AQA A level Psychology - Social influence

Conformity

A change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people ( Aroson 2011)

Who suggested 3 ways in which people conform

Kelman -

- internalisation

- identification

- compliance

Types of conformity - internalisation

Genuinely accepts group norms

public + private change of opinions/behaviour

Permanent/persist in absence of group members

Attitudes have become part of how individual thinks (internalised)

Types of conformity - identification

Identify with group we value, want to become part of it

Publicly change opinions/behaviour even if privately don't agree with everything

Types of conformity - compliance

'Going along with others' publicly

No change in private opinion

Superficial change - opinions/behaviour stops when group pressure ceases

Explanations for conformity : two process theory

Deutsch & Gerald (1955)

Two main reasons for conformity

2 central human needs: right to be right (ISI) / liked (NSI)

- informational social influence

- normative social influence

Explanations for conformity -informative social influence (ISI)

Uncertain about what behaviours/beliefs are right or wrong

E.g. do not know answer to question in class, most other students agree, go along (feel they are probably right)

Cognitive process: desire to be right

More likely in new/ambiguous situations (not clear what is right)

Decisions need to be made quickly/group regarded as experts

Explanations for conformity - normative social influence (NSI)

What is 'normal' - typical behaviour for social group

Regulate behaviour of groups/individuals

Emotional process: don't want to look foolish, prefer social approval over rejection

Strangers:don't know norms, look to others for how to behave, concerned about rejection

Friends: concerned about their social approval

More pronounced in stressful situations (greater need for social support)

Explanations for conformity - ISI (research support)

Lucas et al: students give answer to easy/difficult maths questions

More conformity to incorrect answers with difficult problems

Most true for those who rated maths ability as poor

People conform when they do not know the answer, predicted by ISI

Look to other people: assume they must be better than us/are right

- high ecological validity because students and maths questions = can generalise

Explanations for conformity - NSI (research support)

Asch line study: asked to explain why gave wrong answer

Some said self-conscious giving right answer/afraid of disapproval

Written answers: conformity fell to 12.5%

Supports that they were conforming due to NSI

Explanations for conformity - two process theory (oversimplified)

Two process theory = reductionist

- unclear which is at work in real life studies

States behaviour due to either ISI or NSI

Conformity reduced with dissenter in Asch study

Reduced power of NSI (social support) or ISI (alternative source of info)

Isn't always possible to know if ISI or NSI is at work

Questions view of operating independently

- hard to separate, they probably work together

Limitation of NSI

Individual differences - does not correctly predict conformity- some people want to be liked by others so conform more nAffiliators

- McGhee and Teevan found nAfilliator students = more likely to conform

Therefore cannot fully explain conformity as external factors affect

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (procedure) 1951

123 American male students

Naive ppts tested individually with group of 6-8 confederates

Had to identify length of standard line X (to 3 comparison lines - 2 clearly wrong)

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (findings/conclusions)

Ppts gave wrong answer on 36.8% of critical trials

High level of conformity

75% conformed on at least one trial

25% never conformed

Asch effect: conform even in unambiguous situation

Most said conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) but continued to trust own private opinion (compliance)

3 types of variation is Aschs experiment

- Group size

- Unaminity

- Task Difficulty

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (variations: group size)

Number of confederates

2 confederates: conformity to wrong answer 13.6%

3 confederates: rose to 31.8%

Adding more made little difference ( culvinear relationship)

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (variations: unanimity)

Introduced truthful confederate/dissenting but inaccurate

Reduced conformity: 25% wrong answers

Enabled ppt to behave more independently

Suggests influence of majority somewhat depends on unanimity

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (variations: task difficulty)

Making stimulus line/comparison lines more similar in length

Conformity increased: ISI plays greater role when tasks harder

More ambiguous situation - look to others for what is right

Aschs research A03 - Artifical task

- the task and situation were artificial.

Participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with what was expected (demand characteristics).

- task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and therefore there was really no reason not to conform.

-Susan Fiske- groups did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life.

This means the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important.

