease their confidence in their own answer

Asch's Study (1956) = Unanimity

Participants, Aim, Procedures were the same as the 1951 study

• An individual is more likely to conform when the group is unanimous

• When joined by another participant who gave the correct answer conformity fell from 32% percent 5%

• The more unanimous the group is, the more confidence the participant will have that they are all correct

Asch's Study (1956) = Task Difficulty

Participants, Aim, Procedures were the same as the 1951 study

• An individual is more likely to conform when the task is difficult

  Asch altered the comparison lines, making them more similar in length. since it was harder to judge the correct answer, conformity increased

• When the task is difficult, we are more uncertain of our answer so we look to others for confirmation. the more difficult the task is, the greater the conformity

• This suggests that informational social influence is a mechanism for conformity when the situation is ambiguous

Asch’s Study (AO3)

• a weakness of Asch's research into conformity is that the task and situation is artificial

• a weakness of the sample used means it lacks real world application

• a strength is the support of further research

Asch's Study (AO3): weakness is tha task and situation is artificial

• Evidence = participants knew they were in a research and the task of identifying lines was trivial

• Explain = This is a weakness as the effect of demand characteristics would mean that participants would have gone along with what was expected

• Link = Therefore, it lacks generalisability as it is not applicable to real world situations

Asch's Study (AO3): weakness is it has limited application

• Evidence = the participants were all American men

• Explanation = this is a weakness as Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures

• Link = therefore, there is a lack of generalisability as it lacks real world application

• Counter = however, it can be argued that we already know the conformity of women during 1956 (they would especially conform to men) which may not reduce the generalisability

Asch's Study (AO3): strength is the support of further research

• Evidence = in Lucas 2006 research, students were given mathematical equations that were hard and easy - there was increased levels of conformity for difficult questions than easy ones

• Explain = This is a strength as it establishes a cause and effect when claiming that task difficulty is a variable that affects conformity

• Link = Therefore, this increases the internal validity due to the support of further research

• Counter = it doesn’t account for individual differences - some participants may be more confident in their skills than others

• Link = therefore, this lacks generalisability

Zimbardo's Study (Conformity to Social Roles)

• Participants = 24 American male undergraduate students

• Aim = to investigate how readily people would conform to social roles in a stimulated environment

• Procedure =

  • The basement of Stamford university psychology building was converted into a stimulated prison.

  • American student volunteers were paid to take part of the study.

  • They were randomly issued one of the 2 roles, a guard or a prisoner.

  • Both prisoners and guards had to wear uniforms - Prisoners were referred to by their assigned number and Guards were given props like handcuffs and sunglasses.

  • Prison guards worked 8 hour shifts, while the others remained on call,

  • one participant was released as he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance, two more on fourth day - Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days instead of 14

• Findings = concluded that social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour

Zimbardo's Study (AO3)

• a strength is control over key variables

• a weakness is that it lacks mundane realism

• a weakness if that it’s reductionist

Zimbardo Study (A03): a strength is control over key variables

• Evidence = Zimbardo chose emotionally stable participants and ruled out any personal differences

• Explain = this is a strength as it helps to control any extraneous variables such as mental illnesses

• Link = therefore this increases the internal validity due to high control over variables so we can be more confident when drawing conclusions

• Counter = participants are similar but not exactly the same so there still may be the effect of participant variables which reduces the internal validity

Zimbardo Study (AO3): a weakness is that it lacks mundane realism

• Evidence = the experiment was conducted in a tightly controlled environment - the basement of Stanford University - and participants were told what to do

• Explain = this is a weakness as participants performances may have been based on their own stereotypes of prisoners and guards behaviour

• Link = this means that it limits its applicability to real life situations, therefore reducing the ecological validity

• Counter = the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in real prison eg. everyone was given uniforms depending of their roles

• this increases the ecological validity as participants truly believed they were serving a real prison sentence

Zimbardo Study (A03): a weakness is exaggeration of power roles

• Evidence = there was exaggerated roles as only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved in a brutal way, 1/3 followed rules fairly, the rest tried to help and support the prisoners

• Explain = this is a weakness as it suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors

• Link = this puts into question the credibility of social roles effect on an individual’s conformity, reducing the validity

Milgram's Study 1963 (Obedience)

• Aim = interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involver haarming another person

• Variables =

  • structured observations so no IV

  • measured highest sock level each participant would gonto, treating 450v as complete obedience

