Studied by 0 people
includes resistance to social influence, minority influence and social influence/change
resistance to social influence
social support
resisting conformity
pressure to conform can be resisted if there are others present who also resist to conform (a dissector).
-when there is someone else present who isnt following the majority it provides social support, and enables the naive participant to be free to follow their own conscience as the confederate acts as a model for independent behaviour as the majority is no longer unanimous.
-real world research support: [strength]
social support
resisting obedience
pressure to obey can be resisted if someone else is seen to disobey (in milgrams research, disobedience rate dropped from 65% to 10% when genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
the dissectors obedience acts as a model of dissent for the participant to copy and frees them to act from their own conscience. the disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.
-research support for dissenting peers: [strength]
social support
evaluation
strengths:
-susan albrecht et al (2006) evaluated teen fresh start USA (8-week programme to help pregnant teens resist peer pressure to smoke) social support was provided by a slightly older mentor. at the end of the programme, teens who had a buddy were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who didn’t have a buddy ∴ showing social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world.
-william gamson et al. (1982) told participants to produce evidence to help an oil company run a smear campaign and found higher levels of resistance in study that in milgrams as participants were in groups so could dishes what they wanted to do; 29/33 (88%) rebelled against orders showing peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure.
locus of control (LOC)
locus of control - the sense that we each have about what directs events in our life.
theory proposed by julian rotter (1966) concerned with with internal control in comparison to external control
-internals (those with internal LOC) believe believe that what happens to them are largely controlled by themselves (eg if u do well in exams, its due to hard work vice versa)
-externals (those with external LOC) believe things that happen are outside their control (eg if they do well in exam, its due to a good textbook vice versa)
the LOC continuum
the LOC continuum - suggests that LOC is a scale and individual’s positions vary on it. the scale varies from high external LOC to high internal LOC with the lows lying in between.
-people with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey, as if a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others. people with high internal LOC also tend to be more self-confident, achievement-orientated, and have higher intelligence (traits that lead to greater resistance to social influence/ traits of a leader, who have less need for social approval than followers.
locus of control evaluation
strengths: charles holland (1967) repeated milgrams baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals, where he flung 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock level whereas only 23% of externals didn’t (internals showed greater resistance to authority)
limitations: contradictory research; jean twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from american LOC studies conducted over 40-year period (1960-2002). data showed people became more resistant to obedience but also more external. so if resistance is linked to internal LOC we would expect peoples to have become more internal. suggesting LOC isn’t a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.
-LOC can be consider to only depend on the situation rather than be a dispositional explanation.
minority influence
minority influence - form of social influence where a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, leading to internalisation or conversion.
[elaborate on blue slide, green slide study]
-consistency: minority must be consistent in their views to increase interest other people by making them rethink their own views.
{synchronic consistency- where they’re all saying the same thing (agreement between those in the minority group)
{diachronic consistency- saying the same thing over a long period of time
-commitment: must be demonstrated to their cause (eg some engage in quite extreme activities, possibly involving personal sacrifice, that present some risk to draw attention to their views and show their commitment (the augmentation principle- where commitment helps reconsider others thoughts, the cause is important))
-flexibility: community members must be prepared to adapt their pov and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments as commitment alone may seem rigid and dogmatic, suggested by charlan nemeth 1986
-
minority influence evaluation
-
social influence + social change
social influence creates social change through;
[drawing attention] to the situation, providing social proof of the problem
[consistency]
[deeper processing of the issue] where the activism meant many people simply accepted the status quo, would begin to think deeply about the unjustness of it
[the augmentation principle] where individuals risked their lives numerous times, personal risk indicates a strong belief and reinforces/ augments the message
[the snowball effect]
[social cryptomnesia] where people have a memory that change occurred but don’t remember how it happened.
lessons from conformity research an approach is one used by environmental and health campaigns which exploit conformity processes by appealing to normative social influence by providing information about what other people are doing. eg reducing litter by printing normative messages on bins (Bin it - others do), and preventing young people from taking up smoking (telling them that most other young people do not smoke). social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing
evaluation
research support for normative influence