- low ecological validity

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (child of it's time)

Perrin & Spencer: repeated study with UK engineering students

Only one conformed in 396 trials

Felt more confident about measuring lines than original sample so were less conformist

1950s America: especially conformist time, may be less likely to conform today

Asch effect not consistent across situations/time - not fundamental feature of human behaviour

Conformity: Asch's research - Asch's research (limited application of findings) Neto et al and smith and bond

Only men tested - may be subject to beta bias

Neto: women may be more conformist (more concerned about social relationships/being accepted)

American ppts - individualist culture (individual needs over group)

Smith & Bond: suggest higher conformity rates in collectivist cultures (group needs over individual)

Conformity levels sometimes even higher than Asch found

Findings limited to American men - no account for gender/cultural differences

Ethical issues of Aschs line experiment

-research increased our knowledge of why people conform, which may help avoid mindless destructive conformity.

- The naïve participants were deceived because they thought the other people involved in the procedure (the confederates) were also genuine participants like themselves.

- Debreifed

Definition of social roles

'parts' people play as members of various social groups.

Everyday examples include parent, child, student, passenger

These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role, for example caring, obedient, industrious, etc.

Reason for zimbardos prison experiment

- asses why prison guards behave so brutally

- was it sadistic personalities or their social role

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (1: procedure)

-Stanford prison experiment (1973)

- mock prison in Stanford uni basement

-21 'emotionally stable' students men

-Randomly assigned role: prisoner/guard

-Arrested/blindfolded/strip-searched e.t.c.

-Heavily regulated daily routines/rules enforced by guards

-De-individualisation: losing sense of identity

-Prisoner's numbers used instead of names

-guards in uniform, wooden bats, mirror glasses and given complete power

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (2: findings)

-Prisoners rebelled within 2 days, guards retaliated, ripping uniform and shouting

-Guards constantly harassed prisoners/highlighted difference in social roles by enforcing rules

-Guards behaviour threatened prisoners by divide and rule tactics

- rebellion out down and prisoners became depressed and anxious

- psychological/physical health (became anxious/depressed, 3 released early due to signs of psychological disturbance, one went on hunger strike)

-More identified with role, more anger/aggression

-Some appeared to enjoy power over prisoners

-Study stopped after 6 days instead of intended 14

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (3: conclusions)

Revealed power of situation to influence behaviour

All within prison conformed to social roles

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (control over variables)

-Emotionally stable ppts selected and randomly assigned to roles = rule out personality differences as explanation of findings

-Given roles by chance: behaviour due to pressures of situation, not personalities

-increases internal validity - more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of social roles on behaviour

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (lack of realism)

Some argued that ppts were play-acting (behaviour reflected stereotypes) not genuinely conforming

One guard claimed he based his role on a brutal film character

Prisoners rebelled because they thought that was what prisoners did

knew they wee in a study

demand characteristics

HOWEVER

McDermott argues that

90% conversations about prison life, some expressed views that prison felt real

discussed impossibilities of leaving before sentence

prisoner 416 said it felt real

Seemed real to them, increasing internal validity

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research (role of dispositional influences)

Fromm: exaggerate power of situation and minimise power of dispositional (personality) factors

Only 1/3 guards acted brutally - another third treated them fairly and other third supported prisoners

Conclusions may be overstated

Differences in guards behaviour show they could exercise right and wrong choices (despite situational pressures to conform)

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research ( alternative explanation )

However, Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam (2006) criticise Zimbardo's explanation because it does not account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards. They used social identity theory (SIT) instead to argue that the 'guards' had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did.

Conformity to social roles - Zimbardo's research ( ethics )

- The experiment was unethical because participants suffered psychological harm, with prisoners showing distress and guards becoming abusive.

- Key ethical guidelines were broken, including protection from harm and the right to withdraw.- Zimbardo didn't intervene quickly enough, allowing the situation to escalate.

- However, the study gave valuable insight into how people conform to social roles and authority.

- Some argue the long-term benefits to psychological understanding may outweigh the short-term harm.

Definition of obedience

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming.

Obedience: Milgram's research (1 - procedure)

Original obedience study (1963)

Why did such a high proportion of Germans support the Holocaust?

40 male ppts recruited through newspaper ad (advertising memory study)

20-50yrs, all kinds of professions, $4.50 for turning up

'Drew lots' for role: ppts always teacher and confederate (Mr Wallace) always learner

3rd confederate (experimenter) in lab coat

Told they could leave study at any time

Learner fitted with electrodes in next room, ppts to give increasing 'shocks' when made mistakes on word pairs task

Unaware shocks were fake/Mr Wallace was an actor

15v (light shock) to 450v (danger - severe shock)

300v: learner pounded on wall and gave no response to next question

after 315v: pounded on wall, gave no further response

Standard instruction if turner to experimenter for guidance: 'absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'

Unsure about continuing: prods

1. please continue

2. the experiment requires that you continue

3. it is absolutely essential that you continue

4. you have no other choice, you must go on

Reason for milligrams exp

Original obedience study (1963)

Why did such a high proportion of Germans support the Holocaust?