• Sample and sampling teachnique =

  • 40 male participants, all aged 20-50, whose jobs ranged from unskiled ot professionals, from the New Haven area

  • recruited through volunteer sampling and were paid $4

  • allocation of roles were fixed: the learner was always a confederate

• Exeriement type = lab experiment

• Procedure =

• Findings = all participants were obedient up until 300v but 65% carried on to 450v

• Conclusion = Milgram concluded that ordinary will obey immoral orders in the right situation

Milgram's Study Research Methods

Strength

• lab experiment so highly controlled

• volunteer sampling

Weakness

• can't manipulate IV

• wasnt closed as an experiment but an observation

Milgram's Study Data Type

Strength

• used both types of data which meant they could analyse the numerical data and would have some evidence as to why they acted as they did

Weakness

• could have tested more people is they usrd 1 data type so got more results

• could not generalise qualitative data as reactions were all different

Milgram's Study Validity

Strength

• high face validity

• some ecological validity

Weakness

• low ecological validity

• not applicable to women

Milgram's Study Reliability

Strength

• replicable

• standardised

Weakness

• social desirability bias

Milgram's Study AO3

• a weakness is the violation of ethical guidelines

• a weakness is the criticisms from further research

• a strength is support from further research

Milgram's Study (AO3): a weakness is the violation of ethical guidlines

• Evidence = participants in the study were deceived eg. participants thought the allocation of roles (teacher or learner) was random but it was actually fixed

• Explain = This is bad as it can cause serious psychological stress for participants

• this may effect the results of the experiment and indicate that the pressure to conform came from undue stress

• Link = this then reduced the internal validity

• Counter = Milgram dealt with deception by debriefing the participants afterwards which increases the validity of the study

Milgram's Study (AO3): a weakness is criticisms from other research

• Evidence = Milgram may not have been testing what he intended to test eg. 75% participants believed shocks were real. Gina Perry (2013) found that only half believed the shocks were real and 2/3 of them were obedient

• Explain = this is a weakness as participants may have been responding to demand characteristics to fulfil the aim of the study

• Link = this makes it harder to draw conclusions as we cannot understand a clear causal relationship, reducing the internal validity

Milgram's Study (AO3): a strength is support from further research

• Evidence = in a French documentary. participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new show - they were paid to give electric shocks with the highest being 460 volts

• 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock

• Explain = this a strength as it supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority and demonstrates that the findings were not due to special circumstances

• Link = therefore this increases the external validity of the experiment

Situational Variable

refers to varaibles that would affect the level of obedience within the situation

Situational Variables in Obedience (Milgram’s Study)

• proximity

• location

• uniform

3 Levels of Proximity (Milgram's Study)

• distance proximity

• touch proximity

• remote instructions

Distance Proximity

in this variation, teachers and learner were in the same room - obedience from 65% to 40%

Touch Proximity

teacher had to force learners hand onto an electric shock plate if they refused to do it themselves - obedience dropped to 30%

Remote Instructions

experimenter left and gave instructions through the phone - obedience reduced to 20.5%

Decreased Proximity

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

Location

• Milgram conducted the same stidy in a run-down office block rather than prestigious Yale - obedience dropped to 47.5%

• in Yale, they would have obeyed due to the percieved authority and legitimacy of the experimenter

• however obedience in the run-down office was still high due to the percieved scientific nature of the procedure

Uniform

the experimenter had to take a call, an ‘ordinary’ person replaced hhim - obedience dropped to 20% (lowest)

Situational Variables AO3

• a strength is support from cross cultural research

• a strength is support from further research

• a weakness is that it may lack internal validity

Situational Variables (AO3): a strength is support from cross cultural research

• Evidence = in Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) research, participants in other countries were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone and 90% of participants obeyed

• Explain = this is a strength as it suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not limited to Americans or men

• this means they are valid across cultures and apply to women too, and are therefore not androcentric or culturally biased

• Link = which increases the generalisability

• Counter = the other countries involved are culturally similar to US

• Therefore, this reduces the generalisability as Milgram’s findings may be culturally biased

Situational Variables (AO3): a strength is support from further research

• Evidence = in Bickman's field experiment (1974), 3 confederates dress in different outfits - a jacket and tie, a milkmans outfit. and a security guard

• people were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the one dressed in jacket and tie

• Explain = This is a strength as it supports the view that a situational variable does have a powerful effect on obedience

• this means it is a valid explanation on how situational variables effect obedience as the research supports claims about cause and effect

