social change☑️

includes resistance to social influence, minority influence and social influence/change

resistance to social influence

resisting obedience

social support

pressure to obey can be resisted if a dissentor is seen to disobey or resist pressure to conform (milgrams research: disobedience from 65% to 10% when joined by a disobedient confederate).

dissentors disobedience acts as model of independent behaviour for p to copy + challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.

social support

evaluation

albrecht et al (2006) programme to help pregnant teens with social support from older mentor significantly more likely to resist pressure to smoke than a control group of p’s without buddy, showing social support can help young people resist social influence; practical

-gamson et al. (1982) told ps to help oil company run a smear campaign: higher levels of resistance than in milgrams as p’s were in groups; 88% rebelled, showing peer support can lead to disobedience.

resistance to social influence

locus of control (LOC)

rotter (1966) locus of control - the sense that we each have about what directs events in our life.

types of LOC

-internals (internal LOC) believe what happens to them is largely controlled by themselves (eg if u do well in exams, its due to hard work vice versa)

-externals (external LOC) believe things that happen are outside their control (eg if they do well in exam, its due to a good textbook)

the LOC continuum

-suggests that LOC is a scale and individual’s positions vary on it; varying from high external LOC to high internal LOC with the lows lying in between.

LOC characteristics

-high internals are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey, as people who take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the standards of others. more self-confident and achievement-orientated, with less need for social approval

locus of control

evaluation: strengths

-holland (1967) repeated milgrams baseline study and measured whether p’s were internals or externals; 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock level (showed greater resistance to authority) compared to 23% of externals, showing resistance is at least partly related to LOC.

locus of control

evaluation: limitations

twenge et al. (2004) meta-analysis from american LOC studies (1960-2002); people became more resistant to obedience but also more external. if resistance is linked to internal LOC we would expect people to be more internal, suggesting LOC isn’t a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.

LOC can only be considered situational rather than a dispositional explanation (rotter (1982))

minority influence

form of social influence where a minority persuade others to adopt their beliefs and attitudes, leading to internalisation or conversion.

components of minority influence:

• consistency

• commitment

• flexibility

evaluation

moscovici et al (1969) groups of 6, slides varied in blue shades where 2 confederates said green. 32% agreed with the minority at least once; control group (no confederate) had 0.25% wrong answers.

limited application as real world groups dont reflect study’s groups (low mundane realism). real life majorities usually have more influence and status than minorities.

consistency

{synchronic consistency- agreement between those in the minority group

{diachronic consistency- saying the same thing over a long period of time

-a consistent minority makes other people start to rethink their own views (‘maybe they have a point if they all think this way/keep saying it’).

commitment

-must demonstrate commitment to their cause (extreme activities, personal sacrifice, risk to draw attention and show commitment to their views (the augmentation principle - where commitment helps reconsider others thoughts, ‘she must really believe what she’s saying so perhaps i ought to consider her view’)).

flexibility

-minority must be prepared to adapt their pov and accept valid counter arguments as commitment alone may seem rigid and dogmatic (nemeth 1986)

-key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility.

explaining the process of change

-hearing something that you already agree with doesn’t make you stop and think; hearing something new makes you might think deeply about it, especially if the source is consistent, commitment and flexible.

-overtime people increasingly switch from minority to majority, becoming ‘converted’ - the snowball effect (gathering more snow as it’s rolled along)

minority influence

evaluation: strengths

-evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency; moscovici et al’s blue green slide study showed a consistent minority opinion has a great effect on changing the views of other people. wood et al (1994) 100 study meta-analysis found consistent minorities were the most influential, suggests a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority.

-martin et al (2003) evidence that a change in the majority position involves deeper processing of minority’s ideas.

minority influence

evaluation: limitations

-artificial task, low external validity as in cases like jury decision making and political campaigning outcomes are vastly more important ∴ limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real world situations.

social change stages

social influence creates social change through;

1. drawing attention through social proof

2. consistency

3. deeper processing of the issue

4. the augmentation principle

5. the snowball effect

6. social cryptoamnesia

drawing attention

drawing attention by providing social proof of the problem (eg drawing attention to the schools and restaurants exclusive to white people)

consistency

millions of people in marches over several years, always presenting the same non-aggressive messages

deeper processing of the issue

activism meant many people who simply accepted the status quo would begin to think deeply about the unjustness of it

the augmentation principle

individuals make personal risks numerous times; indicates a strong belief and reinforces (augments) the message (boarding buses in the south for challenging racial segregation of transport)

the snowball effect

activists gradually got the attention of the US government, more and more people supported the minority position (in 1964 the US civil rights act prohibited discrimination, making a change from minority to majority support for civil rights).

social cryptoamnesia

where people have a memory that change occurred but don’t remember the events by which it happened

lessons from conformity research

environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI 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 by telling them that most other young people do not smoke (drawing attention to what the majority are doing)

lessons from obedience research

milgrams research demonstrates the importance of role models of dissent. in the variation where a confederate teacher refuses to give shocks to the learner, genuine ps obedience rate plummeted.

zimbardo (2007) suggested obedience can be used to elicit social change through process of gradual commitment. once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist to a bigger one as people tend to drift into a new kind of behaviour.

social influence and social change

evaluation: strengths

-nolan et al (2008) changed energy-use habits by hanging message on residents doors that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. control group residents’ message was simply to save energy, making no reference to other people’s behaviour. significant decreases in energy usage in the experiment group, showing conformity can lead to social change through NSI.

-nemeth (2009) social change is due to thinking methods that minorities inspire by engaging in divergent thinking, showing dissenting minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way majorities can’t.

social change and social influence

evalution: limitations

-may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change. mackie (1987) it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you don’t share their views as if someone who shares the same thinking and views as you, we are forced to think long and hard about their argument and reasoning.

mass et al (1982) straight minority advocating for gay rights more likely to influence straight majority than gay minority, due to identification taking the opinion of the group we identify more with seriously