Obedience: Milgram's research (2 - findings/conclusions)

No participant stopped below 300v

5 (12.5%) stopped at 300v

65% continued to 450v

Observations: signs of extreme tension

Prior: psych students predicted behaviour - no more than 3% would continue to 450v

Unexpected findings

Ppts debriefed + assured behaviour was normal

84% glad they had participated

74% learned something of personal importance

Obedience: Milgram's research (Research suppourt)

– A strength of Milgram’s study is that his findings were replicated in a French documentary

.– In the show Le Jeu de la Mort, participants believed they were giving real electric shocks on a fake game show.

– 80% delivered the maximum 460-volt shock to an unconscious man, showing high obedience levels

.– Participants showed similar signs of stress as in Milgram’s study, like nervous laughter and anxiety

.– This supports Milgram’s conclusion that people obey authority, even in different settings and cultures.

Obedience: Milgram's research (low internal validity)

Ome & Holland: ppts guessed shocks were fake, not testing what he intended

Sheridan & King: ppts gave real shocks to puppy - 54% males / 100% females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock

Obedience in study may be genuine

70% believed shocks were real

Obedience: Milgram's research (good external validity)

Milgram argued lab-based relationship between experimenter/participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships

Hofling et al: levels of obedience in nurses to unjustified demands by doctors over the phone were very high (21/22 obeyed)

Processes of obedience in study can be generalised

Obedience: Milgram's research (alternative explanations of findings)

- A limitation of Milgram's study is that his conclusion about blind obedience may not be fully accurate

.- Haslam et al. (2014) found participants obeyed early prods, but all disobeyed the fourth, most forceful prod

.- This suggests participants obeyed because they identified with the scientific goals, not due to blind obedience

.- Social Identity Theory (SIT) offers an alternative explanation, based on group identification

.- Therefore, SIT may better explain obedience in Milgram's study than the idea of blind authority-following.

Obedience: Milgram's research (ethical issues)

– A major ethical issue in Milgram’s study was deception

– participants were misled about the true aim and believed the shocks were real.– Informed consent was not properly obtained, as participants didn’t know what they were really agreeing to.

– Participants experienced psychological harm, showing signs of stress like sweating, trembling, and even seizures.

– Although they were told they could withdraw, the verbal prods made it feel like they couldn’t stop

.– These ethical issues raise concerns about the way participants were treated, even if the study gave valuable insights into obedience.

define situational variables

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour (such as proximity, location and uniform). The alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality.

Obedience: situational variables (1 - proximity)

Original study: teacher/learner in adjoining rooms, could hear but not see

Proximity variation: same room, obedience dropped to 40%

Touch proximity variation: force hand on shock plate, obedience dropped to 30%

'Remote-instruction' proximity variation: instructions over phone, obedience dropped to 20.5% (frequently pretended to give/gave weaker shocks)

- This is because the authority figure wasn’t physically close, so it was easier for participants to resist pressure and feel less monitored.

Obedience: situational variables (2 - location)

Run-down building rather than Yale university

Obedience fell to 47.5% - experimenter had less authority in this setting

- pps were less likely to trust the authority of the experimenter in a less prestigious setting.

Obedience: situational variables (3 - uniform)

Original: experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of authority

Variation: experimenter called away at start by phone call and replaced by 'ordinary member of the public' (everyday clothes)

Obedience dropped to 20% (lowest of all variations)

Uniform = strong visual authority symbol/cue to act in obedient manner

Obedience: situational variables (graph)

Obedience: situational variables (research support)

Bickman: field experiment

Effect of authority uniform on obedience

Confederate dressed in jacket/tie, milkman's outfit, security guard uniform

Asked to provide coin for parking meter/pick up litter etc

2x as likely to obey security guard than jacket/tie

Support Milgram's conclusion: uniform conveys authority/produces obedience

Obedience: situational variables (lack internal validity)

Ome & Holland: ppts in variations even more likely to realise procedure was fake due to extra experimental manipulation

Replaced by member of public: even Milgram recognised so contrived they may have worked it out

Unclear whether results are due to obedience or 'play acting' (ppts saw through deception)

Obedience: situational variables (cross-cultural replications)

– A strength of Milgram’s research is that it has been replicated in other cultures, supporting its generalisability.– For example, Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) found 90% obedience in Dutch participants and replicated Milgram’s findings on proximity.