• Link = Therefore, this increases the inter-rater reliability of the experiment

Situational Variables (AO3): a weakness is that it may lack internal validity

• Evidence = Orne and Holland (1968) point out it is even more likely the procedure was fake in Milgram’s variations because of the extra manipulation of variables eg. experimenter is replaced by a normal person

• Explanation = this is a weakness as it suggests that it is unclear whether the findings are due to the operation of obedience or participants responded to demand characteristics

• this means demand characteristics make it hard to draw general conclusions for a cause-effect relationship

• Link = therefore, reducing the internal validity

Situational Explanations of Obedience

• agentic state

• legitimacy of authority

Agentic State

• Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility

• they experience high anxiety when they realise what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey

• Autonomous State = when a person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions

• Agentic Shift = the shift from autonomy to agency - when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure

• Binding Factors = aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour to reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling

Agentic State AO3

• a strength is the support from Milgram’s studies

• a weakness is that agentic shift doesn’t explain research findings about obedience

Agentic State (AO3): a strength is the support from Milgram’s studies

• Evidence = participants resisted giving the shocks and asked the experimenter questions. when the experimenter reassured, that they were responsible, participants went through with the procedure

• Explain = this a strength as it shows that once participants perceive they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent

• this means agentic state is a valid situational explanation for obedience as the research support claims about cause and effect

• Link = therefore, this increases the reliability

Agentic State (AO3): a weakness is that agentic shift doesn’t explain research findings about obedience

• Evidence = Rank and Jacobson’s (1977) study, most hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor who was an obvious authority figure but the nurses remained autonomous

• Explain = this is a weakness as it suggests that the agentic shift can only account from some situations of obedience

• this means it has a limited application as it ignores the individuality of different experiences

• Link = therefore, it may lack generalisability

Legitimacy of Authority

• when most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others and are granted the power to punish others

• destructive authority = when authority figures use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes

Legitimacy of Authority AO3

• a strength is that it explains cultural differences in obedience

• a weakness is that it cannot explain all disobedience

Legitimacy of Authority (AO3): a strength is that it explains cultural differences in obedience

• Evidence = Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian women went up to 450 volts, however Mantell (1971) found that 85% German participants went up to 450 volts

• Explain = this is a strength as it shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience

• this means it can be applied to a variety of cultures to explain obedience, reducing cultural bias

• Link = therefore, this increases the generalisability

Legitimacy of Authority (AO3): a weakness is that it cannot explain all disobedience

• Evidence = Rank and Jacobson’s (1977) study, most hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor who was an obvious authority figure

• Explain = this is a weakness as it suggests that some people may be more or less obedient and it is possible that tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure

• Link = therefore this challenges the validity as legitimacy cannot explain instances of disobedience where the legitimacy of authority if clear and accepted

Dispositional Variable

suggests that there must be at least some role for the personality or disposition of the individual

Dispositional Variable in Obedience

authoritarian personality (+ Aderno’s Research)

Authoritarian Personality

• its a dispositional explanation of obedience

• show an extreme respect for (and submissiveness to) authority

• those people also show contempt for those of inferior social status

• a high score on F-scale would indicate authoritarianism and higher level of obedience

• this stems from childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting

• the child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents so their fears are displaced onto others they deem weaker

Aderno’s Research

Procedure:

• took 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups

• the researchers developed an F-scale (facism) eg. ‘obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn’

Findings:

• people who scored high on F-scle (who have authoritarian personality) indentified with ‘strong’ people and held contempt for the ‘weak’

• they are conscious of status and showed extreme respect to those of higher status

• they had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about the other groups

Dispositional Variables AO3

• a strength is further research has demonstrated influence dispositional variables have on obedience

• a weakess is that explanations of obedience can be considered reductionist

• a weakness is that it may be politically bias

Dispositional Variables (AO3): strength is further research has demonstrated influence dispositional variables have on obedience

• Evidence = Milgram and Elms (1966) found 20 obedient participants scored higher on F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants

• Explanation = this is a strength as it supports Adorno's view that obedient people show similar characteristics to people with authoritarian personality

• this means it is a valid explanation on how dispositional variables effect obedience as the research supports claims about cause and effect

• Link = Therefore, this increases the inter-rater reliability

• Counter = when researchers analysed the individual F-scales, they found that obedient participants had characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians eg. Milgram’s obedient participants did not experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood

• therefore, this reduces the reliability as it means the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex

Dispositional Variables (AO3): weakess is that explanations of obedience can be considered reductionist

• Evidence = in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient behaviour despite the fact that they must have differed in personalities

• Explanation = this is a weakness as it suggests Adorno's theory ignores individual differences

• this means that it cannot be applied to everyone as it seems unlikely that all could possess authoritarian personality

• Link = therefore this lacks generalisability

Dispositional Variables (AO3): weakness is that it may be politically bias

• Evidence = Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that the F-scale is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality and that extreme right and left wing ideologies emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority

• Explanation = this it suggests that for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum

• this means that Aderno’s theory is not a valid dispositional explanation of obedience as it has limited applicability for those at the other end of the political spectrum

• Link = therefore, the validity is reduced

Resisting to Social Change

• social support

• locus of control

Social Support in Resisting Conformity

• the pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who do not conform

• someone else not following the majority provides social support - it enables others to feel free to follow their own conscious

• their dissent gives rise to more dissent as it shows that the majority is no longer unanimous

Social Support in Resisting Obedience

• the pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey

• the individual acts as a model of dissent for the person to copy and this frees them to act from theirnown conscious

• the disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey

Locus of Control

• Rotter proposed the LOC which focues on internal vs external control

• those with internal LOC believe that things that happen to them are within their own control eg. succes in exam due to their own hard work

• those with external LOC believe the things that happen to them are outside of their control eg. succes in exam due to textbook quality

Locus of Control Continuum

people are not just internal or external - ite is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it

Locus of Control in Resisting Social Influence

1. they have high internal LOC = these individuals can resist pressure to conform or obey

   • they can take personal responsibility and base their decisions on their own beliefs

2. high internal LOC tend to be more self confident, more achievement oriented and have higher intelligence

   • this leads to resistance to social influence

Resisting Social Influence AO3

• a strength is it has real world supporting evidence

• a strength is the support of further research

• a weakness research has challenged the validity of explanations for resisting social change

Resisting Social Influence (AO3): strength is it has real world supporting evidence

• Evidence = Albrecht (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, the social support was provided by a ‘buddy’, and at the end of the programme adolescents who had a ‘buddy’ were less likely to smoke then a control group who didn’t have a ‘buddy’

• Explain = this is a strength as it shows that social support can help young people resist social influence

• this means it has strong practical application to real world situations

• Link = therefore, this increases the ecological validity

Resisting Social Influence (AO3): strength is the support of further research

• Evidence = in Gamson (1982), participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign and found there were higher levels of resistance than in Milgram’s study because participants were in groups and could discuss what they were told to do

• Explain = this a strength as it shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure

• this means it is a valid explanation on resisting social influence obedience as the research supports claims about cause and effect

• Link = therefore this increases the reliability

Resisting Social Influence (AO3): weakness is that research has contradicted the argument of LOC

• Evidence = Twenge (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over 40 year period which showed that people became more resistant to obedience but also more external

• Explain = this is a weakness as it suggests that LOC cannot be applied to different social situations throughout time

• this means it is not valid explanation as the research contradicts claims about cause and effect

• Link = therefore this decreases the temporal validity

Minority Influence

• refers to situations were one person or a small group of people influence the beliefs and behaviours of other people

• it is most likely to lead to internalisation

Moscovi's Study (1969)

• Aim = to see whether consistent minority of participants could influence majority to give incorrect answer

• Sample = 172 female participants

• Material = 36 different slides all different shades of blue

• Procedures = in groups of 6. there were 2 confederates and 4 real participants - they were asked to state the colour of the slide

• Conditions =

  • Condition 1 = the two confederates called slides green on all trials (they were consistent)

  • Condition 2 = the two confederates called the slides green in 2/3 trials (they were inconsistent)

• Findings = in the consistent group, participants were more likely to agree with confederates than in the inconsistent group or with no pressure at all

Minority Influence Processes that can Changes Majority

1. Consistency

2. Commitment

3. Flexibility

Consistency

• the minority group needs to be consistent in their views which overtime creates intrest from others

  • synchronised consistency = everyone in the minority group says the same message

  • diachronic consistency = the same message has been said for overtime and remained consistent

Commitment

• must demonstrate commitment to the cause or view

  • augmentation process = this may occur when extreme activities are taken by the minority causing the majority to pay even more attention