– This suggests Milgram’s conclusions may apply to different populations, including non-Americans and women

.– However, Smith and Bond (1998) reviewed cross-cultural research and found only two truly cross-cultural replications (India and Jordan), while most were from cultures similar to the US.

– Therefore, it may be inaccurate to claim that Milgram’s findings apply universally across all cultures, as most evidence comes from Western, individualist societies.

Define agentic state

mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.

define legitimacy of authority

An explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us due to the position of power that they hold within the social hierarchy.

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state

Occurs when we act on behalf of another person (become an 'agent')

Feel no personal responsibility for actions

Experience high anxiety (moral strain): realise what they're doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey

Opposite = autonomous state (behave according to own principles/feel responsible for actions)

Agentic shift = shift from autonomy to agent (occurs when perceive someone else as an authority figure due to position in a social hierarchy)

Binding factors = aspects of situation that allow someone to ignore/minimise damaging effect of behaviour

Reduce moral strain

E.g. shifting responsibility to victim/denying damage

Obedience: social-psychological factors - autonomous state

– The opposite of the agentic state is the autonomous state, where a person acts freely and takes responsibility for their actions.

– In the agentic state, a person sees themselves as acting on behalf of someone else, so they feel less personally responsible

.– The agentic shift is the change from autonomy to agency.

– Milgram (1974) said this happens when someone recognises an authority figure with higher power in a social hierarchy.

– People often shift to the agentic state when they believe the authority figure’s power is legitimate.

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state (research support)

Blass & Schmidt: showed students film of Milgram's study, asked to identify who was responsible for harm to learner

Students blamed experimenter rather than ppt due to legitimate authority (experimenter = top of hierarchy) but also expert authority (scientist)

Students recognised legitimate authority as cause of obedience, supporting explanation

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state (limited approach)

Agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings

Milgram: some ppts did not obey

Humans are social animals in social hierarchies, should all obey

Hoflikng et al: nurses should've shown anxiety as they understood role in destructive process, was not the case

Can only account for some situations

Obedience: social-psychological factors - agentic state (cannot explain behaviour of Nazi's)

Mandel: German Reserve Police Battalion 101

Men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in small Polish town even though not directly ordered to (could be assigned other duties)

Challenges agentic shift: not powerless to obey

Obedience: social-psychological factors - legitimacy of authority

Most societies structured hierarchically

People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us e.g. police officers, teachers, parents

Legitimate authority: agreed by society

Most accept authority figures should exercise power over others to allow society to function smoothly

Consequences: some people granted power to punish others

Give up independence to people we trust to exercise authority appropriately

Learn to accpet authority during childhood (parents/teachers)

Problems arise when becomes destructive

Charismatic leaders use legitimate authority destructively

Behave in ways that are cruel/dangerous

E.g. Milgram study: prods to order ppts to behave in ways against their conscience

Obedience: social-psychological factors - legitimacy of authority (useful account of cultural differences in obedience)

Countries differ in obedience to authority

Only 16% Australians went to top of voltage scale meanwhile 85% Germans did

Authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures

Reflects how societies structured/children raised to respect authority figures

Increase validity of research

Obedience: social-psychological factors - legitimacy of authority (can explain real-life obedience)

Kelman & Hamilton: My Lai massacre (Vietnam War) explained by power hierarchy in US army

Army has authority recognised by government/law

Soldiers assume orders to be legal - even if to kill/rape/destroy villages

LOA gives reasons why destructive obedience is committed

what is the dispositional explanation of obedience

The dispositional explanation of obedience focuses on personality traits that make some people more likely to obey authority than others — it's about who you are, not just the situation you're in.

What is the authoritarian personality

The main dispositional explanation is the Authoritarian Personality, proposed by Adorno et al. (1950).

- show extreme respect for and submissiveness to authority

- society = weaker than it was so we have to folllow powerful leaders

- poeple with this personality also show contempt to those with an inferior social status

- inflexible outlook - uncomfortable with uncertainty

Origins of the authoritarian personality

-Forms in childhood mostly due to harsh parenting

- extreme strict discipline

- absolute loyalty

- high standards

- this creates resentment and hostility in a child

- these thoughts are displaced to those who they perceive weaker

- explains hatred to those socially inferior

- psychodynamic explanation

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (1 - key study)

- Investigated unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

-2000+ middle class white Americans

-Developed several scales, including potential for facism scale (F-scale)

Eg - from f scale = obedience/respect for authority is the most important virtue for children to learn

Authoritarians (scored highly) identified with strong people and were contemptuous of the 'weak'

Conscious of their own/others status

Showed excessive respect/defence to those of higher status

Cognitive style: fixed/distinctive stereotypes of other groups

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (2 - characteristics)

Adorno et al: wanted to understand anti-Semitism of the Holocaust

Believed unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder ((tried to find causes in personality)

Concluded people with authoritarian personalities are especially obedient to authority (exaggerated respect/submissiveness, conventional attitudes towards race + gender)

Believe we need strong/powerful leaders to enforce traditional values

Inflexible outlook

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (3 - origin)

Forms in childhood through:

Harsh parenting

Strict discipline

Expectation of absolute loyalty

Impossibly high standards

Severe criticism

Conditional love (parents love depends on child's behaviour)

Creates resentment/hostility

Cannot express feelings directly against parents (fear reprisals)

Displaced onto those seen as 'weaker' (scapegoating)

Explains hatred of people seen as socially inferior (psychodynamic explanation)

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (support for link between personality and obedience)

Elms & Milgram: interviewed fully obedient participants - all scored highly on F-scale

20 pps and 20 control

2 grps clearly different in terms of authoritarianism

HOWEVER

-Cannot conclude that authoritarian personality causes obedience as just a correlation

-Third factor: may both be caused by lower level of education, not directly linked to each other at all

- analysed other individual subscales f scales found unusual characteristics for authoritarianisms. Did not glorify fathers and didn’t experience unusual level of punishment didn’t have hostile attitude towards mothers

- explanation may be more complex

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (limited explanation)

Millions of Germans displayed obedient/anti-Semitic behaviour - didn't all have same personality

Unlikely that majority of population had authoritarian personality

Alternative explanation more realistic: social identity theory (SIT) - most Germans identified with the anti-Semitic state + adopted views

Obedience: dispositional explanations - the authoritarian personality (F-scale is politically biased)

Christie & Jahoda: aims to measure tendency towards right wing ideology

But both right and left wing authoritarianism (e.g. Chinese Maoism) require complete obedience to political authority

Not comprehensive dispositional explanation: doesn't explain obedience across whole political spectrum

Define resistance to social influence

Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.

Define social support

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.

Define locus of control (LoC)

Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control).

Resistance to social influence: social support (1 - resisting conformity)

Can help people resist conformity

Pressure to conform reduced with dissenting peers

Asch: dissenter doesn't have to be correct (someone else not following majority frees others to follow own conscience - 'model')

Majority is no longer unanimous

Effect not long lasting: dissenter starts conforming again, so does ppt

Resistance to social influence: social support (2 - resisting obedience)

Pressure to obey reduce if another person seen to disobey

Milgram: obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when ppt joined by disobedient confederate

May not follow their behaviour but disobedience frees ppt to act from their own conscience

Resistance to social influence: social support (research support - conformity)

One strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support.

For example, Susan Albrecht et al. (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or 'buddy. At the end of the programme adolescents who had a 'buddy' were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a 'buddy.

This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an

intervention in the real world.

Resistance to social influence: social support (research support - obedience)

Gamson et al: found higher levels of rebellion (independence) than Milgram

Ppts were in groups (produce evidence oil company could use to run smear campaign)

29/33 (88%) rebelled

Peer support linked to greater resistance

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (1 - internals/externals)

Rotter (1966): internal vs external LOC

Internals: events controlled by themselves (e.g. exam performance depends on how hard you work)

Externals: things happen outside of their control (e.g. failed exam = bad teacher/hard questions)

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (2 - continuum)

Isn't simply a matter of being internal or external

Continuum: high internal one end, high external the other, low internal/external in the middle

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (3 - resistance to social influence)

Internal LOCs more likely to resist pressures to conform/obey

Take responsibility for own actions/experiences = more likely to act on own beliefs