Flexibility

• Nemeth argued consistency is not the only important factor

• someone who is extremely consistent, can be seen as rigid and unbending

• minority Influence needs to prepare and adapt their POV and accept reasonable and valid counter arguements

Process of Flexibility

• Nemeth and Brilmayer studied minority Influence in a mock jury

• the group discussed the amount of compensation to be paid to someone involved in a ski lift

• 3 conditions =

  • Not Flexibile = confederates put forward a view that was different from the majority's and did not change his position

  • Flexible Later = confederates compromised later during discussions

  • Flexible Early = confederates compromised early on during discussions

• Nemeth found that in inflexible conditions, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in flexible conditions the majority

Snowball Effect

the more people who switch from majority to minority viewpoint increases the rate of conversion

The Process of Change : Conversion Therapy

1. if you hear something new it disrupts the status quo and you might stop and think about it, especially if presented consistently

2. this deeper processing and re-assessing your own views leads to internalisation and conversion to. minority viewpoint

3. overtime, more people become converted (the snowball effect) and the minority view eventually becomes the norm

Minority Influence AO3

• a strength is the support from further research

• a strength is further support from research

• a weakness is that the task is artificial

Minority Influence (AO3) : a strength is the support from further research

• Evidence = Wood (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies to Moscovici’s blue/green study and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential

• Explain = this is a strength as it suggests the presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a minority

• this means it is a valid explanation on how minorities influence the majority as the research supports claims about cause and effect

• Link = Therefore, this increases the reliability

Minority Influence (AO3): a strength is further support from research

• Evidence = Martin (2003) Participants were then exposed to a conflicting view; people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group then if they had listened to a majority group

• Explain = this is a strength as it suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect

• Link = therefore, this further increases the reliability as other research supports claims for cause and effect

• Counter = however this cannot be applied to the real world as Martin (2003) makes a clear distinction between the majority and the minority and by doing this in a controlled way

• Link = therefore, this decreases the ecological validity as Martin’s findings are very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real world situations

Minority Influence (AO3): a weakness is that the tasks are artificial

• Evidence = Moscovici (1969) task of identifying the colour of a slide

• Explain = this is a weakness as the tasks were trivial and do not reflect everyday tasks

• this means it has limited applicability to real world situations which outs into question the claims aboout cause and effect

• Link = therefore, minority influence research is lacking in ecological validity

Steps in Minority Influence Creating Social Change

1. drawing attention to the issue

2. consistency of position

3. deeper processing = many start thinking deeper

4. augmentation process = minorities take risk to further cause

5. snowball effect = people switch from majority to minority

6. social cryptoamnesia occurs = people have a memory that change has occurred but some have no memory of the event leading to their change

Social Change Through Conformity

• dissent from a confederate or a model can lead to social change

• normative social influence can be used to bring about social change by drawing attention to what the majority is doing

Social Change Through Obedience

• direct obedience can be used as a means of increasing social change

• gradual commitment = once someone has obeyed a small instruction. it becomes difficult to resist the bigger ones this can be used to bring about positive social change

Social Influence and Social Change AO3

• a strength is the support from further research for normative social influence

• a strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change

• a weakness is that explanations may be flawed

Social Influence and Social Change (AO3): strength is the support from further research for normative social influence

• Evidence = Nolan (2008) hung message son the front doors of houses, the key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage and as a control, some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy; there were decreases in energy usage in the first group compared to the second

• Explain = this is a strength as it shows conformity can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence

• Link = this increases the validity of explanations for social change due to support from further research

• Counter = some research shows that people’s behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms eg. Foxcroft (2015)

• Link = therefore, this lacks reliability as it seems that using normative influence does not always produce long term social change

Social Influence and Social Change (AO3): strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change

• Evidence = Nemeth (2009) claims when people consider minority arguments, they engage in divergent thinking due to social change

• Explain = this is a strength as it shows why dissenting minorities are important - they stimulate new ideas and open minds the way majorities cannot

• Link = therefore, this increases the validity as the results from Nemeth research support the explanations for how minority influence brings about change

Social Influence and Social Change (AO3): weakness is that explanations may be flawed

• Evidence = Mackie (1987) presents evidence that we like to believe that other be share our views and when we find that the majority believes something different, then we are force to think about their arguments and reasoning

• Explanation = this is a weakness as it means that a central element of minority influence has been challenged

• Link = therefore, this reduces the validity as the results of Mackie’s research don’t support explanations for social change