High internal LOC: more self confident/achievement orientated/intelligent, less need for social approval (traits lead to greater resistance)

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (research support)

Support link between LOC/obedience

Holland: repeated Milgram study, recorded whether ppts were internals/externals

37% internals did not continue to 450v (showed independence)

23% externals did not

Internals showed greater resistance

Increases validity of LOC as explanation/confidence that it can explain obedience

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (contradictory research)

Not all research supports link between LOC/resistance

Twenge et al: analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years

People have become more independent and more external

Resistance due to LOC: expect more internal

Challenges link

Results may be due to changing society - things increasingly out of our control

Resistance to social influence: locus of control (limited role)

Role in resisting SI may be exaggerated

Rotter: found LOC only important in new situations

Little influence in familiar situations (previous experiences always more important)

Often overlooked

People who have conformed/obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even with high internal LOC

Only helpful in explaining narrow range of new situations

Define minority influence

form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.

Main difference between minority influence and conformity

one person or small group influences beliefs and behaviours of others

Main researcher for minority influence

moscivici

Minority influence (1 - internalisation)

Minority influences beliefs/behaviour of other people

Distinct from conformity (majority influence)

Most likely to lead to internalisation

3 processes: consistency, commitment, flexibility

Minority influence (2 - consistency)

Must be consistent in their views

Increases interest from other people

Synchronic consistency: all saying the same thing

Diachronic consistency: all saying the same thing for some time

Others rethink own vies ('maybe they've got a point if..')

Minority influence (3 - commitment)

Must demonstrate commitment in cause or views

Sometimes engage in extreme activities to draw attention to views

Must pose risk to minority - demonstrates commitment to cause

Helps gain more attention (augmentation principle)

Minority influence (3 - flexibility)

Nemeth: consistency can be interpreted negatively

Repetition can be seen as rigid/off-putting to majority (unlikely to result in conversion)

Minority need to be prepared to adapt/accept reasonable counter arguments

Balance consistency/flexibility

Minority influence (4 - snowball effect)

Hear new viewpoint: likely to think about it more

Deeper processing important in conversion to minority viewpoint

Over time: increasing numbers of people switch from majority to minority viewpoint - have been 'converted'

More converted = faster rate of conversion (snowball effect)

Gradually minority becomes majority, social change has occured

Minority influence (5 - key study)

Moscovici et al: blue-green slides

6 ppts viewed 36 blue-green slides (varying intensity)

Stated green or blue

Conditions:

1. 2 confederates consistently said slides were green (2/3 trials) = same wrong answer on 8.42% of trials, 32% wrong answer at least once

2. confederates inconsistent about colour of slides = agreement fell to 1.25%

3. control group (no confederates) = wrong 0.25% of time

Minority influence (research support for consistency)

Moscovici et al: consistent minority opinion had greater effect on other than inconsistent opinion

Wood et al: meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies, minorities seen as consistent most influential

Confirms consistency is major factor in minority influence

Minority influence (research support for deeper thought)

Change to minority position involves deeper processing of ideas

Martin et al: ppts given message supporting particular viewpoint, attitudes measured

Heard endorsement of view from minority/majority

Heard conflicting view, attitudes measured again

Less willing to change opinions to conflicting view if heard minority group

Suggest minority message had been more deeply processed/more enduring effect

Minority influence (artificial tasks)

E.g. identifying colour of slide far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinions in real life

Jury decision making/political campaigns: outcomes vastly more important

Lack external validity

Limited in what it tells us about minority influence in real life situations

Define social influence

The process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviours. Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence

Define social change

This occours when whole societies, rather than just the individuals adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things. Eg - women's rights, gay rights, environmental issues.

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (1 - drawing attention)

Civil rights movement

Segregation in 1950s America: schools/restaurants in southern states exclusive to whites

Marches drew attention to situation by providing social proof of problem

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (2 - consistency)

Many marches/many taking part

Minority of population but displayed consistency of message/intent

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (3 - deeper processing)

Attention: many who had accepted status quo began thinking about unjustness of it

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (4 - augmentation principle)

Individuals risked lives

'Freedom riders' - mixed racial groups got on buses to challenge separate seating for black people

Many beaten/suffered mob violence

Social influence and social change: lessons from minority influence research (5 - snowball effect)

Activists (e.g. MLK) gradually got attention of US government

1964: Civil Rights Act passed - prohibiting discrimination

Change from minority to majority support